مِّنْهُ

See 2:170; 24:22.

Important Words:

فقر (poverty). The verb فقر (faqara) means, he dug into the ground; he bored a hole into a pearl, etc.; he cut into and penetrated a thing. فقر (faqura) means, he became poor and needy. فقر (faqira) means, he had a complaint of his vertebrae. الفقر signifies, poverty; want or need; care and anxiety or disquietude of mind. فقیر of which the plural is فقراء is one who is poor and needy; also one having a complaint of the vertebrae, arising from fracture or disease (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The most handy weapon for Satan is to suggest to the people that if they spend their wealth in charity, they will become poor. But this is a most foolish suggestion; for, if people obey Satan, the result will be فقر i.e. national interests will suffer and the country will definitely decline in prosperity; and if the country declines, individuals cannot remain unaffected. Again, if we do not help our less fortunate countrymen, they will be tempted to resort to فحشاء i.e. foul and unfair means, and the community will become degraded in the eyes of others.

Two pairs of words occur in this verse and their order deserves notice. According to their significance, فضل (bounty) corresponds to فقر (poverty) and مغفرة (forgiveness or the covering of shortcomings) corresponds to فحشاء (foul or infamous conduct). Now, following the above significance of the words, the word فضل ought to have preceded the word مغفرة. But this order has not been observed in the verse, the reason being that whereas the first result of accepting Satan’s suggestion, as mentioned in the present verse, is فقر and then comes فحشاء, the first and immediate consequence of one’s spending one’s wealth in charity is مغفرة and فضل comes afterwards.

Another reason for this order is that Satan cares more for wealth than good name; hence in his case فقر precedes فحشاء. But the righteous care more for God’s forgiveness than for worldly prosperity, hence in their case the precedence of the former to the latter.

Forgiveness from Allah as promised here, signifies that not only will men deal kindly and magnanimously with those who spend their wealth in charity, but God also will deal kindly with them. If a man helps the poor, people generally connive at his faults. Similarly, God will pardon his sins and forgive his shortcomings. Nay, He will do more. He will bestow grace and bounty on him, i.e. He will make him prosper and thrive as a result of his charity. The verse also hints that if, in spite of the evil suggestions of Satan, we spend our wealth for the good of humanity, not only shall we prosper individually but also rise as a nation.

Finally God is واسع (Bountiful), hence His bounty will have no limit. He is also علیم (All-Knowing), hence He will help righteous men in ways beyond their wildest imagination.

19:20.

3:40; 4:172.

Important Words:

کلمة (word) means, a word; an expression; a proposition; a sentence; a saying; an argument; an assertion; an expression of opinion (Lane); a decree; a commandment (Mufradat). See also 2:38.

المسیح (Messiah) is derived from مسح. They say مسح الشیء i.e. he wiped off the dirt from the thing with his hand; or he passed his hand over it. مسح الشیء بالماء means he passed his hand, wetted with water, over the thing. مسحه means he anointed him or it with oil. مسح فی الارض means, he set forth journeying through the land. مسح البیت means, he compassed or went round the House of God. مسحه بالسیف means, he struck him with the sword and killed him. مسحه الله means, God created him blessed and goodly; and contrarily, God created him accursed and foul. مسیح therefore, means: (1) one anointed, i.e. wiped over with some such thing as oil; (2) a king; (3) one beautiful in the face; (4) one who journeys or travels much; (5) one very truthful; (6) one erring greatly; (7) one created blessed and goodly; (8) one created accursed and foul (Lane). المسیح الدجال means, Antichrist; one erring greatly and created accursed and foul; one travelling much, spreading false ideas. المسیح is the Arabic form of Messiah which represents the Hebrew Mashiah, i.e. anointed one (Enc. Bib. and Enc. of Rel. & Eth.)

عیسی (Jesus) is probably a Hebrew name in which it has the form الیسوع or یسوع from which the inverted Arabic form is عیسی. In Arabic, the word may be considered to have been derived from the root عیس or عوس. The word العیس means, white camels, the whiteness of whose hair is mixed with a dark shade, and these are looked upon as particularly good animals. عاس الرجل ماله means, the man managed his property well. عاس معیشته means, he improved and bettered his life (Aqrab & Lisan). Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua and Jeshua (Enc. Bib.)

ابن مریم (Son of Mary) is a surname of Jesus known in Arabic as Kunyah. Jesus has been called Ibn Maryam probably because, being born without the agency of a male parent, he could not but be known after his mother. For the word Mary see 3:43.

Commentary:

The word کلمة (word) as used in this verse requires some explanation, particularly because it has been quoted by Christian missionaries in support of the ridiculous allegation that by using it the Quran has recognized the sonship of Jesus. The occasion on which the verse was revealed would throw some light on the significance of the word.

The first 83 verses of this Surah were revealed when the Christian deputation from Najran visited Medina and had a discussion with the Holy Prophet about the status and personality of Jesus. Being silenced on other points, they asked the Holy Prophet whether the word Kalimah had been used in the Quran concerning Jesus, and, receiving a reply in the affirmative, they triumphantly shouted that they had won and rose to depart without waiting for the explanation of this much misunderstood word. The occasion and circumstances of the revelation of the relevant verses show that they were revealed not in support, but in refutation and repudiation, of the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. The words کلمة (word) and روح (mercy) occurring together in 4:172 make it clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that they have been used to destroy and repudiate the doctrine of the divinity and sonship of Jesus rather than establish it. The full verse referred to above runs as follows: O People of the Book, exceed not the limits in your religion, and say not of Allah anything but the truth. Verily the Messiah Jesus, Son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God and a fulfilment of His word (کلمة) which He sent down to Mary and mercy (روح) from Him. So believe in Allah and His Messengers and say not, 'They are three. Desist, it will be better for you; verily Allah is the only one God. Far is it from His holiness that He should have a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth, and sufficient is Allah as a guardian. The words speak for themselves.

