لَّهِ

Placed before every chapter except ch.9; also in 27:31. See also 96:2.

Important Words:

ب (in) occurring here in combination with اسم is a particle used to convey a number of meanings, the one more applicable here being that of 'with'. The compound word بسم therefore would mean 'with the name of.' According to the Arab usage, the words iqra’ or aqra’u or naqra’u or ishra’ or ashra‘u or nashra‘u would be taken to be understood before بسم اللّٰه. The expression بسم اللّٰه would thus mean 'begin with the name of Allah' or 'recite with the name of Allah,' or 'I or we begin with the name of Allah.' or 'I or we recite with the name of Allah.' In the translation the words بسم اللّٰه have been rendered as "in the name of Allah", which is a more familiar form (Lane).

اسم (name), which is derived either from وسم (a mark) or سمو (height), means a name or attribute (Aqrab). Here it is used in both senses; for, firstly, it refers to 'Allah' which is the personal name of God; and, secondly, it refers to Ar-Rahman (Gracious) and Ar-Rahim (Merciful) which are His attributive names.

اللّٰه (Allah) is the name of the Supreme Being, Who is the sole possessor of all perfect attributes and is free from all defects. In the Arabic language, the word Allah is never used for any other thing or being. No other language has a distinctive name for the Supreme Being. The names found in other languages are all attributive or descriptive and are often used in the plural, but the word "Allah" is never used in the plural number. It is a simple substantive, not derived. It is never used as a qualifying word. Hence, in the absence of a parallel word in the English language, the original name "Allah" has been retained throughout the translation.

This view is corroborated by eminent authorities of the Arabic language. Lane says: "اللّٰه (Allah) according to the most correct of the opinions respecting it is a proper name, applied to the Being, Who exists necessarily by Himself, comprising all the attributes of perfection, the ال (al) being in-separable from it" (Arabic-English Lexicon). For a fuller discussion of the word 'Allah,' the reader is referred to Tafsir-e-Kabir by Hadrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, Head of the Ahmadiyya Community.

الرحمن (Gracious) and الرحیم (Merciful) are both derived from the same root رحم meaning, he showed mercy; he was kind and good; he forgave. The word رحمة combines the idea of رقة i.e. 'tenderness' and احسان i.e. 'goodness' (Mufradat). الرحمن is in the measure of فعلان and الرحیم in the measure of فعیل. According to the rules of the Arabic language, the larger the number of letters added to the root word, the more extensive or more intensive does the meaning become (Kashshaf). The measure of فعلان thus conveys the idea of fullness and extensiveness, while the measure of فعیل denotes the idea of repetition and giving liberal reward to those who deserve it (Muhit). Thus the word الرحمن would denote "mercy comprehending the entire universe," whereas the word الرحیم would denote "a mercy limited in its scope but shown repeatedly".

In view of the above, الرحمان is One Who shows mercy gratuitously and extensively to all creation without regard to effort or work, and الرحیم is One Who shows mercy in response to, and as a result of, the actions of man but shows it liberally and repeatedly. The former is applicable only to God, while the latter is applied to man also. The former extends not only to the believers and unbelievers but to the whole creation; the latter applies mostly to the believers. The Holy Prophet is reported to have said: الرحمان رحمان الدنیا و الرحیم رحیم الآخرة i.e. the attribute الرحمن generally pertains to this life, while the attribute الرحیم generally pertains to the life to come (Muhit), meaning that as this world is mostly the world of actions and the next a world where actions will be particularly rewarded, God’s attribute of الرحمن provides man with material for his works in this life, whereas His attribute of الرحیم brings about results in the life to come.

The abundance of everything which we enjoy in this life, which is indeed all a favour of God, is provided for us before we do anything to deserve it or even before we are born, while the blessings in store for us in the life to come will be given to us as a reward of our actions. This shows that الرحمن is the Bestower of gifts which precede our birth, while الرحیم is the giver of blessings which follow our deeds as their reward.

Commentary:

(i) The verse بسم اللّٰه الرحمن الرحیم is the first verse of every chapter of the Quran, except the chapter Bara’ah, which, however, is not an indepen-dent chapter but a continuation of the chapter Anfal. There is a saying reported by Ibn ‘Abbas to the effect that whenever any new chapter was revealed, Bismillah was the first verse to be revealed, and without Bismillah the Holy Prophet did not know that a new chapter had begun (Dawud). This hadith goes to prove that (1) the verse Bismillah is part of the Quran and not something supernumerary and (2) that the chapter Bara’at is not an independent chapter. It also refutes the belief expressed by some that Bismillah is a part only of Al-Fatihah and not of all the Quranic chapters. Such views are further refuted by the hadith in which the Holy Prophet is reported to have said, definitely, that the verse Bismillah is a part of all the Quranic chapters (Bukhari & Qutni).

(ii) The Holy Prophet attached great importance to the verse Bismillah. He is reported to have said that any important work which is done without reciting Bismillah is apt to prove devoid of God’s blessings. Thus, it is a general practice among Muslims to commence every work with a recital of this prayer.

(iii) The place of this verse in the beginning of every chapter has the following significance:

1. The Quran is a treasure of divine knowledge to which access cannot be had without the special favour of God. In 56:80 God says regarding the Quran: None shall touch it except those who are purified, meaning that except the favoured ones who have been purified by the hand of God, none shall grasp the deeper meaning of the Quran. Thus Bismillah has been placed at the beginning of each chapter to remind the reader that in order to have access to and benefit from the treasures of divine knowledge contained in the Quran, he should not only approach it with pure motives but also constantly invoke the help of God and try to lead a righteous life.

2. In the Old Testament (Deut. 18:18,19) we read: "I will raise them (the Israelites) up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee (Moses), and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him." As the Holy Prophet of Islam was raised in the likeness of Moses (Quran, 73:16), so in fulfilment of the above prophecy God so ordained that each time a new Surah was revealed, it was begun by the words: In the name of Allah. This meant that every chapter of the Quran, i.e. every new proclamation made by God through the Holy Prophet, should commence with this verse so that on the one hand the prophecy made by Moses might be fulfilled and on the other, there might be a constant repetition of the warning to the Jews and Christians that if they hearkened not to the words of the new Prophet, they would be answerable to God.

