مِمَّا

7:21, 28; 20:121.

2:62; 7:25; 20:124.

7:25, 26; 20:56; 77:26, 27.

Important Words:

ازلھما (caused them both to slip). ازل derived from زل i.e. he slipped. ازل means: (1) he caused him to slip; (2) he turned him from the truth or from the right path (Aqrab). The word زل is sometimes used of slipping without intention (Mufradat).

اھبطوا (go forth) is derived from ھبط meaning, he descended or alighted or went down. But when the word is followed by the preposition من it generally means, he went forth or he departed. Thus ھبط من الوادی means, he went forth from the valley (Baqa). Arabic grammar, however, permits of the preposition being omitted. Thus the word اھبطوا in the present verse would mean, go forth or depart. Further on (in 2:39) we read اھبطوامنھا which means, go out of it or go forth from it.

مستقر (abode) is derived from استقر which again is derived from قر. They say قر فی المکان or استقر بالمکان i.e. he stayed or became established in the place; he adopted the place as his residence. So مستقر means, a place where one resides or abides for some length of time (Aqrab).

متاع (provision) is derived from متع. They say متعه الله بکذا. i.e. God made him profit by it for some length of time. So متاعmeans: (1) any of the necessaries of life like food, clothes and furniture; (2) goods of the world; (3) any short-lived profit that does not last for long (Aqrab). The word also means, deriving benefit from a thing for some length of time (Mufradat).

Commentary:

The pronoun "it" in, caused them both to slip by means of it, evidently refers to the شجرة or tree. The first two clauses of the verse mean that a satanic being enticed Adam and his spouse from the place where they were and thereby deprived them of the comforts they enjoyed. As explained in 2:35 above, it will be noted that he who beguiled and brought trouble on Adam was Shaitan and not Iblis who is spoken of as refusing to serve Adam. This distinction is to be found not only in the verse under comment but throughout the Quran which invariably speaks of Iblis while mentioning the incident of refusal to bow down through pride, and of Shaitan wherever mention is made of Adam being instigated to eat of the prohibited شجرة (tree). The distinction points to the conclusion that the word Shaitan does not here refer to Iblis, but to someone from among the fellow beings of Adam who was hostile to him. The inference is further supported by the verse: As to My servants, thou (O Iblis) shalt certainly have no power over them (17: 66). As Adam was a vicegerent of God, Iblis could have no power over him, and the being who beguiled him was someone else. Hence, in order to bring out this fact, the word Shaitan, which has a much wider significance than Iblis, has been used here.

The concluding words of the verse, i.e. for you there is an abode in the earth, also prove that the Quran lends no support to the idea of anybody ascending to the heavens alive, for the verse clearly fixes the earth as the lifelong abode of man. Thus the Quran rejects the idea that Jesus or, for that matter, anybody else ever went up to the heavens alive.

A short note here on the word 'satan' will not be out of place. As will be readily seen, the word 'satan' is of much wider significance than Iblis, for whereas Iblis is the name given to the Evil Spirit who belonged to the jinn and refused to serve Adam, thereafter becoming the leader of the forces of evil in the universe, the word 'satan' is used about any evil or harmful being or thing, whether a spirit or a human being or an animal or a disease or any other thing. Thus Iblis is a 'satan'; his comrades and associates are 'satans'; enemies of truth are 'satans'; mischievous men are 'satans', injurious animals are 'satans' and harmful diseases are 'satans'. The Quran, the Hadith and the Arabic literature are full of instances in which the word 'satan' has been freely used about one or all of these things. Thus the Quran says that there are 'satans' both among men and the jinn (6:113). Again, mischievous enemies of truth are also called 'satans' in the Quran (2:15). The Holy Prophet once used the name 'satan' about a thief who had repeatedly robbed Abu Hurairah (Bukhari). Similarly the Holy Prophet once said that a black street dog was a 'satan' (Majah). Again he once ordered his Companions to cover up their utensils containing food and drink lest 'satan' should find its way into them, evidently meaning harmful insects and germs (Majah). At another place the Holy Prophet exhorts his followers to clean their nostrils when they rise from sleep in the morning as 'satan' rests in them, hinting that harmful matter accumulates in the nostrils which, if not removed, may injure health (Muslim).

From the above instances it is clear that 'satan' is a very general term and is freely used about all evil or harmful beings or things. For the meaning of the word 'satan' see note on 2:15.

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.

5:89; 8:70; 16:115.

2:209; 6:143; 24:22.

7:23; 12:6; 28:16; 35:7; 36:61.

Important Words:

حلال (lawful) is the noun-infinitive from حل which has several meanings. حل العقده means, he unloosened the tie. حل بالمکانmeans, he alighted at the house. حل علیه غضب الله means, God’s punishment came down on him or befell him. حل الشیء means, the thing became lawful. حل الیمین means, he absolved himself from the oath. حلال is, therefore, that the use of which has been permitted by God; a lawful thing. The word is the opposite of حرام which means, a forbidden or unlawful thing (Aqrab).