Curiously enough, some Christian writers have asserted that the Holy Prophet did not understand the real significance of the word Kalimah. The word is Arabic; and to say that an Arab of the Holy Prophet’s knowledge and intelligence did not know its meaning or significance is simply absurd. It is a fact that neither the Holy Prophet nor any of his followers ever attached to this word any extraordinary significance which might exalt Jesus over the rest of humanity. Large numbers of Christians have accepted Islam in the past. While studying the Quran, they must have come across this word several times but none of them ever took it in the sense in which our Christian critics pretend to take it, and none of them ever believed in the godhood of Jesus on account of this expression having been used in the Quran.

The great lexicographers, the author of Tajul-‘Urus, says that Jesus has been called Kalimatullah because his words were helpful to the cause of religion. Just as a person who helps the cause of religion by his valour is called Saifullah (the Sword of God) or Asadullah (the Lion of God), so is the expression Kalimatullah. According to the same authority, Jesus was called Kalimatullah also because his birth did not take place through the agency of a male parent, but by the direct "command" of God (19:21, 22).

Besides the literal meanings given above, the Quran has used this word in the following senses: (1) "a sign" as in 66:13 and 8:8; (2) "punishment" as in 10:97; (3) "plan" or "design" as in 9:40; (4) "glad tidings" as in 7:138; (5) "creation of God" as in 31:28 and 18:110; (6) "a mere word of mouth" or "a mere assertion" as in 23:101.

Taken in any of the above senses, the word کلمة (Kalimah) in no way gives to Jesus a status higher than that of other Prophets.

Again, if Jesus has been called Kalimah (word) in the Quran, the Holy Prophet has been called Dhikr, i.e. a book or a good speech (65:11, 12), which evidently consists of many Kalimat (words). In fact, if Kalimatullah is taken in the sense of "word of God," the utmost we can say is that God expressed Himself through Jesus just as He expressed Himself through other Prophets. Words are nothing but a vehicle for the expression of thoughts. They do not form part of our being nor do they become incarnated.

The personal pronoun in the expression اسمه (his name) occurring in the verse, being in the masculine gender, evidently cannot refer to Kalimah, which is in the feminine gender. It can only refer to the person about whom the glad tidings was given. The relevant clause of the verse may, therefore, also be rendered as, "O Mary, Allah gives thee glad tidings with a word, (i.e. by means of revelation) from Him; his, (i.e. the promised one’s) name shall be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary."

Jesus has been called Masih (Messiah) in this verse and the word Masih, as given under Important Words above, means one who travels much. Jesus was given this name because he was to travel much. But if in pursuance of the Gospel narrative, Jesus’ ministry be admitted to have been confined to only three years and his travels to only a few Palestinian or Syrian towns, the title of Masih in no way fits him. Recent historical research has, however, established the fact that after having recovered from the shock and the wounds of crucifixion, Jesus travelled far and wide in the East and finally reached Kashmir to give his message to the lost tribes of Israel who lived in these parts. In this connection see also 23:51, where Jesus is spoken of as having been afforded shelter in a hilly tract of land. مسیح (Masih)also means "one anointed". As the birth of Jesus was out of the ordinary and was liable to be looked upon as illegitimate, therefore, to remove this possible accusation, he was spoken of as "being anointed" with God’s own anointment, even as all true Prophets of God are anointed. Jesus has also been so spoken of because, like a thing anointed with oil, the water of sin could not penetrate him. It could only just touch his skin but could not sink into it nor remain there (Matt. 4:1-11). In contrast to it, the high spiritual rank of the Holy Prophet of Islam may be judged from a well-known saying of his wherein he says that his Satan had turned Muslim and urged him to do nothing but good (Musnad & Muslim), meaning that not only could no satanic touch harm him but that Satan had become virtually non-existent for him. Nay, it means even more; for, the words signify that the Holy Prophet had been provided with such a powerful spiritual transformer that even satanic suggestions were converted into veritable forces of virtue in him.

The expression, of those who are granted nearness to God, also gives to Jesus no higher position than that of a righteous servant of God. All people advanced in righteousness have been spoken of in the Quran as being granted nearness to God (56:11, 12).

Commentary:

The Surah began by enjoining men and women to treat one another with kindness. Next, it exhorted believers to take care of orphans, for these matters have an important bearing upon social order. The present verse treats of yet another social subject of importance.

By the words, relations and orphans and the poor, are here meant those distant relatives, and those orphans and poor persons who, being not among the testator’s lawful heirs, are not entitled to receive any part of his property as of right. The verse, though not giving a legal right of inheritance to them, exhorts all true Muslims, while making a will about the division of their property, to set apart a portion of it for orphans and the poor and such distant relatives as are entitled to no legal share. A testator, however, can leave by will not more than one-third of his property to other than his lawful heirs (Bukhari ch. on Wasaya).

According to Ibn ‘Abbas, Ibn Musayyib, Ibn Sa‘id and Abu Ja‘far, the time referred to in the verse is when a person is about to make his will regarding the division of his property (Muhit). If nothing can be spared out of the property for this class of people, the testator should at least state in the will that they should be treated with kindness and he himself should also say kind words to them. The injunction laid down in the verse does not concern orphans particularly, but forms a part of the law of inheritance in general. As death leaves behind orphans, therefore, injunctions pertaining to orphans have been coupled with those pertaining to the disposal of a deceased person’s property.

4:25, 26; 60:11.