3. In the Old Testament, we also read: "But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die" (Deut. 18:20). The verse Bismillah (in the name of God) has, therefore, been placed at the beginning of every chapter of the Quran so that the fact might be brought home to the Jews and Christians in particular and to other peoples in general that the success which attended the career of the Holy Prophet was a positive proof of the fact that all that he spoke was spoken by the command of God; for if it had been otherwise, he would surely have met with early destruction. The verse Bismillah is thus a standing challenge to the Jews and Christians, and every time it is repeated at the head of a chapter it serves as an argument for the truth of the Holy Prophet. This result could not have been attained if the verse had been put only in the beginning of the Quran.

4. The verse Bismillah placed before every chapter of the Quran also serves another important purpose. It is a key to the meaning of each individual chapter. This is so because all questions affecting moral and spiritual matters are related in one way or another with these fundamental divine attributes: Rahmaniyyat (grace) and Rahimiyyat (mercy). Thus each chapter is, in fact, a detailed exposition of some aspect of the divine attributes mentioned in the verse.

(iv) Some Christian writers have raised the objection that the formula of Bismillah has been borrowed from earlier Scriptures, insinuating that it cannot therefore be of Divine origin. Wherry, in his commentary has expressed the opinion that it has been borrowed from the Zend-Avesta where it has the form: بنام ایزد بخشائنده وبخشائش گر i.e. With the name of God, Forgiving, Kind. A similar objection has been raised by Sale. Rodwell, however, has expressed the opinion that the Quran borrowed the formula from the Jews, among whom it was in vogue and from whom its use was borrowed by pre-Islamic Arabs. Both these criticisms are wrong and beside the point; for firstly it has never been claimed by the Muslims that the formula in this or similar form was not known before the revelation of the Quran; secondly it is wrong to argue that the formula could not be of Divine origin even if it was sometimes used by the pre-Islamic peoples in an identical or similar form before its revelation in the Quran. As a matter of fact, the Quran itself states that Solomon used the phrase in his letter to the Queen of Sheba (27:31). What Muslims claim—and this claim has never been refuted—is that the Quran was the first Scripture to use the formula in the way it did [see (iii) above]. It is also wrong to say that the formula was in common vogue among pre-Islamic Arabs, for it is well known that Arabs had an aversion to the use of the name Ar-Rahman for God. Again, if such formulae for the praise of God were known before, it only goes to corroborate the truth of the Quranic teaching that there has not been a people to whom a Teacher has not been sent (35:25), and that the Quran is a repository of all permanent truths contained in the previous Books (98:4). It adds much more, of course, and, whatever it adopts, it improves its form or use or both.

(v) It has been asked why the word اسم (name) has been used before the word اللّٰه (Allah) in the verse Bismillah. This may be explained in a number of ways:

1. In the Arabic language the particle ب is used not only to signify connection or invoke help, but also in swearing. So if the word اسم had been dropped, the phrase باللّٰه (billah) might have meant "I swear by Allah." The introduction of اسم (name) removes this ambiguity.

2. God being the source of all goodness, even the invoking of His names proves a blessing. Says the Quran (55:79): Blessed be the name of thy Lord, the Owner of Majesty and Honour. The Holy Prophet sometimes healed people by invoking the various names of God. Therefore, the word اسم (name) has been added in order to remind the Faithful that to remember the names of God is to merit a blessing.

3. The use of the word "name" further indicates that God is hidden and can be known only through His names, i.e. attributes. By reciting Bismillah, a believer seeks the help of God through His attributes of Ar-Rahman and Ar-Rahim.

4. Again, the inner meanings of the Quran are a guarded treasure and nobody can have access to them, except under proper authority. The person who begins a recitation with the formula, In the name of Allah, says, as it were, to the guardian angels of this spiritual treasure, "I am approaching it in the name of Allah, so open to me the treasures of the inner meanings of the Quran." To the one who approaches the Quran in such a spirit, the treasures will indeed be opened. The verse, None shall touch it except those who are purified (56:80), likewise, shows that only the pure in spirit can find access to the deep secrets of the Quran.

5. Another reason for introducing the word "name" in Bismillah is to draw attention to the prophecy of Moses (Deut. 18:18-20) to which reference has already been made.

6:2; 6:46; 10:11; 18:2; 29:64; 30:19; 31:26; 34:2; 35:2; 37:183; 39:76; 45:37.

Important Words:

ال (Al) is more or less like the definite article 'the' of the English language. It is used to convey a number of senses one of which is that of totality. So الحمد would mean, all kinds of praise.

حمد (praise). They say حمده i.e. he praised him. Thus حمد means 'praise'. There are four words in Arabic which are used, in varying significance, in the sense of praise or thankfulness; viz. شکر, ثنا, مدح and حمد. Of these God has here chosen the last. Shukr, when used about man, expresses recognition of and thankfulness for benefits received, whereas Hamd not only embodies the idea of thankfulness but also makes reference to the intrinsic qualities of the object of praise. Thana indicates an idea of publicity, the root meaning of the word being repetition. The emphasis in Thana is more on publicity than on personal experience. Madh gives a somewhat similar meaning as Hamd but whereas Madh may be false, Hamd is always true. Says the Holy Prophet: احثوا التراب فی وجوه المداحین i.e. "Throw dust in the faces of those who praise falsely." Again Madh may be used about such acts of goodness over which the doer has no control, but Hamd is used only about such acts as are volitional (Mufradat). Hamd also implies admiration, magnifying and honouring of the object of praise, and lowliness, humility and submissiveness in the person who offers it (Lane). Thus Hamd was the most appropriate word to be used here, where a reference to the intrinsic goodness and truly merited praise and glorification of God is intended. In common usage the word Hamd has come to be applied exclusively to God.