طیباً (good) is derived from طاب meaning, he or it became good. طاب الشیء means, the thing was good or pure or wholesome. Thus طیب would mean, good, pure, wholesome and agreeable (Aqrab).

خطوات (footsteps) is the plural of خطوة which is derived from خطا which means, he stepped or walked, خطوة means, the distance between the two feet of a person while walking. The clause لا تتبعوا خطوات الشیطان would also mean, do not follow the ways of Satan (Aqrab).

مبین (open) is derived from بان meaning: (1) it became clear and manifest; or (2) it became separated or disunited or cut off. ابان الشیء means (1) he or it made the thing clear; or (2) he or it cut the thing into pieces or made it disunited. ابان الشیءmeans, the thing became clear. Thus مبین would mean: (1) a being or thing which is clear and manifest; (2) a being or thing which makes other things clear; and (3) a being or thing which cuts another thing into pieces and makes it disunited (Aqrab).

Commentary:

Good actions must accompany true faith. So with this verse begins a discussion of the second part of Abraham’s prayer regarding the work of the Promised Prophet, i.e., the teaching of the laws of Shari‘ah and of the wisdom underlying them.

Henceforward ordinances about Prayer, Fasting, Pilgrimage and Zakah are given and so are the laws relating to social matters and as food plays an important part in the formation of a man’s character, regulations concerning it are mentioned first. According to Islam, all food should be: (1) حلال i.e. allowed by the Law; and (2) it should also be طیبi.e. good, pure, wholesome and agreeable. Under the second condition, sometimes even lawful things become forbidden. Thus, for instance, the eating of goat’s flesh is حلال or lawful; but if some flesh becomes rotten and putrefied, it will not be طیب and will consequently not be permissible. This distinction between حلال (lawful) and طیب (good and pure) food is not to be found in any teaching except that of Islam. So comprehensive is the Islamic teaching on this subject that not only are conditions laid down as to when lawful things become prohibited, as in this verse, but also as to when even unlawful food becomes permissible (2:174; 5:4; 6:120, 146; 16:116).

The prohibition against following Satan, coming immediately after the commandment with respect to food, alludes to the influence which physical actions exercise on the moral and spiritual conditions of man. The use of unlawful and unwholesome food tends to impair our moral and spiritual faculties, while lawful and wholesome food improves our morals and helps the development of our spiritual powers. This subject is also dealt with in 23:52.

As explained under Important Words above, the word مبین gives three different meanings. Thus عدو مبین would mean (1) that Satan is a manifest and open enemy of man; (2) that Satan is not only manifest himself but also makes his connections manifest—leaving a visible trace of wickedness wherever he treads; and (3) that he is always striving to create disunion among the Faithful and to cut asunder all such ties as God has ordered to be made firm. In this connection see also 2:28.

22:41.

Commentary:

Talut or Gideon was able to defeat Jalut or the Midianites and curb their rising spirits, but their crushing defeat to which the verse refers as the killing of Jalut came in the time of David about two hundred years afterwards. This is why, whereas the defeat of Jalut by Talut has been spoken of by the Quran as ھزم i.e. routing, the complete crushing of their power has been referred to by the world قتل i.e. killing. The Bible speaks of the man defeated by David as Goliath (1 Sam. 17:4), which is similar to Jalut. Probably the attributive name given by the Quran to the people was also borne by their leader in the time of David.

The last clause of the verse, i.e. and had it not been for Allah’s repelling men, some of them by the others, the earth would have become filled with disorder, gives, in a nutshell, the whole philosophy of all wars of truth and justice. War should be resorted to only as a means of checking disorder and restoring peace, and not for creating disorder and breaking peace. The clause also serves as a criterion between Muslims and their adversaries and beautifully points to the party destined for final victory in the struggle.

2:196; 14:32; 47:39; 57:11; 63:11.

14:32; 43:68.

aSee 2:49.

Important Words:

بیع (buying and selling) is derived from باع i.e. he sold; or he bought; or he bartered (Aqrab).

خلة (friendship) is derived from خل. They say خل الشیء i.e. he pierced the thing and made a hole through it. خل فی دعائه means, he was very particular in his prayer. خل الیه means, he was in need of his help and support. خاله means, he made friends with him and took him as brother. خلة is, therefore, that friendship or love which penetrates the heart and takes root in it. خلیل is one whose friendship and love is very deep and sincere; a most loving and bosom friend (Aqrab). The Holy Prophet is reported to have said: "If I had taken anyone as my خلیل I would have taken Abu Bakr as such, but my خلیل is God" (Bukhari, ch. on Manaqibun-Nabi).

شفاعة (intercession). See note on 2:49.

Commentary:

Though, as the preceding verses point out, the final victory of the Holy Prophet of Islam was sure, yet the path before Muslims was not strewn with roses. They had to make great sacrifices in order to reach the goal. It is to this fact that the verse under comment points. It makes particular reference to financial sacrifices.