Important Words:

صدقات (dowries) which is the plural of صدقة (saduqah) and not صدقة (sadaqah), as might be wrongly supposed, is derived from صدق. They say صدق فی الحدیث i.e. he was true in his speech, or he spoke the truth, or he spoke truthfully. صدق فی القتال means, he fought well: he gave a good account of himself in the fight; he was true to his duty in the fight. صدق فی الوعدmeans, he was truthful in his promise. The expression صدقه النصیحة والاخاء means, he was sincere to him in his advice and brotherly affection. See also 2:32. صدقة (sadaqah) of which the plural is صدقات (sadaqat) means, anything given to win the pleasure of God and a good reward from Him; alms and charity; Zakah, i.e. the prescribed tax of Islam for helping the poor, etc. صدقة (saduqah) of which the plural is صدقات (saduqat) as in the present verse, means, dowry or nuptial gift a gift that is given to or for a bride (Lane & Aqrab). Another word for it is صداق (or مھر) which Islam prescribes for every marriage tie, making it binding on the husband to pay to his wife. It is so called because it is a symbol of truthfulness and sincerity on the part of the husband.

نحلة (willingly) is derived from نحل. The expression نحل المراة means, he gave his wife her مھر or dowry. They say نحل فلانا i.e. he gave such a one willingly and cheerfully without expecting a return. نحلة means, giving a thing willingly and cheerfully without expecting a return; payment of the dowry to a wife; a free gift. نحلة is distinguishable from ھبة (a free gift) in that everyھبة is نحلة but every نحلة is not ھبة (Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

The verse may be taken to be addressed to both the husband and the relations of the wife. In the latter case, it would mean that the relations of a woman should not spend her dowry received from the husband to meet their own needs, but should faithfully hand it over to her. Some persons receive the dowry of their female wards from their husbands and then, instead of giving it to them, keep it for themselves. Primarily, however, the verse is addressed to the husband whom it requires to pay the agreed dowry to his wife willingly, cheerfully and without demur. Some people fix dowries for their wives and then hesitate or even refuse to pay them, expecting them and even urging them to forego the right. The verse condemns this evil practice.

The word نحلة (paying the dowry willingly and cheerfully) also points to the amount of the dowry being reasonable it should be well within the means of the husband so that its payment may not be a painful burden to him. He should be in a position to pay it willingly and cheerfully.

The clause, if they, of their own pleasure, remit to you a part thereof, applies to those wives who voluntarily and willingly give up or pay back anything out of the agreed dowry. It does not apply to a case in which the wife is asked or made to relinquish the whole or part of the dowry before it has been actually paid to her. According to ‘Umar, a woman might claim back her dowry even after she has given it up, if she has done so under any vestige of pressure.

The words, then enjoy it as something pleasant and wholesome, imply a compliment to such husbands as evoke a willing and voluntary response from their wives owing to their kind and loving treatment of them. In such cases the wives are so pleased with their husbands that they offer to them a part of their dowry out of their own free will, as a token of the true love that exists between them.

Commentary:

This verse further explains and emphasizes the distinction between the "sitters" at home without valid excuse and the "strivers" in the cause of God. The latter are not only superior to the former by "many degrees", but are much more entitled to God’s mercy and forgiveness.

10:37; 53:29.

Important Words:

ماقتلوہ (they slew him not). قتله means, he slew him by striking him with a sword or with a stone or by poison or by any other means. See also 2:62 & 4:158.

ماقتلوہ یقینا (they did not convert this conjecture into certainty) is a peculiar Arabic idiom. The Arabs say قتل الشیء خبرا (lit. he killed the thing with certainty of knowledge and proper examination), i.e. he acquired full and thorough knowledge of the thing so as to dispel all possibility of doubt. So the words ما قتلوہ یقینا would mean, their knowledge regarding it was not comprehensive, or they did not know it for certain that he had been killed, or they did not convert this (conjecture of theirs) into certainty, meaning that they were not sure and they did not make sure whether Jesus died on the cross or not. In this case, the pronoun in قتلوہ would refer to the noun ظن (a conjecture) immediately preceding it (Lane, Aqrab, Mufradat & Lisan).

In plain English, the words would mean that their knowledge about the death of Jesus on the cross was not so full and comprehensive as to have attained the stage of certainty. The expression may also mean that they certainly did not slay him or that they did not kill him as a certainty, i.e. they did not execute him in such a way as definitely assure themselves that life had indeed become extinct in him.

ما صلبوه (nor crucified him). The word صلبوا is from the root صلب. They say صلب الشیء i.e. he burned the thing. صلب العظامmeans, he extracted the marrow out of the bones. صلب اللص means, he crucified the thief, i.e. he put him to death in a certain well-known manner (Lane & Aqrab). In crucifixion one was nailed to a framework made in the form of a cross and, being kept without food and drink, slowly died of pain, hunger, fatigue and exposure.

شبه لھم (he was made to appear to them like one crucified). شبھه إیاہ means, he made it or him to be like it or him, or he made it or him to resemble it or him. شبه علیه الامر means, the matter was rendered confused, obscure or dubious to him. شبه علیه الامرmeans, he rendered the matter confused to him (by making it to appear like some other thing); he rendered it confused, obscure or dubious to him (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

This and the preceding verse mention two main objections of the Jews against Jesus: (1) his alleged illegitimate birth, and (2) his supposed death on the cross which, according to Jewish Law, was an accursed death (Deut. 21:23). The words, We did kill the Messiah, Jesus, Son of Mary—the Messenger of Allah, are spoken ironically and tauntingly, meaning, "we have killed Jesus who posed as the Messiah and a Messenger of God."

The argument of the Jews was that because Jesus died on the cross, he could not be a true Prophet according to Jewish Law. The inference was based on their sacred Scriptures; for, according to the Bible, he who is hanged is accursed of God, and a false Prophet shall meet with destruction. Says the Bible: "His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance' (Deut. 21:23). Again: "My hand shall be upon false prophets that see vanity, and that divine lies" (Ezek. 13:9). Again: "Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the prophets that prophesy in My name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land, by sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed" (Jer. 14:15).

On the strength of such verses of the Bible, the Jews claimed that, as Jesus had been crucified and met with destruction, he could not be a true Prophet of God, but was a false claimant and an accursed one.