رب (Lord). رب الشیء means: he gathered together the thing; he owned the thing. رب القیوم means: he ruled over the people and administered their affairs. رب النعمة means: he increased and developed the favour. رب الامر means: he improved and completed the matter. رب الصبیی means: he sustained and looked after the child till he was of age. رب means, lord, master or owner; one to whom obedience is due; one who reforms; one who sustains and develops (Aqrab & Lisan); one who brings to perfection by degrees (Mufradat). رب also means: Creator (Muhit). When used in combination with some other word, the word may be used for others besides God, as we say رب البیت i.e. the owner of the house (Lane).

العالمین (worlds) is the plural of العالم which is derived from علم i.e. he knew. علم (‘alama) means, he put a mark or sign on it. العلم means: the proper name by which a person or thing is known; flag or banner; sign; minaret. العالم primarily means, that by means of which one knows a thing. Hence, the word has come to be applied to all beings or things by means of which one is able to know the Creator (Aqrab). The word is applied not only to all kinds of created beings or things but also to their classes collectively, so that one says عالم الانس i.e. the world of mankind, or عالم الحیوان i.e. the animal kingdom. The word al-‘alamin is not used to denote rational beings—men and angels—only. The Quran applies the word to all created things (26:24-29 & 41:10). Sometimes, of course, it is used in a restricted sense. Thus in 25:2 it is used in the sense of 'mankind' only and not in the sense of 'all created things.' In 2:123 it is used in a still more restricted sense, meaning not all mankind but only the people of the age.

In the verse under comment the word is used in its widest sense and signifies 'all that is besides Allah', i.e. both those that have life and those that have not, including heavenly bodies, the sun, the moon, the stars, etc.

Commentary:

The believer is taught to say, All praise belongs to Allah, and not "I praise Allah" or "we praise Allah." The sentence الحمدللّٰه (all praise belongs to Allah) denotes much more than احمداللّٰه (I praise Allah), because man can praise God only according to his knowledge, but الحمدللّٰه (all praise belongs to Allah) comprises not only the praise which man knows, but also the praise which he does not know, to be God’s due. God is worthy of praise at all times, independently of man’s imperfect knowledge or realization. Moreover, if the expression احمداللّٰه (I praise Allah) had been used, it would have implied that man, a finite being, can completely comprehend the infinite, an implication which is obviously wrong.

The word الحمد is an infinitive and as such can be interpreted both subjectively and objectively. Interpreted subjectively الحمدللّٰه would mean that God alone has the right to bestow true praise. No other being is entitled to give such praise, owing to his limited knowledge. Interpreted objectively, it would signify that true praise is due to God alone. The praise due to other beings and objects is only borrowed and secondary. It is God Who provides everything and grants all powers and capacities. Therefore, when a person or thing is praised, it is really God to Whom the praise belongs, the person or thing being entitled to it only secondarily.

The verse, All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of all the worlds, conveys, among others, the following meanings:

1. Allah is free from all blemishes and possesses all perfect attributes.

2. He alone is fully aware of the real nature of all things. The truth of this statement is verified by the daily multiplying discoveries of science which go to prove how inadequate human knowledge ever remains.

3. God can be entitled to "all praise" only when He is believed to be رب العالمین i.e. Lord of all the worlds and if He is Lord of all the worlds, then His providence must not only be universal but must extend to both the physical and the spiritual worlds. From the above it follows that no people must remain deprived of God’s spiritual blessings and all must have their share. Therefore, if any revelation is meant for a particular people, other peoples must have separate revelations to guide them, as was the case in pre-Islamic times. On the contrary, if, at a certain time, separate revelations are not sent for different peoples and only one revelation is sent, that revelation must claim to be universal, affording equal opportunities to all peoples, as is the case with Islam; otherwise, God cannot be looked upon as "Lord of all the worlds", nor can He be considered to be entitled to "all praise". In fact, the belief that revelation is the privilege of a particular people to the exclusion of all others who cannot claim any share in it, is false and repugnant to God’s universal provi­dence as well as to His entitlement to all praise.

4. The powers and faculties with which man is endowed are all gifts of God. So it is He Who is deserving of praise for any good that may be done by man.

5. By linking up the clause "all praise belongs to Allah" with the phrase "Lord of all the worlds" God has drawn our attention to the fact that one man’s good is really linked to, and dependent on, the good of all mankind. A true believer should, therefore, look not only to his own good but to the good of all. One who does not do so has failed to grasp the true spirit of Islam and the universality of God’s providence. Happiness for one lies in happiness for all.

6. The phrase رب العالمین (Lord of all the worlds) also points out that as things which grow, develop and change cannot do so by themselves, so is all life subject to God’s lordship.

The phrase further points to a law of evolution in the world, that things undergo development and that this development is progressive and is brought about in stages, Rabb being the One Who makes things grow and develop by stages.

The verse also points out that the principle of evolution is not inconsistent with belief in God. On the contrary, the progressive deve­lopment of things makes creation all the more marvellous and God all the more deserving of praise. It must, however, be noted that the process of evolution referred to here is not identical with the theory of evolution as ordinarily understood; the expression is used here only in a general sense.

7. Again, the verse points to the fact that man has been created for unlimited progress, because the phrase رب العالمین implies that God develops everything from a lower to a higher stage, and this can be true only if there is a stage beyond every stage in a never-ending process.

8. Finally, by putting the verse الحمداللّٰه رب العالمین in the very beginning of the Quran, a declaration is made that the time of separate revelations has come to an end, and that God is now going to bestow a universal revelation upon the world. When separate Prophets were raised for separate nations, ignorant people, not understanding the purpose of God, rejected the Prophets of other nations; but, with the advent of Islam, one Prophet and one religion were given to all mankind, and the different peoples inhabiting the world—white, yellow, brown and black—were all invited to sing one common hymn in praise of Allah, the Lord of all the worlds.

1:1.

Commentary:

See note under 1:1.

2:178; 3:115; 4:40, 60; 6:93; 58:23.