The words, wherein there shall be no buying and selling, do not mean that there will be no trade and commerce on the Day of Judgement, but that on that great day nobody will be able to buy salvation, which will depend only on one’s good works coupled with God’s grace. The only buying or selling that will be of avail to men on the Day of Judgement will be that which they shall have made in their present life (9:111).

The words, nor friendship, signify that there will be no occasion for forming new friendships on that day. Those, however, who will have taken God as their friend in their life on this earth will certainly benefit by that friendship. It is to this fact that the Quran refers when it says: Friends on that day shall be foes to one another, except the God-fearing(43:68). The righteous have God as their friend, and He will continue to be their friend on the Day of Judgement!

For شفاعة (intercession), see note on 2:49.

9:34, 111; 63:11.

Important Words:

البر (righteousness) means, goodness of a high order (Mufradat). The Holy Prophet has explained the word بر as حسن الخلق i.e.the excellence of moral qualities (Muslim & Musnad). See also 2:45, 178. As true belief is the basis of all goodness, so the word البر may also be taken to mean true belief.

Commentary:

Since the word البر means, goodness or righteousness of a high order or excellence of morals, the verse purports to say that though God is cognizant of, and suitably rewards, each and every thing that one spends in the cause of Allah, yet the goodness of a high order, most acceptable in His sight, can be achieved only by spending out of things, be they material or otherwise, which one loves most for the obvious reason that such spending involves the greatest sacrifice.

In the preceding verse it is said, there shall not be accepted from anyone of them even an earthful of gold, though he offer it in ransom. From this some people might conclude that spending in the cause of God was of no use. To remove this possible misunderstanding, it is pointed out here that spending in the cause of God is a highly meritorious act and spending what is best naturally brings the highest good. The preceding verse refers only to such disbelievers as die in their disbelief.

The verse may be interpreted in three ways: (1) If البر is taken to mean true faith, the verse would mean that as disbelievers think more of their worldly interests than of God, they are unable to recognize the truth of Islam. Thus the verse signifies that in order to attain true faith, which is the essence of all righteousness and the highest form of good, one must be prepared to sacrifice everything that one holds dear. (2) If البر is taken in the sense of goodness of a high order, the verse would mean that though whatever is spent in the cause of God is an act of righteousness, yet the highest stage of righteousness can be attained only by spending in the way of God that which one loves best. (3) If, however, the word البرis taken to mean high morals, the verse would signify that high morals cannot be attained without inculcating a true spirit of sacrifice.

It is on record in the Hadith that when this verse was revealed, Abu Talhah, a Companion of the Holy Prophet, stood up and addressing him said, "O Messenger of God, my garden known as Bi’r Rauha’ (this garden was situated opposite to the Mosque at Medina) is to me the dearest of my property and I hereby give it in charity" (Bukhari, ch. on Tafsir). This illustrates how the early converts to Islam strove to practise the highest good as the Quran enjoined upon them.

4:34.

Commentary:

This verse, without giving the details, forms the basis of the Islamic law of inheritance. Detailed rules are given in the succeeding verses. The verse lays down the general principle of the social equality of man and woman. Both are entitled to a suitable share in the property.

4:177.

Important Words:

ابویه (his parents) is really ابوینه, the letter ن being dropped owing to اضافة. The word ابوین is the genitive of ابوان which is the dual form of اب which is originally ابو meaning, father or grandfather or any male ancestor or paternal uncle. ابوانliterally meaning "two fathers" signifies "father and mother" (Lane).

ولد (child) is very general in its significance meaning: (1) a child, son, daughter or a young one; (2) children, sons, daughters, offspring or young ones. Thus the word is used both as singular and plural, feminine and masculine (Lane).

Commentary:

This and the succeeding verse combined with the last verse of the Surah give the Islamic law of inheritance in a nutshell.

Islam prescribes suitable shares for all near relatives in the property of a deceased person without distinction of sex or order of birth. Children, parents, husbands and wives are the principal heirs who, if alive, get suitable shares in all circumstances, other relations having a title only in special cases. A male has been given double the share of a female because he has been made responsible for the maintenance of the family (Ma‘ani, vol. ii, p. 32).

The Islamic law of inheritance is perfect and it safeguards against all evils that result from laws prescribed by, or in vogue in, other faiths and communities. It aims at a fair distribution of wealth and equal chances of progress for all. To give the property of a deceased parent to the firstborn son only or to exclude the female members from inheritance or to disinherit parents in the presence of children has proved a veritable curse for society in many ways—moral, social and economic. The Islamic law of inheritance, reinforced by the system of Zakah (prescribed alms) and by the injunction prohibiting the giving and taking of interest, provides a golden mean between capitalism and communism—the two evil extremes of the present-day economic system.