Regarding the charge about the alleged death of Jesus by crucifixion, the Quran says that the act of crucifixion having not been completed, and Jesus having been taken down alive from the cross, the charge carries no weight. It should, however, be noted that the Quran does not deny the mere hanging of Jesus on the cross; it only denies his death on it.

Two different views prevail among the Jews regarding Jesus’ alleged death by crucifixion. Some of them hold that Jesus was first killed and then his dead body was hung on the cross, while others are of the view that he was put to death by being fixed to the cross. The former view is reflected in Acts, 5:30 where we read "which ye slew and hanged on a tree." The Quran refutes both these views by saying, they slew him not, nor crucified him. The words may also signify that the Quran first rejects the slaying of Jesus in any form, and then proceeds to deny the particular way of killing by hanging on the cross.

The verb شبه (in the passive voice) means, he was made to appear like, or was made to resemble. Now the question arises, who is the person who was made to appear "like one crucified." Clearly, it was Jesus whom the Jews tried to crucify or slay. Nobody else can be meant here, for there is absolutely no reference to any other person in the context. Hence, the theory invented by certain commentators that Judas or somebody else was made to appear like Jesus and was then crucified in his place is simply absurd. The context cannot be so twisted as to make room for somebody else of whom no mention at all is made in the verse.

To what then was Jesus made like? The context provides a clear answer to that question. The Jews did not kill him by crucifixion, but he was made to appear to them like "one crucified", and thus it was that they wrongly took him for dead. It was thus Jesus who was made to resemble "one crucified." This interpretation is not only in perfect harmony with the context, but is also clearly borne out by all relevant facts of history.

The second meaning of the expression شبه لھم is, as explained under Important Words, that "the matter became confused to them." This interpretation is also clearly borne out by history; for, although the Jews asserted that they had put Jesus to death by suspending him on the cross, they were not sure of it and the circumstances being obscure, the matter had certainly become confused to them. The fact that the Jews themselves were not sure whether Jesus had actually died on the cross is supported by the Bible and by all authentic historical facts.

The statements made in this verse are clearly substantiated by the following facts narrated in the Gospels:

(1) Jesus had himself predicted his escape from death on the cross, saying, "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matt. 12:40). Now it is an accepted fact that Jonah had entered the whale’s belly alive and had come out alive; so, according to his own prophecy, Jesus was to enter the heart of the earth, (i.e. his tomb) alive and was to come out of it alive.

(2) The trying magistrate (Pilate) believed Jesus to be innocent and, being sympathetic, was anxious to save his life (Matt. 27:17, 18; Mark 15:9, 10, 14; Luke 23:4, 14, 15, 20,22; John 18:38, 39); and he must have secretly tried to save him or at least connived at the attempt of others to do so.

(3) Pilate’s wife had seen a vision concerning the innocence of Jesus: "When he (Pilate) was set down on the judgement seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, 'Have thou nothing to do with that just man, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him'" (Matt. 27:19). This message must certainly have influenced Pilate, and his wife must have also done her best to save Jesus.

(4) Pilate held the killing of Jesus in such horror that he actually washed his hands with water, saying that he was innocent of the blood of that just man (Matt. 27:24).

(5) Pilate did all he could to help Jesus; and the soldiers in charge also treated Jesus with kindness, apparently under Pilate’s directions. The following are some of the special favours shown to Jesus: (a) Every malefactor carried his own cross but another man was made to carry that of Jesus (Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:21); (b) Jesus was given wine or vinegar mingled with myrrh. This was intended to render him less sensible to pain. The two thieves who were crucified with him were not given this drink. When after sometime the effects of the drink were wearing off and Jesus cried with pain, the drink was administered again to render him unconscious of pain (Matt. 27:34, 48; Mark 15:23, 36; John 19:29, 30).

(6) The unconsciousness which followed the administration of vinegar was mistaken for death (John 19:30).

(7) Jesus remained on the cross for only about three hours (John 19:14. cf. Matt. 27:46) and according to Mark only for six hours (Mark 15:25, 33), and either of these periods was by no means sufficient to kill a young man like Jesus on the cross.

(8) When Joseph of Arimathaea came and craved the body of Jesus, Pilate "marvelled if he were already dead", and calling to him the centurion asked him whether he had been any while dead (Mark, 15:44).

(9) The soldiers did not break the legs of Jesus, but the legs of the two malefactors who had been crucified with him were broken (John 19:32, 33).

(10) Jesus was not buried in the earth with the two malefactors but was laid separately in a spacious sepulchre hewn out of a rock and situated in a garden which was private property (Mark 15:46; John 19:41, 42).

(11) The Jews themselves were not sure that Jesus was dead; for they came to Pilate and besought him that his legs be broken (John 19:31).

(12) The doubt that Jesus was alive and might, with the aid of his sympathizers, escape from the sepulchre rankled in the minds of the Jews. They remembered also the prophecy of Jesus that he would show them the miracle of Jonah and would come out of the heart of the earth alive. So, influenced by such misgivings, the chief priests and Pharisees went together to Pilate, saying, "Sir, we remember that the deceiver said, while he was yet alive—'After three days I will rise again.'—Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day. Pilate told them to make their own arrangements; "so they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone and setting a watch" (Matt. 27:62-66).

(13) In spite of the watch and despite the sealing of the stone, Jesus had left the sepulchre before the third day had dawned, when Mary Magdalene and Mary, mother of James, came to see the sepulchre and found the stone rolled away and the sepulchre empty (Matt. 28:1-6 Mark 16:1-6), which shows that the men set to watch were also in league with, and won over by, the friends of Jesus.

(14) After leaving the sepulchre, Jesus moved about secretly, lest the Jews should have him arrested again (Mark 16:12 John 20:19, 26; 21:4).

(15) Mary Magdalene and other disciples actually saw Jesus in this body of clay (Mark 16:9, 12).