Important Words:

آمنا (we believe) is derived from امن for which see 2:4. The word ایمان (belief or faith) does not consist in a lip-profession of truth, or a vague realization of it. It combines three necessary elements, viz. (1) conviction of mind; (2) profession by tongue; and (3) demonstration through actions (Mufradat). The Quran itself explains ایمان in this light (49:15; 27:15).

Commentary:

After describing the condition of believers (vv. 4-6) and that of disbelievers (vv. 7-8) the Quran proceeds to describe the condition of a third group, the hypocrites. They intermingled with the believers and posed as such. They were divided into two classes: (1) disbelievers at heart but united with the believers for the sake of some material or communal advantages; (2) believers at heart but lacking the strength of conviction necessary for thorough conversion and complete obedience. The reference here is to the first class of hypocrites, those who mixed with the believers but did not at heart believe in the truth of Islam.

It may be noted that only God and the Last Day are mentioned here, other Islamic beliefs being left out. This has led some to think that Islam requires belief only in God and the Last Day. The truth, however, is that 'God' and the 'Last Day' are respectively the first and the last items in the Islamic formula of faith and a profession of them ipso facto implies profession of the other items. Elsewhere the Quran clearly states how belief in the Last Day implies belief in angels as well as in the Divine Books (6:93).

The omission may also be explained in another way. The hypocrites wanted to deceive the believers, so possibly they expressed themselves purposely in these words, omitting all reference to the Prophet and the Quran. By mentioning God and the Last Day they would induce believers to think that they subscribed fully to the Islamic faith, but in their hearts they made a reservation as regards belief in the Quran and the Prophet. This interpretation finds support in the following verse which says that the hypocrites wished to deceive the believers. The expression, they are not believers at all, has been used to intensify the repudiation of the claim of the hypocrites to be believers. If a mere negation of their claim had been intended, it would have been expressed by some such expression as "they are hypocrites".

Strong denunciation of hypocrites is characteristic of the Quran (3:168; 5:42 & 5:62). According to the Quran, hypocrites are sheer disbelievers. This view of the Quran furnishes a strong refutation of the criticism that Islam permits the use of force in religious matters. Conversion by force can never be sincere, while the Quran insists upon sincerity in believers. A religion which makes sincerity a necessary quality of belief cannot tolerate, much less encourage, the use of force in religion.

20:54; 27:62; 43:11; 51:49; 71:20; 78:7.

51:48; 78:13; 79:28, 29.

Important Words:

فراش (a bed) is derived from فرش. They say فرش الشیء i.e. he spread out the thing; he expanded it. فراش means, a thing that is spread upon the ground: a thing that is spread for one to sit or lie upon: a bed on which one sleeps; a wide or spacious plain or tract of land (Lane).

بناء (a roof) is derived from بنی meaning, he built; he constructed. So بناء means, a building; a structure; a thing that is built or constructed; also the roof or ceiling of a house or of a chamber or the like (Lane).

الثمرات (fruits) is the plural of ثمرة meaning, a fruit. The word is derived from the verb ثمر which means, the fruit became ripe. اثمر means, the tree, etc. produced fruit. The word ثمرة is also used figuratively, meaning, son or offspring; or profit of a thing (Taj).

انداد (equals) is the plural of ند which means, the like of a person or thing; or the like of a thing by participation of substance. It is a more specialised term than مثل which signifies alike by participation of anything. The word ند also means, a thing which does or may supply the place of another thing; or a like that is contrary or opposed to another thing; a thing taken as an object of worship instead of the true God (Lane). ند is to be distinguished from شریك; for whereas ند is the like of a thing, being contrary or opposed to it, شریك is simply a participant that shares the attributes or work of a thing (Aqrab under شریك and ند)

Commentary:

The subject matter of the last verse has been completed in this. It was said in that verse that رب should be worshipped because He is the Creator and He alone can foster man’s powers. In the present verse it is said that not only man but the heavens and the earth also have been created by God. It is evident that human actions depend upon environment. Trade, agriculture, industry, travel, etc. are made possible ultimately by the nature and influence of the heavens and the earth. So human actions can be guided aright only by a Being Who has made the heavens and the earth. It is only He Who can harness them for the use of man. None else has such knowledge, power or authority. So man should worship God alone.

The expression, and Who made the heaven a roof, suggests that just as a building or a roof is a source of protection for those living in or under it, similarly the remoter parts of the universe are a protection for our planet; and those who have studied the science of the stars, the clouds and other atmospheric phenomena know how the other heavenly bodies, running their courses through the boundless expanse rising high above the earth on all sides, make for its safety and stability.

In the clause, caused water to come down from the clouds, the word سماء has been used in the sense of "cloud", whereas in the preceding clause, and Who made the heaven a roof, it signifies "heaven". Had it meant the same thing in the two places, it would have been replaced in the second place by a pronoun. The repetition of the word is intended to convey a difference of meaning in the second place.

After making it clear that everything in this world is the creation of God, attention is drawn to the fact that God has no equal. There is nothing in the whole universe which can show any part of it to have been created by anyone other than God. Why, then, should man worship anyone else?

In this verse it is also hinted that the perfection of the material world depends upon a co-ordination of earthly and heavenly forces. When water is made corrupt by men on earth, fresh and pure water is supplied from heaven. Breathing makes the air foul but it is purified by nature. The eye is useful, but of what avail is it without the rays of the sun? In short, if the earth is a bed for man, the heaven is a roof. So is the case with the spiritual world. Man is gifted with reason but, like the eye, reason cannot function properly without the help of divine revelation. Human instincts are pure but they become polluted by greed, malice, etc. They can only be cleansed by the water of revelation. Hence man cannot attain to spiritual success without attaching himself to God. By showing material life to be dependent upon both earth and heaven, God points to a parallel in the spiritual world, and teaches that in spiritual matters also man should not trust earthly means alone. The intellect is not enough. Like the material world, the spiritual world also requires heavenly help. Just as there is a heaven above the earth, there is a heaven above the heart and brain of man. This is God’s guidance received through revelation.