The verse begins by laying down a general rule as to the proportion of shares between sons and daughters. A son is to have as much as two daughters. So wherever there are both sons and daughters, this rule will come in force. When, however, there are only daughters and no son, the verse allots two-thirds of the legacy to the daughters if there are more than two of them, and one-half if there is only one. The share of daughters, in case there are two, is not expressly stated. But the use of the conjunction فا (but) in the clause, but if there be females only, numbering more than two, clearly points to the fact that the share of two females has been referred to in the preceding words "two females". Moreover, the share of two females can be gathered from what has already been said in the beginning of the verse about the ratio between the shares of the males and the females. According to that ratio, a son is to get as much as two daughters. Thus, if there be one son and one daughter, the son will have two-thirds. But as the share of one son has been made equal to that of "two daughters", the latter, in case there is no son, will have two-thirds, viz., the same share as has been expressly fixed for three daughters. Thus, the very construction of the verse shows that if there be two daughters and no son, they too, as in the case of three daughters, will get two-thirds. If it had not been the object of the Quran to point to the share of two daughters in the clause, it would have been something like this, "a male shall have twice as much as a female", and not as it is now.

The above meaning is corroborated by a saying of the Holy Prophet himself. It is related that when a Companion of the Holy Prophet named Sa‘d bin Rabi‘ah died in the Battle of Uhud, leaving two daughters and one widow, his brother took away the whole property, leaving nothing for the two daughters. Thereupon the widow of Sa‘d went to the Holy Prophet and said, "Here are the two daughters of Sa‘d. Their uncle has taken the whole of his property and has left nothing for them." The Holy Prophet told her to wait till God should decide the matter. Then this verse was revealed and the Prophet called upon Sa‘d’s brother to give two-thirds of Sa‘d’s property to his two daughters and one-eighth to their mother and keep the rest for himself (Tirmidhi & Dawud).

The verse speaks of three cases as regards the share of the parents: (1) If a person dies leaving one or more children, then each of his parents shall have one-sixth; (2) If a person dies issueless and his parents are the sole heirs (there being no wife or husband of the deceased person), then the mother will have one-third of the property and the remaining two-thirds will go to the father; (3) There is a third case, which is really an exception to the second case. A man dies without issue and his parents are his sole heirs, but he has brothers or sisters. Then, although his brother or sisters will not inherit from him, yet their presence will affect the share of the parents, for, in this case, the mother will have one-sixth (instead of one-third, as in the second case) and the remaining five-sixths will go to the father. The reason why the father is awarded a larger share in this case is that the father has also to support the brothers or sisters of the deceased. The subject of inheritance is continued in the succeeding verse.

4:177.

Important Words:

کلالة (one who has neither parent nor child) is derived from کل i.e. he was or became fatigued, tired or wearied and could proceed no further; he was or became one having no child and no parent, the latter meaning being based on the former, as a person having no child or parent becomes, as it were, too fatigued for the racial march. کلالة is (1) a person who leaves behind neither father nor child, male or female; or (2) a person who leaves behind neither father nor son. According to Ibn ‘Abbas, کلالة is a person who leaves no son irrespective of the fact whether his father is living or not. This would thus be the third meaning of کلالة (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

The first part of this verse determines the share of the husband and the wife in inheritance and needs no comment. The latter part deals with the case of a Kalalah, i.e. one who leaves neither parent nor child and whose property is inherited by his or her brother and sister. Now, if there is only one brother and one sister, each of them will get one-sixth. But if they are more than that, they will be sharers in one-third.

It should, however, be noted that in this respect brothers and sisters fall under three heads; firstly, real brothers or sisters, offspring of the same parents (such brothers or sisters are technically known as اعیانی a‘yani); secondly, brothers and sisters on the side of the father only (these are technically known as علاتی ‘allati); thirdly, brothers and sisters on the side of the mother only, their father being not the same as that of the deceased (such brothers and sisters being technically called اخیافی akhyafi). It is to the last-mentioned class that the commandment given in the present verse pertains; the law with regard to the first two classes of brothers and sisters being given in the last verse of this Surah.

The reader will further note that the shares allotted to the brothers and sisters of the last-mentioned class are smaller than those allotted to the brothers and sisters of the first two classes, the reason being that the brothers and sisters of this class are on the side of the mother only, while the brothers and the sisters of the other two classes are the children of the same father as the deceased.

It is also noteworthy that in the property of a person who dies as a Kalalah, as mentioned in the present verse, both brothers and sisters have equal shares, the usual ratio of two to one not being observed in their case.

The words, "without prejudice to the debt", are important. They mean that the payment of debts should not suffer by the payment of bequests. In other words, debts are to be paid prior to the payment of bequests. It was in compliance with this Quranic injunction that the Holy Prophet used to have the debts paid before the payment of bequests. The rights of other people must be safeguarded before any bequest made by the deceased is complied with. So strict was the Holy Prophet in these matters that he refused to perform the funeral service of the man whose debts were likely to remain unpaid.