(16) Jesus showed them his wounds to assure them that he was not a spirit but a man of flesh and blood and that the body they saw before them was the same physical body that had been nailed to the cross (Luke 24:39, 40; John 20:27).

(17) After leaving the sepulchre, Jesus felt hungry and partook of food with his disciples (John 21:5, 13; Luke 24:41, 42, 43).

The above references among others make it abundantly clear that Jesus did not die on the cross, that he was alive when he was taken down from the cross, and also when he was laid in the sepulchre, and that he came out of it alive on the third day at early morn, as he had himself prophesied, and that later he appeared to his disciples in secret and assured them that he was not dead.

(18) Jesus had said, "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice and there shall be one fold and one shepherd" (John 10:16). In these words he was obviously referring to the lost ten tribes of Israel who had scattered in Afghanistan, Kashmir, etc. In search of these Jesus came to the East after his miraculous escape from an accursed death on the cross, and among these he now lies buried in Khan Yar Street in Srinagar Kashmir. Conclusive historical evidence has established the fact that the holy occupant of the tomb in the Khan Yar Street in Srinagar is no other than Jesus, son of Mary. For further discussion of this important subject, see Masih Hindustan Meiń (Jesus in India) by the Promised Messiah, and R. Rel. Vol. II Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 published from Qadian, and the "Tomb of Jesus" by Dr M. M. Sadiq of Qadian.

5:78.

58:23.

5:74.

2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 112:4, 5.

Important Words:

کلمته (His word). کلمة has been used in the Quran in different senses:(1) good tiding (e.g. 37:171, 172); (2) warning of coming punishment (e.g. 39:20); (3) a thing or being created without the instrumentality of any physical means, i.e. by the Will of God expressed by saying "Be" (e.g. 3:46-48); (4) a Sign (e.g. 18:110); (5) a message (e.g. 3:65); (6) a design; (e.g.9:40); (7) a word or saying (e.g. 23:101). See also 3:46.

روح (mercy) is derived from راح i.e. it became cool and pleasant; he was brisk, lively, active, prompt or quick. روح means, soul or spirit; the subtle substance in man which is the principle of vitality and of sensation and of voluntary motion; the breath which a man breathes and which pervades the whole body, after the exit of which he ceases to breathe; Divine revelation or inspiration; the Quran; angel; joy and happiness; mercy (Lane).

Commentary:

From the above-mentioned different meanings of روح and کلمة becomes clear that no higher spiritual status can be assigned to Jesus than to the other Prophets, on account of the word روح or کلمة having been used about him in the Quran. These and similar expressions have been used in the Quran about other Prophets also and even about persons who were not Prophets, such as Mary and the children of Adam (see 58:23; 15:30; 32:10; 21:92). It may be noted here that the words روح منه (mercy from Him) do not mean that the روح formed a part of the Divine Being but that it was only a gift of God. The expression منه (from Him) has been used in the Quran in this sense in 45:14.

In fact, the Quran uses these words about Jesus because foul charges were brought against him and his mother, Mary, by the Jews. These words are thus meant to exculpate and exonerate him from those charges and not to deify him. The Quranlends no support whatsoever to the absurd and unfounded view that Jesus was anything higher than a human being. He was human and of the earth, and yet a Messenger of God (e.g. 43:60; 19:31).

The verse refers to the three alleged persons of the Trinity, i.e. the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and condemns Trinity, declaring Allah alone to be the one true God, and the Messiah and the Holy Spirit as only the servants of God and in no way sharers in Godhead.

3:102; 4:147.

Commentary:

The words, hold fast to Him, imply a forceful exhortation to Christians not to take Jesus as a deity but to look upon, and hold fast to, God alone as the means of their salvation and advancement.

2:186.

Important Words:

جنب (unclean) for which see 4:44.

Commentary:

After the questions of food and marriage comes the question of cleanliness on which Islam lays so much emphasis, specially on clean­liness necessary for the proper performance of worship. The feet are here mentioned after the head, not because they are intended, as alleged by the Shias, to be only wiped like the head, but because they come last in the process of ablution. This is apparent from the fact that the word ارجل (feet) has been put in the accusative case in the standard text, like the words وجوه (faces) and ایدی (hands), thus showing that, like the latter, the word "feet" is also governed in the accusative case by the verb اغسلوا (wash) and not by the particle با (over) which governs the word رؤس (heads) only. Hence the addition of the verb "wash" before it in the translation. It is true that a solitary reading gives the word ارجل(arjula) as ارجل (arjulin in the genitive case). But even this does not necessarily mean that the word is not governed by the verb اغسلوا (wash); for, according to the rules of Arabic grammar, nouns in the accusative case may sometimes be put in the genitive case owing to their proximity to a noun in the genitive case. According to this rule, ارجل (feet) would be taken to have been put in this reading in the genitive case owing to its proximity to the word رؤس (heads), but really it is governed not by the preposition با but by the verb اغسلوا. In fact, the word ارجل (feet) has been put after رؤس (heads) to point out the order which is to be observed in the performance of ablution. The authentic sayings of the Holy Prophet also make it clear that in performing an ablution the feet should be washed and not merely wiped. These sayings are also supported by the practice of the Holy Prophet.

There are, however, cases when the feet are not to be washed but simply "wiped" like the heads, e.g., when one is wearing socks or stockings. So it may be that the common reading arjula (in the accusative case) applies to the general rule of "washing" the feet when performing وضوء (ablution), while the exceptional reading arjuli (in the genitive case) applies to the exceptional cases when the feet are to be "wiped" like the head.

The words, you have touched women, embody a chaste and graceful expression and mean "you have had sexual intercourse with them".