An interesting question arises here. According to a widespread modern belief, the idea of God has evolved out of a primitive belief in spirits, ghosts and fairies. It is also said that in primitive times man worshipped beasts and poisonous insects and then gradually advanced to the idea of God. Modern critics appear to be in agreement that the idea of many gods has always preceded the idea of one God. The history of man’s beliefs is cited as evidence.

Some of those who hold such a view seem anxious to reconcile it with religion. They claim that their view does not go against religion. They say that God revealed the laws of nature by degrees; therefore there is nothing surprising if He should have revealed Himself also by degrees. Now, all religions base themselves upon revelation. And if the basis of religion is revelation, then the belief—that God revealed Himself by degrees and that He first guided the world to other gods, and then to Himself—at once falls to the ground. It is against all reason that God should first guide man to spirits, stones, rivers and snakes and then reveal Himself. What was there to hinder Him from guiding man to Himself from the very beginning? The living religions of the world have ever believed in revelation. Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Islam, all teach that revelation began with the creation of man. This being the case, there can have been no gradual evolution of the idea of God. Evolutionary accounts, therefore, conflict with religion. Those who hold them must deny revelation, the basis of religion.

The denial of revelation is, of course, very common in the Christian West. Christendom has failed for a long time to provide any examples of persons with revelation experience. Little wonder that those speculators, who have had no such experience themselves and who have not been made aware of such experience in others, should deny revelation outright. According to the Quran, however, God has spoken to man in all ages. The Quran itself is a record of revelation and, according to the Quran, the followers of Islam must continue to receive revelation. The recipient in our age is the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement. Nobody who knows all this can be impressed by denials of revelation. He can only treat them as mere ignorant conjectures.

Evolutionary accounts have little foundation in fact. It is said that the idea of God found amongst uncivilised peoples of the world today is polytheistic, therefore the idea of one God must have originated in polytheism. But it is not realized that the uncivilized peoples of today are not samples of the earliest human beings. Civilization has known many ages. Greece, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, India and China were centres of civilization and culture in their own days, but now they seem engulfed in darkness and ignorance. If ignorance can grow out of civilization, why not polytheism out of monotheism? In India, Krishna preached the doctrine of the Unity of God, but after his time a wave of idolatry swept over the country; and when Muslims came here, they found idol-worship rampant throughout the land. In Judaism false gods have taken the place of Jehovah. Jesus preached a simple faith in One God, but Christendom now believes in Trinity. A lower conception can easily supplant a higher one. Islam is an historical religion. Even its enemies admit that it teaches belief in the pure Unity of God. But today even Muslims have degenerated to the worship of things other than God. These examples refute the doctrine that monotheism has necessarily grown out of polytheism.

Moreover, a study of primitive religion itself shows that among the primitive people the idea of a perfect Deity exists side by side with their worship of many deities. Only, God is known by different names among different peoples. There also exists among the primitives the idea of revelation; they hold it to be the medium through which they came to have a knowledge of God.

10:39; 11:14; 17:89; 52:35.

Important Words:

عبد (servant). For the root meaning of the word see note under 1:5. As explained there, the verb عبد means, he showed complete submissiveness and humility; or he received the imprint of a thing. So عبد would mean a person who, through complete submission and humility to God, has become, as it were, an image of God. The word has been used here about the Holy Prophet by way of endearment and is expressive of the exalted position he holds in the sight of God.

شھداء (helpers) is the plural of شھید which is derived from شھد i.e. he was present; or he gave witness, etc. Thus شھیدmeans, one who is present; one who sees or witnesses; one who gives testimony or evidence; one who possesses much knowledge; one from whose knowledge nothing is hidden (Aqrab & Lane); also a helper (Mufradat). Following the last mentioned signification the word may also refer here to the Jews who were friends of the disbelievers (5:81) and spoke of the idolaters as being better guided in religion than those who believe (4:52).

Commentary:

In the preceding two verses the Quran gave its first commandment to the people. Having been thus directly addressed by God, the polytheistic disbelievers felt a natural reaction to repudiate the monotheistic teaching of the Quran, because they felt that its acceptance meant that they should give up their long cherished beliefs.

In the present verse God says that if the Quran created doubts and disquietude in their minds and is not worthy of acceptance, the disbelievers should produce one like it. If they cannot, then this very fact would prove them to be wrong.

The subject of the incomparable excellence of the Quran, has been dealt with at five different places in the Quran, i.e. in 2:24; 10:39; 11:14; 17:89; & 52:34, 35, and disbelievers have been challenged, to produce its equal.

In two of these five verses (2:24 & 10:39) the challenge is identical, while in the remaining three verses three separate and different demands have been made from disbelievers. Thus, to begin with the largest demand in 17:89, disbelievers are challenged to produce the like of the whole Quran, and they have been told that even if all jinn and men should join together, they would not be able to produce it. In 11:14 the challenge is limited to the production of ten chapters. In 2:24 and 10:39, however, it has been confined to one Surah only; while in 52:34-35, the condition of even one Surahhas been omitted and disbelievers have been given the option of producing even a single narration similar to any one narration (i.e. announcement) of the Quran. On the face of it, this difference in the form of the challenge at different places seems to be incongruent and to spring from a lack of harmony in the Quran. Some commentators have endeavoured to explain away this seeming incongruity by saying that it was due to the challenge having been made at different times. At first disbelievers were called upon to produce the like of the whole Quran. When they failed to do so, the challenge was whittled down to the production of the like of any ten chapters. When, however, they were unable to produce even ten chapters, the challenge was further reduced to the production of a single chapter; and, lastly, disbelievers were asked to produce even a single narration like any narration of the Quran. This explanation, however, does not seem to be satisfactory. The different Surahs containing these different challenges were revealed, in the following order: (1) 52:34, 35; (2) 17:89; (3) 11:14; (4) 10:39; (5) 2:24 (Rodwell). Now in Surah 52, the first to be revealed, the challenge is not qualified by any condition as regards size, disbelievers having been given the choice of producing even one single narration similar to any narration of the Quran. It is very strange that, whereas at first the challenge was unqualified and disbelievers were called upon to produce something comparable to any narration of the Quran, later it began to be hedged round by conditions and stipulations, first requiring disbelievers to produce the like of the whole book, then reducing the challenge to ten Surahs, and last of all reducing it to a single chapter. The order is most unnatural.