It may incidentally be noted here that heirs are divided into two main groups:

1. ذووالفرائض (Dhawul-Fara’id), i.e. persons to whom Islam allots a fixed and definite share (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 2/3, 1/3 or 1/6), or in the estate of a deceased person.

2. عصبات (‘Asabat), i.e. the heirs who receive the residue after the Dhawul-Fara’id have received their allotted shares.

It is, however, not necessary that a member of the first group should always remain a Dhul-Faridah. In certain cases, he may be both a Dhul-Faridah (sharer) and an ‘Asaba (residuary) and in other cases he may be simply an ‘Asaba.

The Dhawul-Fara’id (sharers) are 12 in number, four males and eight females. The males are: 1. father, 2. paternal grandfather, 3. husband and 4. half-brother on the maternal side. The females are: (1) daughter, (2) son’s daughter, (3) mother, (4) wife, (5) full sister, (6) half-sister on paternal side, (7) half-sister on maternal side, and (8) grandmother whether paternal or maternal.

The ‘Asabat (residuaries) are of four kinds: (1) ascendants of the deceased, i.e. father, paternal grandfather, etc. (2) descendants of the deceased, i.e. son, son’s son, etc. (3) descendants of the father of the deceased, i.e. full brother, brother’s son, etc. (4) descendants of the grandfather, i.e. full paternal uncle, paternal uncle’s son, etc.

4:8.

Important Words:

موالی (heirs) is derived from ولی and is the plural of مولی which means, lord or chief; master or owner; son of a paternal uncle; or a relation such as a son of a paternal uncle and the like; a freedman whom the emancipator is bound to aid and whose property he inherits if he dies leaving no heir; a slave; emancipator of a slave; a neighbour; an ally; a friend or helper; a follower; a partner; an heir, etc. (Lane & Lisan).

Commentary:

The verse may also be rendered thus: "To every one We have appointed heirs to what he leaves. They are the parents, the relations and those with whom your oaths have ratified a contract. So give them their portion." Again, the verse may also be rendered as: "To everything which parents and relations leave we have appointed heirs, etc."

The words, with whom your oaths have ratified a contract, signify "spouses" embracing both husbands and wives. The pronoun "them" in the clause, so give them their portion, refers to, and stands for, the noun "heirs" in the opening clause.

4:13.

4:12.

4:27.

Important Words:

For the meaning of the word کلالة see 4:13.

Commentary:

ولد (child) means, child or children whether male or female, but as کلالة (kalalah) means, one having no child and no parent, the words ولا والد (and neither parent) may be taken as being understood after the words لیس له ولد. The word اثنتین (lit. two) here means two or more sisters. This meaning is supported by a verdict of the Holy Prophet in which he applied this verse to the case of Jabir who died, leaving seven sisters (Jarir, vi. 24). The word اخوة (brethren) here includes sisters and brothers both, as the words رجالا و نساء (both men and women), forming case in apposition with اخوة indicate.

This verse, placed as it is in between the verses dealing with the Christians and their false doctrines, appears to be rather misplaced. But as the following note will show, it is very fittingly placed here, furnishing a striking proof of the Quran as well as its present arrangement being the work of God.

In 4:13 mention was made of one kind of Kalalah (one who leaves behind neither a parent nor an offspring) who had brothers and sisters from the side of his mother only. The present verse refers to a Kalalah who has brothers and sisters from both his parents, or from the side of his father only. By comparing the verse under comment with 4:13 it becomes clear that for obvious reasons the share allotted to the former class of brothers and sisters is less than that allotted to those of the latter class.

This part of the law of inheritance has been purposely treated separately from the main portion of the law dealt with in 4:12, 13 in the beginning of the Surah. The object in doing so is not far to seek. After dealing at some length with the charges levelled against Jesus by the Jews and clearing his position, the Quran reverts to the subject of Kalalah at the end of the Surah, thus seeking (beside completing the law relating to Kalalah) to draw, by a most fitting parable, our attention to the spiritual heirlessness of Jesus who, in a sense, was also a Kalalah. He was born without the agency of a father, and he left behind no spiritual successor to succeed him in his prophetic office, which was, after his death, inherited by the Ishmaelites. In this case the words, If a man dies, leaving no child, may also signify that Jesus was a Kalalah, not in the sense that spiritually speaking he had neither parents nor child, but in the restricted sense that he had no child. See 4:13 under Important Words where Ibn ‘Abbas defines a Kalalah as simply one who leaves no child. Thus Jesus was spiritually a Kalalah in the sense that he left behind no spiritual successor. Compare also the prophecy, "I will raise them a prophet from among their brethren" (Deut. 18:18).

6:119.

Important Words:

جوارح (animals of prey) is the plural of جارحة which is derived from جرح. They say جرحه i.e. he wounded him; or he cut him; or he clove or rent his body. It also means, he gained, acquired or earned. جوارح means, beasts and birds of prey that catch game. The word also means, the limbs of a human being with which things are gained or earned (Lane).