The sense of the verse may be summed up as follows: (1) Before offering his Prayers, a Muslim should perform the prescribed ablution, i.e.washing of the face and the hands, wiping of the head, and washing of the feet. (2) If a man is جنب (unclean), i.e. he has had sexual intercourse with his wife or, for that matter, has had a nocturnal discharge, he should have a complete bath in order to purify himself for Prayers. (3) If, however, a man is sick and the process of ablution or bathing is likely to do him harm, or if he is on a journey and cannot find water, then even after answering the call of nature or becoming "unclean" by having sexual intercourse with his wife, he is allowed to forego the process of ablution or bathing and to perform instead the تیمم with pure dust. See also 4:44.

6:52; 19:98; 25:2.

Commentary:

This verse is addressed to each and every believer, and not particularly to the Holy Prophet. The believers are told that the Quran is God’s own revelation and not the outcome of the Prophet’s mind, and since it is the revealed Word of the All-Knowing God, they should feel no straitness or hesitance in acting upon its injunctions and preaching them to others.

15:33-34; 38:76-77.

Commentary:

What is represented in the present verse as a dialogue between God and Iblis does not necessarily show that an exchange of words actually took place between the two. The words may only depict a state of things, a picture of the conditions that came into existence as a result of the refusal of Iblis to submit to Adam. The verb قال (said) as shown under 2:31 and 2:34 does not always signify the actual uttering of words, being sometimes used to represent only a state of affairs.

For an explanation of the words "fire" and "clay" see 2:81 and 3:50.

3:155.

Important Words:

رجز (filth) is derived from رجز. They say رجز الناقة i.e. the she-camel had the disease of convulsive motion in the legs or thighs. رجزت الریح means, the wind was continuous or lasting. رجز means, commotion or agitation or convulsion; consecutiveness of motion; punishment that agitates by its vehemence and occasions vehement consecutive commotions; conduct that leads to punishment; sin; uncleanness or filth; polytheism or worship of idols; the Devil and his suggestions; plague or pestilence (Lane).

Commentary:

Before a battle, especially an important one, begins, there is generally great uneasiness and disquietude among the contestants; their hearts throb with anxiety, and sleep vanishes. So the verse mentions the coming of sleep on the battlefield of Badr as a sign of God’s favour. God caused sleep to come upon Muslims with the result that their anxiety was removed, that they were inspired with a feeling of confidence and security and that it had a soothing effect on their minds. This mental state proved highly helpful and materially contributed to their success.

The second favour mentioned in the verse pertains to the falling of rain. God caused rain to fall, which, as the verse points out, served four useful purposes: Firstly, it purified the Muslims because, seeing this token of God’s help, their faith in God was strengthened, with the result that their hearts, being filled with faith, were purified. Secondly, it dispelled from them the filth of Satan, i.e. thirst. In the Quran, thirst has been figuratively described as a pang due to Satan or the Devil; for instance, it is related that when Job was stricken with the pangs of thirst, he prayed to God, saying: Satan has smitten me with affliction and torment (38:42), whereupon God accepted his prayer, saying: Strike thy riding beast with thy foot. Here is cool water to wash with and a drink (38:43). So the removal of “the filth of Satan” signifies removal of thirst or the pangs of extreme thirst. The word "Satan" may also signify "those who are of Satan," i.e. the friends or associates of Satan. Taken in this sense, the clause would mean: "God dispelled from you the attack of the wicked people," the hint being that the rain proved a means of dispelling the attack of the Quraish, inasmuch as it rendered the hard ground occupied by the Meccan army slippery, thus preventing the enemy from making a successful attack on the Muslims. Thirdly, the rain strengthened the hearts of the Faithful. This was due to their faith being reinforced by witnessing signs of God’s special assistance. Fourthly, the rain helped to make the steps of the Muslims firm for, as mentioned in books of history, the ground occupied by the Muslims was sandy, so the rain made it hard, and the Muslims were able to tread it with firm steps. All these factors contributed to the success of the Muslims.

The reader should note the beautiful order in the words of this verse. It begins with the purification of the heart (the first purpose served by the rain) and ends with the establishing of the steps and making them firm (the fourth purpose served by the rain), i.e. the favour of God descended on the heart and then, as it were, travelled down to the feet.

3:16; 5:13; 9:72; 10:10; 57:21.

5:104.

Commentary:

In v. 58, it was stated that the Holy Prophet has been given a Book which possesses the power to remove doubts and misgivings. In proof of this claim the Quran in the present verse refers to a rule of conduct which people before Islam observed with regard to eatables, merely because it came to them from their forefathers, though reason revolted against it. Eating and drinking is one of the primary needs of mankind and it is the first duty of a religion to guide men in this respect. Before the advent of Islam, however, the world possessed no right guidance on this subject. Men followed no fixed principle or law, declaring one thing lawful and another unlawful as they desired. It stands to reason, however, that there should be some medical, moral or religious grounds for the declaration of some things as lawful and others as unlawful. An arbitrary classification into clean and unclean things without valid reason is to belie God’s creation. There are sure to arise doubts in the minds of men with regard to such arbitrary classification, and only that religion can successfully remove such doubts which lays down and expounds definite laws and regulations with regard to eatables. Islam has clearly done that. So it excels other religions in this respect also that it has laid down definite laws and regulations according to which things belonging to a certain category are treated as lawful and clean and those belonging to another category as unlawful and unclean, and has not laid down its teachings in an arbitrary manner.

2:120; 5:20; 7:189; 25:57; 34:29; 35:25.

Commentary:

The words, you should worship none but Allah, apparently show God to be selfish and standing in need of man’s worship. Nothing can be farther from truth than such an idea. God needs no worship from man. On the contrary, it is man himself who needs the worship of God for his own moral and spiritual benefit (29:7 & 49:18), because worship does not consist merely in certain outward acts but extends to all those spiritual strivings which help to make man reflect in his person Divine attributes. In fact, as the Arabic word عبادة (worship) means full and total obedience and submission to God’s will, it is clear that one who obeys God with thorough submissiveness and humility of heart and follows the will of his Creator fully and completely will not fail to imbibe Divine attributes and attain to the highest spiritual stature. This is something in which lies man’s own good. God gains nothing from it. The mention in the Bible of man having been created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27) also points to the same great truth, i.e. that man has been created so that he may develop in himself the attributes of God. The words of the Bible must not, however, be taken literally, for God is free from all form.