Moreover, some of the Surahs which contain this challenge were revealed on occasions so close to one another that some commentators have found it difficult to fix their order of priority with certainty. Hence it is unwise to settle this question on the basis of the chronological order of the Surahs containing this challenge.

Another point worth considering in this connection is that the verses in question do not mention any historical event but contain only a general challenge which stands for all time. Now the question is, in what form should the challenge be delivered to the world? Should disbelievers be called upon to produce the like of the whole Quran, or to produce ten Surahs like any ten Surahs of the Quran, or should they be called upon to bring forward the like of one Surah only or the like of any single piece of the Quran? If it is enough to make a demand for the like of a single piece of the Quran, why should a demand for the like of a Surah be made, and if it is enough to make a demand for the like of one Surah, the demand for the production of ten Surahs or, for that matter, for the whole of the Quran seems extravagant.

The fact is that these verses contain certain demands which stand for all time, and there is no need to enter into the question of their chronological order. The challenge can be made even today in all the different forms mentioned in the Quran as it was made at the time of the Holy Prophet.

Before explaining the various forms of these challenges it is worth noting that mention of them in the Quran is invariably accompanied by a reference to wealth and power, except in 2:24, which, as already stated, does not contain a new challenge but only repeats the challenge made in 10:39. From this it may be concluded that there exists a close connection between the question of wealth and power and the challenge for the production of the like of the Quran or a part thereof. This connection lies in the fact that the Quran has been held out to disbelievers as a priceless treasure. When disbelievers demanded material treasures from the Holy Prophet and asked, Wherefore has not a treasure been sent down to him (11:13), they were told in reply that he possessed a matchless treasure in the Quran. The same reply was repeated when disbelievers asked, Wherefore has not an angel come with him? (11:13). They were told in reply that angels did descend upon him; for their function was to bring the word of God, and the Divine Word had already been vouchsafed to him. Thus both the demand for a treasure and the demand for the descent of angels have been jointly met by offering the Quran as a matchless treasure brought down by angels, and the challenge to produce the like of the Quran has been put forward as a proof of its peerless quality.

Let us now take the different verses containing this challenge separately. The greatest demand is that made in 17:89, where disbelievers are required to bring a book like the whole of the Quran in all its manifold qualities. In this verse disbelievers are not required to represent their composition as the word of God. They may bring it forward as their own composition and declare it to be the equal of or, for that matter, better than the Quran. As, however, it was necessary to define in what respect the work to be produced was to resemble the Quran, the Quran says in the next verse, And of a truth We have (herein) set forth for mankind in various ways, all kinds of similitudes, but most of men would reject everything but disbelief (17:90), hinting thereby that if disbelievers reject the Divine origin of the Quran and believe it to be the work of the Prophet himself, then let them produce a book which, like the Quran, should possess the following excellences: (a) it should throw light on every essential subject pertaining to religion; (b) its discussion of these subjects should be exhaustive, offering detailed guidance on every question; (c) it should be free from all harm and contain nothing but good; and (d) it should aim not at the good of any particular people or community but at the well-being of all mankind, containing guidance for all temperaments and dispositions as well as for all circumstances and conditions. But as at the time when this challenge was made the whole of the Quran had not yet been revealed, disbelievers were not required to produce the like of the Quran there and then; and the challenge thus implied a prophecy that they would not be able to produce the like of it, neither in the form in which it then was nor when it became complete. Again, the challenge was not confined to the disbelievers of the Prophet’s time alone, but extended to doubters and critics of all times.

The second verse which contains a challenge is 11:14. In this verse the disbelievers’ objection that the Prophet had not come with a treasure, nor had an angel come to him, has been met by calling upon them to bring similar Surahswhich they should represent as the word of God. The latter demand, i.e. that pertaining to the representation of the required production as the word of God, has a reference to the objection of the disbelievers that no angel has come down to the Prophet. They are told that if no angel has really come to him and his claim to receive divine revelation through the medium of angels is false, then let them also produce ten Surahs, claiming, like him, that they have been brought down to them by angels, and then see what their end would be. If they had not the courage to forge a lie against God, how could they think that the Prophet could be guilty of such fabrication or, if he had dared to commit this forgery, why had he remained secure from God’s punishment?

The reason why the disbelievers in this verse have been called upon to produce ten Surahs and not the whole Quran is that the question here did not relate to the perfection of the Quran in all respects, but to that of only a portion of it. The disbelievers had objected to some parts of it being defective, as is evident from the words: They imagine that thou art now perhaps going to abandon part of that which has been revealed to thee (11:13). Hence, they have not been required here to bring a complete book like the whole Quran, but only ten Surahs in place of those parts of the Quran which they deem to be defective, in order that the truth of their assertion may be tested.

As for the selection of the specific number 10 for this purpose, it should be noted that in Arabic 10 represents a complete number. As the object was to refute the assertion of the disbelievers that certain portions of the Quran were defective, therefore the disbelievers were given the option of making as many as ten efforts to substantiate their claim. They were thus asked to produce ten Surahs not because they could produce less than that number but because the best way to refute their objection was to afford them several opportunities to substantiate the truth of their assertion. In short, since in 17:89 the whole Quran was claimed to be a perfect Book, its opponents were called upon to produce the like of the whole Quran; but since in 11:14 the point was that certain portions of it were objected to, so they were asked to choose ten such portions as appeared to them to be most defective and then, produce a composition even like those portions.