مکلبین (training them for hunting) is the plural of مکلب which is the active participle from کلب Kallaba which is the transitive form of کلب (Kaliba) meaning, he thirsted; he ate voraciously; he was seized with the disease of dogs; he barked. کلب(Kallaba) means, he trained (a dog) to hunt; he trained any beast or bird of prey to take game. مکلب means, one who trains dogs to hunt; or one who trains any beast or bird of prey to take game. مکلب also means, one who possesses dogs trained to hunt and hunts with them. کلب means, a dog or any animal of prey (Lane).

Commentary:

The forbidden things having been described in the preceding verse, the rest are here declared lawful, provided they are طیبات i.e. good and pure, it being left to each individual to decide what is good for him and what is not, in view of his particular circumstances and the condition of his health. The Holy Prophet has definitely excluded beasts of prey and birds having claws from the category of lawful food. See also 2:174.

The training of animals or birds of prey for catching game has been made lawful. As for the eating of the flesh of the game so hunted, the injunction varies according to circumstances. The more accepted view is as follows: (1) If the hunter finds the game alive, the eating of its flesh is lawful in all circumstances, provided the hunter slaughters the game in the prescribed manner. (2) If the hunter finds the game dead, the eating of its flesh is lawful only in case (a) the animal of prey is trained, and (b) it does not itself eat of the game, and (c) the hunter sends the animal of prey after reciting thereon the name of Allah. (3) If the game dies of sheer fear, before the animal of prey has actually caught and wounded it, the eating of its flesh is unlawful.

3:54, 194.

Commentary:

The description given in this verse of some of the Christians of the time of the Holy Prophet applies to all those who have a real hankering after truth and are ready to accept it wherever they find it. The verse has also been applied to Najjashi in particular. When Ja‘far, a cousin of the Holy Prophet and the spokesman of Muslim refugees to Abyssinia, tried to make clear their attitude towards Jesus and to dispel the suspicion caused by the Meccan emissaries about the alleged derogatory language used by the Quran concerning Jesus and read to Najjashithe opening verses of the chapter Maryam, the latter, along with such of his companions as feared God, was visibly moved, and tears rolled down his cheeks and he said in a voice full of pathos that that exactly was his belief about Jesus, and that he did not look upon him by even a twig more than that (Hisham, i. 305, 306).

2:169; 8:70; 16:115.

5:5.

Commentary:

The commandment to eat of that over which the name of Allah has been pronounced may appear to some to have no connection with the subject matter of the previous verses. But it is really not so. The very fact that this verse is preceded by the particle فاء (then) shows that this commandment has come as a sequence of what has gone before. Again, the verb کلوا (eat) is plural and as this commandment is given in continuation of the preceding commandments, it follows that the previous commandments, although given in the singular number, are general in their application and are not addressed to the Holy Prophet personally. Thus the commandment, be thou not of those who doubt (6:115 above), is also addressed to really each and every reader.

As regards the connection between the present commandment and the preceding ones, it may be noted that elsewhere the Quran says: O ye who believe, eat of the good things We have provided for you, and render thanks to Allah (2:173). Again, O ye Messengers, eat of the things that are pure, and do good works (23:52). These verses clearly show that the eating of good and pure things has a direct bearing on the actions of man, who is thereby enabled to feel grateful to God and do good works. As the weak among the Faithful sometimes gave way to doubt when they heard the objections of disbelievers referred to in the previous verses, the Quran here bids them to partake of pure and holy food. The result will be that they themselves will become pure and their faith will become strengthened and thus they will become proof against the doubts which disbelievers seek to create in their minds by raising objections.

It may be objected that present-day Muslims pronounce the name of God on the animals they slaughter, and yet their minds are not free from doubt. The reason is that they pronounce the name of God only as a cold formality without sincerity or earnestness. It should also be remembered that the injunction to eat of that on which the name of God has been pronounced applies not only to the flesh of animals but to all kinds of food. The verse enjoins Muslims to pronounce the name of God on all food of which they partake, so that they may be constantly reminded of God and their lives may be sanctified.

The verse also shows how those who follow reason only, independently of Divine revelation, commit blunders. One of the objections raised by disbelievers against Muslims was that, although they professed to be devoted to God, yet they did not partake of the flesh of the animal that was killed by God (meaning the animal that died of itself), while they cheerfully partook of the flesh of animals which they themselves killed, (i.e. slaughtered animals). This is the kind of objection which is sometimes raised by men who depend merely on reason and think themselves to be independent of Divine revelation. The verse incidentally answers this objection by hinting that it is not a question of who kills the animal. The question is, who follows the commandment of God and who partakes of his food in His name. Certainly only he who acts upon the commandment of God and eats in His name, will win His pleasure.

2:174; 5:4-5; 6:146; 16:116.

Commentary:

In this verse the objection of disbelievers has been answered in the very words in which it was made. Their objection was that Muslims profess to be devoted to the name of Allah, yet they do not eat of the flesh of the animal killed by God, i.e. the animal that dies of itself. The answer given in the present verse is, "when we are devoted to Allah, why should we not eat of the food on which the name of our Lord is pronounced?" But the name of God is not pronounced on an animal that dies of itself. Its death takes place under the general law of nature.