The injunction to worship God alone means that God should always be kept in view, because the complete picture of an object can be drawn only when that object is held constantly before the eye. Hence, worship means constant viewing of the attributes of God and the imprinting of them on the mind. It is clear that in so doing we benefit ourselves alone and do no good to God. A saying of the Holy Prophet also corroborates the above conception of worship. When asked what عبادة(worship) meant, he is reported to have replied that it meant that one should worship God as if one was actually seeing Him, i.e. that different attributes of God should stand embodied before the mind’s eye (Bukhari, ch. on Iman).

The Holy Prophet was a نذیر (Warner) in the sense that he cautioned and warned men to be on their guard against following evil ways and shunning good ones. And he was a بشیر (bearer of glad tidings) inasmuch as he pointed to them the way and provided for them the means of attaining both spiritual bliss and material prosperity.

47:15.

46:11; 61:7.

2:148; 10:95.

Commentary:

This verse embodies three important criteria by which the truth of the Quran and that of the Holy Prophet can be tested, and declares that he who satisfies these three criteria cannot be an impostor.

There are three classes of men whom a Divine Message can possibly concern:(1) the contemporaries of a Messenger of God, to whom the Message is directly addressed; (2) the generations yet unborn who are to receive the Message in the future; (3) the past generations to whom their Prophet gave the news that a Messenger was to come. If these three classes of witnesses bear testimony to the truth of a claimant to prophethood, there can remain no doubt about his truth. The faith of the last-mentioned class of people, i.e. those who expect the advent of a Messenger of God, has its basis in past prophecies about his advent, while the first-mentioned class, i.e. the contemporaries of a claimant, judge his claim (a) by the touchstone whether he possesses in his own person any proof which testifies to his truth, or (b) by the prophecies of earlier Scriptures about the advent of a Divine Messenger. Lastly, there is the second class of people, i.e. those yet unborn who in their time look upon the signs witnessed by the contemporaries of a claimant as mere stories, and confine their scrutiny to the change brought about by the claimant—the fruit of his reformatory efforts. In fact, succeeding generations attach more importance to the fruits of the labours of a Divine Messenger and to the results of his mission than to anything else. If his Message continues to bear fruit down to their time, they come to realize that it is a truly useful thing and concerns them as much as it did past generations.

In point of importance, pride of place belongs to internal evidence, that is, the evidence which a claimant possesses in his own person, because such evidence serves as a clear proof not only for the contemporaries of the claimant but also for the generations to come and because it relieves seekers after truth of the trouble of turning to other things for guidance, it being in itself a sufficient proof of the truth of the claimant. This kind of proof is referred to in the words, Can he who possesses a clear proof from his Lord be an impostor?

The second evidence, which is also second in importance, of the truth of a Divine claimant pertains to the results produced by his Message and the fruits of his labours; for in the absence of this evidence, the practical value of a Message claimed to be Divine becomes doubtful in the eyes of later generations. In fact, the intrinsic truth of a Message does not constitute a sufficient incentive for acting upon it. It has to be shown that it is also meant for the recipient and for the age in which he lives and that it has not been superseded by a later Message. The fact that a Message continues to bear fruit suffices to establish the fact that it is as practicable and as useful at present as it was in the past. This kind of evidence is referred to in the words, and a witness from Him shall follow him.

Last in point of importance is the evidence which relates to prophecies holding hope of a future reformer and a future Message. The evidence of such prophecies is also useful, for it keeps the minds of men prepared for the acceptance of the Message, although naturally only those people benefit by it in whose time the expected Message actually makes its appearance. This kind of evidence is hinted at in the words, and who was preceded by the Book of Moses, a guide and a mercy.

All these three kinds of evidence have been adduced in this verse in support of the Holy Prophet and the Quranic Message. The Quran possesses strong internal evidence of its Divine origin; the Scriptures that preceded it bear clear witness to its truth; and it was also to bear fruit in the future in a way that nobody could have any reasonable ground to reject it. Similarly, the Holy Prophet who brought this Message also possesses this triple evidence which clearly proves him to be a true Messenger of God.

The words, a witness from Him (God) shall follow him (the Holy Prophet), also point to the appearance of a great Reformer in the Latter Days who was to come as "a witness" to bear testimony to the truth of the Holy Prophet. It is worth noting that the person who was to appear after the Holy Prophet to bear testimony to his truth has been called a شاھد (a witness) and it is evident that a witness is needed only when the continued practicability and usefulness of a Message is called in question. It is evident, therefore, that after the advent of the Holy Prophet a Messenger was needed only at a time when there should arise about the Quran the question whether it was still worthy of being acted upon. It is well known that such a question never arose about the Quran during the last 1350 years, and it is only in the present time that doubts have begun to be expressed about this claim of the Quran with persistence from all quarters. There is a section of Muslims themselves who hold the view that some teachings of the Quran, particularly with regard to the five daily Prayers, the amputation of the hands of a thief, polygamy, purdah, usury, etc., need alteration or amendment. Then there are the followers of claimants like Baha’ullah, who believe that the Law of Islam has become abrogated and they seek to introduce a new Law in its place. Last of all, the so-called higher critics of the west question the authenticity of some historical facts mentioned in the Quran as well as the practicability of some of its teachings. Such a state of affairs never existed before the present age and therefore, truly speaking, no "witness" was needed before now.

The words منه (from Him) in the expression, a witness from Him, clearly show that the promised witness was to be a heavenly Messenger. This heavenly Messenger is Ahmad, the Promised Messiah, Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement,who appeared at a time when the teachings of Islam had begun openly to be declared unpractical and impracticable and the object of whose advent was to bear witness to the truth of Islam by means of clear proofs and fresh heavenly signs.