The third verse where the Quran has been declared to be matchless is 10:39. Here disbelievers have been called upon to produce the like of only one Surah of the Quran. This is so because, unlike the above-mentioned two verses, the challenge made in this verse is in support of a claim made by the Quran itself and not in refutation of any objection on the part of disbelievers. In the verses preceding 10:39, it was claimed that God possessed full authority over all things (see 10:32-36), and as a proof of this, in 10:38 the Quran was put forward as possessing the following excellences: (a) it contains teachings which could not be devised by man; (b) it has come in fulfilment of the prophecies contained in the previous Scriptures; (c) in it the imperfect teachings of the previous Scriptures have been perfected; (d) the word of God embodied in it has been made secure from being interpolated or tampered with by man; and (e) its teachings are meant for all men and all time. In support of this claim, verse 10:39 throws out a challenge to those who deny or doubt it to produce a single chapter containing these excellences in the same perfect form in which they are contained in this chapter, i.e. ch.10.

The verses 52:34, 35 contain the smallest of all demands. In these verses disbelievers are challenged to produce a single piece or a single announcement like any piece or announcement of the Quran. This demand also has been made in support of a claim made by the Quran itself and not in refutation of any objection on the part of disbelievers. Hence the smallness of the demand. The claim in question is made in the opening verses of chapter 52, i.e. Surah At-Tur, to the effect that the Quranic revelation which was promised to mankind through Moses on Mount Sinai, will continue to be written, read and published throughout the world and that its followers will continue to multiply and will comprise not only common men but persons of great spiritual and temporal eminence, and that the fountain of the new faith will continue to provide the water of eternal life to all the countries of the world so that the fulfilment of these prophecies will constitute a proof of the fact that there is a Day of Judgement. Thereafter the Quran proceeds in 52:34, 35 to challenge disbelievers that, if they look upon the revelation of the Quran to be a fabrication, then they should come forward and make a prophecy like the one made above. This challenge is unconditional and without qualification. Disbelievers are not required to represent what they produce as the word of God, nor is it laid down as a condition that their prophecy should be of their own devising. They may as they like either make a prophecy of their own devising or borrow it from any other Scripture. Again, disbelievers are not asked to bring forward as many prophecies as there are in the Quran—and these are legion—but to bring forward only one single prophecy similar to any one of the prophecies made in the beginning of the Surah. They are told that they will not be able to fulfil this demand, for such a prophecy could be made only by the Being Who is the Creator and Owner of the heavens and the earth, along with their treasures, and Who not only knows, but possesses mastery of, the unseen. This challenge also stands for all time.

The fifth challenge to produce a like of the Quran is contained in the verse under comment (2:24) and here also, as in 10:39, disbelievers have been called upon to bring a Surah like that of the Quran, not in refutation of any of their objections, but in support of a claim made by the Quran itself. In the case of the verse under comment this claim is stated in the beginning of the Surah in 2:3 which says: This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the righteous. Similarly, 10:39 is also preceded with the words: there is no doubt about it (10:38). This shows that the challenge to produce a chapter like one of the Quran has special reference to the peculiarity which is described by the words, there is no doubt about it. The challenge given in the present Surah is preceded by the claim that the Quran is a guidance for those who fear God (2:3), which means that it guides the righteous to the highest stages of spiritual progress. Hence in the above challenge it has been declared that if disbelievers are in doubt as to the Divine origin of the Quran, then they should bring forward a Surah that may be com­parable to the Quran in the spiritual influence it exercises over its followers.

One of the characteristics of the Quran is that, whatever chapter of it we may read, it casts a subtle and sublime spiritual influence over our minds. Thus, instead of creating doubts it dispels them and takes men to a stage where no doubt can possibly survive, which is the stage of communion with God. This stage can be attained only by the study of the Quran; no other Book can compare with it in this respect.

The above explanation will show that all these challenges calling upon disbelievers to produce the like of the Quran are quite distinct and separate one from another, and all of them stand for all time, none of them superseding or cancelling any other. The misconception that these challenges are one and the same seems to have arisen from the wrong notion that in all of them it is the elegance of the Quranic style and diction that has been held out as unique and incomparable and that it is such elegance of Arabic diction that disbelievers have been called upon to produce. But this is not the case. The challenges made in the five Surahs referred to above are not one or identical nor do they make the same demand; each has a distinct and separate demand of its own and it is in keeping with the nature of these demands that disbelievers have been called upon to produce the like of the whole Quran or a part of it.

The question now remains whether these demands also include a challenge to produce a work comparable to the Quran in elegance of style and diction. The answer is that they certainly do so, but only in an indirect way and not as a direct and fundamental demand, for sublime ideas can only be expressed in sublime language. As the Quran comprises sublime and lofty ideas, it was inevitable that the most beautiful diction and the most chaste style should have been employed as the vehicle for the expression of those ideas; otherwise, the subject matter was liable to remain obscure and doubtful and the perfect beauty of the Quran would have become marred. Thus, in whatever form and in whatever respect disbelievers have been challenged to produce a composition like the Quran, the demand for beauty of style and elegance of diction comparable to those of the Quran also forms a part of the challenge.

2:101; 4:156; 5:14; 13:26.

Important Words:

میثاق (having established it) is derived from وثق which means, it became firm and established. اوثقه means, he made it firm and fast; he bound or tied it firmly and strongly (Aqrab).

الخاسرون (losers) which is the plural of خاسر is derived from خسر which means, he lost; he suffered a loss; he went astray; he became lost; he perished. Thus خاسر means one who loses or suffers a loss, or one who goes astray (Lane). See also 6:13.

Commentary:

This verse gives some characteristics of فاسقین (the disobedient) mentioned in the previous verse. These characteristics are that: (1) they break the covenant made with God; (2) they cut asunder the relations which God commands to be strengthened; and (3) they create disorder and mischief in the earth.

Regarding the first, it should be remembered that the covenant which they break has been mentioned in the following two verses:

(a) And when thy Lord brings forth from Adam’s children—out of their loins—their offspring and makes them witnesses against their own selves by saying 'Am I not your Lord?' they say, 'Yea, we do bear witness.' This He does lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, 'We were surely unaware of this' (7:173).

(b) And remember the time when Allah took a covenant from the people through the Prophets, saying: 'Whatever I give you of the Book and Wisdom and then there comes to you a Messenger, fulfilling what is with you, you shall believe in him and help him.' And He said: 'Do you agree, and do you accept the responsibility which I lay upon you in this matter?' They said, 'We agree'; He said, 'Then bear witness and I am with you among the witnesses' (3:82).