The words, He has already explained, refer to 16:116, which was revealed earlier.

The word "mislead" signifies that man-made teachings, which are given by most men in opposition to the teachings of God, only lead people astray.

The word "transgressors" at the end of the verse indicates that the objections raised against the teachings of God have their source in malice and enmity and those who bring forward such objections are indeed transgressors.

5:4; 6:146.

Commentary:

The verse points out that if believers eat of the flesh of those animals on which the name of God has not been pronounced, it will be an act of disobedience and transgression.

One sin leads to another. If a believer fails to pronounce the name of God on his food, his heart becomes devoid of reverence for Him and this gradually leads to شرك i.e. associating partners with God.

16:57.

Commentary:

Note the point and the force in the words, He has produced. By using these words, the Quran exposes the folly of disbelievers who are presumptuous enough to divide the produce of the earth and cattle between their deities and God, as if they were the owners; while the fact is that God is the owner of all these things and it is He Who has brought them into existence. They are God’s things, and it is strange that disbelievers should presume to divide God’s things according to their own choice, setting apart only a portion for God, the True Owner, and allotting the rest to their false deities.

Disbelievers gave two kinds of alms; firstly, in the name of God, and secondly, in the name of their deities. If the portion which they set apart for their deities was spent for other purposes, then the portion which they had reserved for God was also given away as charity in the name of their deities, but if the portion set apart for God was spent for other ends, then the portion set aside for the deities was not transferred to God. That is what is meant by the words, that which is for their idols reaches not Allah, while that which is for Allah reaches their idols. This is another instance of how men blunder, making laws with the sole aid of reason.

The expression, as they imagine, signifies that God does not accept a charity which false gods are made to share with Him. Disbelievers suppose that they have set apart a portion for God, but that is not really the portion of God, for the jealous God disdainfully rejects such allotment.

See 2:209.

Important Words:

فرشا (for slaughter) is derived from فرش. They say فرشه i.e. he spread it or expanded it; or he prostrated it; or he threw it down (for slaughter). فرش means, what is spread on the ground, etc.; a plain tract of land; a depressed tract of land; shrubs or small trees; such animals as are fit for slaughter, or such as are thrown down for slaughter (Lane).

Commentary:

Apart from its primary meaning the verse also hints that the eating of lawful things is a means of ensuring one against the attacks of Satan.

Important Words:

افیضوا (pour) is derived from افاض which again is derived from فاض which means, it (water, etc.) overflowed, or poured forth from fullness. افاض means, he filled (a vessel) so that it overflowed; he made it (water, etc.) to flow or run; he poured out water, etc. (Lane).

Commentary:

The use of the words افیضواعلینا (pour on us) by the inmates of Hell implies that they would in a way flatter the inmates of Heaven by saying to them that they had enjoyed God’s blessings (which were virtually overflowing) to their heart’s content, and would then beg of them to give them a little of the abundant good that God had bestowed upon them. This condition of the inmates of Hell is well illustrated by the parable of Abraham and Lazarus in Luke 16:23-24.

8:42.

Commentary:

The conjunction "so", placed in the beginning of the verse, indicates that the commandment, that follows it, is connected with, and is the result of, what has been said in the previous verses. As the booty taken was obtained after regular fighting and the victory came as a result of God’s help, so the booty taken in the battle and the ransom-money realized from the enemy-prisoners are both "lawful and good". God has been here spoken of as "Forgiving" because He covered up the weaknesses of Muslims and made them appear strong in the sight of the enemy; and He has been spoken of as "Merciful" because He granted Muslims a decisive victory against overwhelming odds.

18:46.

3:118.

11:69.

Important Words:

حصیدا (a field that is mown down) is derived from حصد meaning, he reaped or cut with the scythe seed-produce or plants or herbage. They say حصدھم بالسیف i.e. he mowed them down with the sword; he slew them; he exerted his utmost power or exceeded ordinary bounds in slaying them; he exterminated them with the sword. The Arab proverb من زرع الشر حصد الندامةmeans, he who sows evil reaps regret. حصید means, reaped seed-produce; grain that is reaped; seed-produce torn up and carried away by the wind; slain or mown down with the sword, like seed-produce when reaped. حصاد means, time or season of reaping; what remains on the ground after the crop has been reaped; what falls off and becomes scattered of the seed-produce (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The life of this world has been likened here to rainwater. The verse purports to say that when rain descends from heaven, it causes various kinds of vegetation to grow. Some of them are useful for man and others for animals. But man, instead of ascribing this to the favour of God, looks upon it as the fruit of his own industry and skill. When, however, in consequence of his pride and vanity, a sudden visitation from God destroys all the produce of the earth, he cannot prevent or delay its destruction, let alone possess the power to produce it which he so vaingloriously claimed to have. The moral of the parable is that when nations become proud and vain, i.e. when they take life lightly, their decline sets in and they come to grief.

Water in this verse may also be taken to stand for the word of God. In this sense, the verse would mean that the word of God brings about mighty changes in the life of those who accept and follow it and various new sciences come into existence as a result of its study and new discoveries are made in the material as well as in the spiritual world. The revelation of the Quran gave birth not only to highly spiritual and righteous men but also to eminent philosophers and scientists. But when Muslims became vain and refused to acknowledge their debt to the word of God and began to look upon themselves as the real originators and creators of all these sciences, they fell from the high pedestal of material and spiritual glory to the depths of degradation and degeneration.

Commentary:

It is extremely regrettable that although Potiphar’s wife, who wanted to entice Joseph into sin, herself openly confessed to his innocence and her women-guests also bore witness to Joseph’s piety, and though in the present verse Joseph himself says that through God’s special grace he was saved from inclining to the commission of the evil deed, yet some commentators, writing long centuries after the event, do not hesitate to accuse Joseph of feeling inclined towards that evilly-disposed woman.

Commentary:

This verse provides a very useful lesson for preachers, for it shows that a preacher should preach his message in a manner as not to tire or bore his hearers. Joseph assured the young men that he would not detain them long and would finish his discourse before their meal-time. The verse also shows how solicitous Joseph was in preaching the truth. Like Joseph, the Holy Prophet was also ever on the lookout for an opportunity to preach to the people and sometimes he had had recourse to extraordinary devices such as inviting them to a feast.

2:4; 8:4; 14:32; 27:4.

41:35.

Important Words:

وجه (favour). See 2:113, 116 & 6:53.

عقبی الدار (reward of the final abode). عقبی is derived from عقب for which see v. 7. عقبی means, end; the last or latter part or state; consequence, result or issue; recompense or requital or reward; that which is given in exchange for something (Lane).

Commentary:

The verse gives four more signs of the men endowed with understanding referred to in v. 20: (1) They observe صبر i.e. they abstain from sin, are steadfast in virtue and do not give way to impatience and wailing, which, as explained under 2:156, is the meaning of this word. They do all this with a view to winning the favour and pleasure of God, and not in the pursuit of any selfish or sectional interest, or from natural weakness i.e. their patience is not born of cowardice, but is due to a desire to please God even when they have the power to take revenge. (2) They observe Prayers regularly and with all the necessary conditions, which means that their connection with God does not lack permanence and constancy. (3) They spend out of what God has given them openly and in secret to meet the needs of the poor and the destitute. (4) They repel evil with good, which means that they do good deeds so that others may imitate their example and forsake evil. They are not content with the mere preaching of good, but themselves set a good example and thus seek to undermine evil. An alternative meaning is that they preach the doing of good, and in this way make evil die and disappear.

The words, repel evil with good, also mean that men of understanding do "good" deeds with the object of removing "evil" i.e. they neither insist on retaliation regardless of the nature of the offence or the suitability of the punishment nor do they persist in unqualified forgiveness but follow the course best suited for the eradication of evil. They resort to retaliation if it serves the purpose and to forgiveness if forgiveness is calculated to bring about the desired result. In short, they cut at the very root of "evil" by whatever method is "good" in the circumstances. The words repel evil with good, may also mean that they do not meet "evil" with "evil," but always observe justice and never forsake the path of equity and justice in dealing with evil.

The word عقبی (reward) is generally used in a good sense. The word الدار (the abode) refers to the next world; for it is the next world that is the real abode of man, the present world being only a temporary place of residence. Hence the expression لھم عقبی الدار means, "they shall have a good end in the life to come."

24:40.

2:265.

Commentary:

The words, کفروا بربھم (disbelieve in their Lord) do not mean that they deny the existence of God, for even the idolaters of Mecca believed in the existence of God. They only mean the denial of the favours or powers of God. There are people even among the so-called educated classes who believe in God but do not believe that He ever interferes in the affairs of the world. The actions of such people are wholly devoted to the furtherance of their material ends. They have no thought for God and do nothing to please Him. It is of the actions of such people that the verse says that they are null and void so far as the reward of the next world is concerned. They are like ashes upon which a furious gale blows, widely scattering them.

The words "their works" may also mean the efforts which disbelievers made in opposition to the Prophets of God, for such works invariably produce no result and come to nothing. Instead of attaining the object for which they are performed, they bring ruin and destruction in their wake, as punishment from God.

The verse should not, however, be understood to mean that no works of disbelievers will produce any result for, in conformity with the physical laws of nature, every deed done in a right way must produce its natural result. What, therefore, the verse means to say is that the works of disbelievers would fail to achieve the real object of life, which is God’s pleasure, because all their efforts are devoted to the achievement of the good of this world. On the other hand the Faithful, while reaping the fruits of their actions as a natural and inevitable result, will also win God’s pleasure, because all their works are for the sake of God.