Regarding the second characteristic, it should be remembered that love of God dies in their hearts and they do not try to establish any relation with Him; or if the relation has once been established, they allow it to be broken. Their love is confined to things of this world and all their attention is given to them.

Thirdly, the verse points out that even their love of the world is not sincere, for if it were so, they would protect it against disorder and mischief; but as matters stand, they themselves ruin it by creating disorder and mischief. So they are losers in every respect.

19:34; 22:67; 30:41; 40:12; 45:27.

Important Words:

اموات (without life) is the plural of میت which means: (1) a thing dead, or (2) a thing without life. Thus the word میت is used both for a thing which so far has had no life and for a thing which had had life but is now dead. The word میت is also used about one who is dying or is nearing death but has not yet died (Lane). See also 2:20.

احیا (he gave life) is derived from حیی which means, he lived or he had life. The transitive form احیا means, he gave life, he brought to life, he saved the life of (Aqrab & Lane).

حیاة (life) which is the opposite of موت (death) signifies: (1) the faculty of growth, as in an animal or a plant; (2) the faculty of sensation; (3) the faculty of intellect; (4) freedom from grief or sorrow; (5) everlasting life in the world to come; (6) advantage or profit or a means thereof; (7) state of activity and power (Lane).

تکفرون (you disbelieve) is derived from کفر (he disbelieved) already explained under 2:7. The infinitive form is کفر(disbelief). کفربالله (disbelief in Allah) means not only disbelieving in the existence of God but also denying His attributes and refusing to obey His commandments.

Commentary:

This verse reverts to the original subject of revelation. The question of the reward of believers and the punishment of disbelievers was only incidental. The real subject is that of revelation. In this verse the Quran explains why spiritual life would be impossible without revelation. Nobody can know anything about the next life without the help and guidance of God Who alone knows everything. The verse points out that when God provides for our physical needs, there is no reason why He should not provide for our spiritual needs, which are much more important.

God is Wise. If human life had no purpose, God would not have created it; having created it, He would not have made it subject to death, unless there had been an afterlife. If death were the end of all life, the creation of man would turn out to be mere sport. The fact that God does all this shows that He has created man not to return to dust after a life of 60 or 70 years but for a better, fuller and everlasting life, which he must live after death.

The word "then" in the clause, then to Him shall you be made to return, hints that after death the human soul does not at once go to Heaven or Hell. There is an interim period in which the soul is made to taste some of the good or bad results of its deeds. The resurrection which will herald a full and complete requital will take place later.

The mentioning of life twice (in the words احیا and یحیی) may also refer to the rise of Islam in this world, for Islam is the means of spiritual life. Islam had its first life in the time of the Holy Prophet; the second life was to come in the Latter Days. This is referred to in 62: 4, where it is said that the Holy Prophet of Islam will make, as it were, a second appearance in the world. The promise has been fulfilled in the person of the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement.

7:161.

Important Words:

عصا (rod). عصا الرجل means, he beat the man with a rod. عصا القوم means, he brought together the people, or he made them agree on some matter of common concern. عصا means: (1) a rod strong enough to support the weight of a man; (2) communal and family life; (3) a community; (4) the shin-bone (Aqrab).

الحجر (rock) is from حجر i.e. it prevented or resisted. الحجر means, a stone; a great mass of stone; a rock (Lane).

Commentary:

This verse mentions another favour bestowed on the Israelites. When once they were hard pressed by thirst and no water was procurable in the desert, God saved them by revealing to Moses the knowledge of a rock from which water flowed out when struck with a rod.

The demand of the Israelites for water and their being supplied with it is mentioned at two places in the Bible. At one place mention is made of the twelve springs of Elim, but nothing is said there of Moses’ striking the rock with his rod (Exod. 15:27). At the other place, Moses, by divine command, struck the rock Horeb with his rod, and there flowed out abundant water with which the Israelites and their animals slaked their thirst (Exod. 17:1-7 Numb. 20:2-11). Here no mention is made of the number of springs. It appears that the Quran refers to the occurrence relating to the rock of Horeb because, with the only difference that the Bible does not give the number of springs whereas the Quran gives a definite number, almost all the details narrated in the Bible concur with the narrative of the Quran. As for the slight difference with regard to the number of springs, reason favours the narrative of the Quran. The Israelites numbered several thousands besides riding animals and beasts of burden, and one spring was certainly insufficient for such a large number, especially when we take into consideration the fact that the thirsty Israelites were, according to the Bible, in a state of extreme exasperation at that time and were prepared even to stone Moses to death. It is possible, however, that at the source there was only one mouth of the spring, but it divided into twelve channels as it flowed down the rock, the number being in conformity with the number of the Israelite tribes.

If at present there is no trace of the twelve springs at that spot, it is no wonder; for it is a matter of common experience that sometimes several springs rising at the same spot have some of their openings closed and cease to flow. From a testimony quoted by Sale, however, it appears that even as late as the end of the fifteenth century, twelve springs actually flowed there. He says: "The rock stands within the border of Arabia and some of his (the Prophet’s) countrymen must needs have seen it if he himself had not, as it is most probable he had. And in effect he seems to be in the right. For one who went into those parts in the end of the fifteenth century tells us expressly that the water issued from twelve places of the rock, according to the number of the tribes of Israel" (Al-Koran by Sale, page 8).

The miracle of Moses on this occasion did not lie in bringing about a thing against the known laws of nature, but in the fact that God revealed to him the specific spot where water was just ready to flow at a blow of his rod. It is within the experience of those who study geological conditions in rocky districts that sometimes water flows underneath small hillocks or rocks and gushes forth when the rock is struck with something heavy or pointed.

As Manna and Salwa had already been bestowed on the Israelites, God now fittingly asks them to eat and drink of what Allah has provided. But as a life of ease and independence is likely to make men arrogant and mischievous, God at the same time warns the Israelites to exercise self-restraint and refrain from creating trouble and disorder in the land.

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.