It should also be remembered that the words, a witness from Him shall follow him, promised the appearance of a person who was to invite men to accept and follow the Quran and not of one who was to abrogate its teachings. Thus, incidentally, the verse furnishes an irrefutable argument against the claims of Baha’ullah.

The third evidence in support of the truth of the Quran and of the Holy Prophet lies in the fact that their advent was predicted by previous Prophets. The Book of Moses forms the most conspicuous example of it. It contains clear prophecies about the Holy Prophet and the Quran. Among others, the reader is referred to Deut. 18:18.

The Book of Moses is here called "a guide" because it serves as a guide to the truth of Islam. It is "a mercy" in the sense that it has made it easy for men to accept the truth in four different ways: (1) by means of prophecies which point to the truth of the Holy Prophet; (2) by laying down criteria by means of which the truth of a Prophet can be tested; (3) by enabling men to compare the teachings of the two Books; and (4) by helping to explain the fundamentals of the Law.

The word احزاب (opposing parties) generally signifies the parties that oppose the Prophets. As the Holy Prophet was raised for the whole of mankind, the words would here signify the followers of all the religions of the world other than Islam.

The words, be not thou in doubt about it, are addressed to the reader and not to the Holy Prophet. These words are preceded by the words, those who consider these matters believe therein, to point out that as there has already come into existence a party of men who believe in the Quran and the Holy Prophet, it is highly unreasonable to think that, whereas the evidences mentioned above have succeeded in bringing into existence a party of firm believers, the Prophet himself to whom those evidences were revealed should remain in doubt about their Divine origin. These words, therefore, cannot be said to have been addressed to the Holy Prophet. They are undoubtedly addressed to each and every reader of the Quran.

41:46.

Commentary:

Towards the end of the Surah the Quran reverts to the theme with which it began and declares that God continued to send down His word in the ages so that people might benefit by it but they always failed to do so. God gave a book to Moses and that book spoke of another book (i.e. the Quran) which was to be revealed later, but people raised doubts about it and did not pause to think that their attitude would produce grave results.

The words, Surely the matter would have been decided between them long before, mean that so serious was their guilt that if there had not been a decree pre-ordained, that mankind had been created for spiritual progress by becoming the object of Divine mercy (7:157; 11:120; 51:57), they would have long been destroyed.

2:23; 6:100; 13:18; 16:66; 22:64

Commentary:

The Arabs were the first addressees of the Quran and in Arabia water is very scarce. So they have been told in this verse that water which is the source of all life and which brings out food and vegetation for them and their cattle is indeed a great gift of God. And, repeating the argument embodied in the preceding verse, the present verse goes on to say that when God has made ample provision for the physical needs of man, He could not have neglected to provide for his spiritual needs. Also that when man very gladly accepts and uses all the physical provisions made for him, why should he decline to make similar use of God’s spiritual gifts?

The expression لکم (for you) in the verse points to the truth that the whole universe has been created for the service of man because he is the acme and end of all creation. So it is really very strange that God should have omitted to fix a great object for man’s creation or should have neglected to provide means for the fulfilment of that object. This subject has been further developed in the next verse.

7:179; 17:98; 39:37-38.

Important Words:

تزاور (move away) is in reality تتزاور which is derived from تزاور (tazawara) which again is derived from زار. They say زارہi.e. he visited him. ازورعنه (izwarra) or تزاورعنه (tazawara) means, he declined or turned aside from it (Lane & Aqrab).

تقرض (turn away) is derived from قرض . They say قرضه i.e. he cut it. قرضت الوادی means, I passed through or across the valley.قرض المکان means, he turned aside or away from the place. The Quranic expression واذا غربت تقرضھم ذات الشمال means, when it set to leave them behind on the left; to pass by and beyond them leaving them on its left; to turn aside or away from them on the left (Lane & Aqrab).

فجوة (spacious hollow) is derived from فجا. They say فجا الباب i.e. he opened the door. فجا رجلیه means, he parted his legs wide or straddled to make water. فجوة means, an opening or intervening space or an intermediate wide space between two things; a wide tract or a wide or depressed tract of land; the court or yard of a house; the part between the two sides of the solid hoof (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The verse describes the position of the Cave. It appears that the people referred to above lived in very high regions in the north, and the Cave was so situated that it faced north-west, for the sun passes a place which has its face to the north from right to left.

The word فجوة (spacious hollow) shows that the Cave covered a vast area. The catacombs at Rome which still exist confirm this view. They enclose a vast area, which has been estimated variously as extending over as many as 870 miles. It also appeals that the catacombs admitted very little light. The Cave was made in such a way as to serve as a hiding place. St. Jerome who visited the catacombs in the 4th century says, "It is all so dark that the language of the Prophet (Ps. 55.15) seems to be fulfilled, 'let them go down quick into Hell'. Only occasionally is light let in to mitigate the horror of the gloom, and then not so much through a window as through a hole" (Enc. Brit., 11th edition, vol. 5, p. 491).

By pointing to the position of the Cave which faced northward, God intended to warn Muslims that they had an enemy in northern regions about whom they should particularly be on their guard. Muslims disregarded this timely warning and fell easy victims to the machinations of their enemy. Instead of presenting a united front they fell out among themselves and facilitated his task. The intrigues of the Abbasids of Baghdad and their unseemly approaches to the Byzantine Empire of Constantinople for help on the one hand and the intrigues of the Moors in Spain with the Vatican on the other, led to their progressive decline and ultimate destruction. The solidarity of Islam suffered a fatal blow from these internal dissensions.

2:260; 23:113-114.

Commentary:

Like its predecessor this verse also speaks not of early Christians who took shelter in "the cave" but of the Christian nations of the west after they had spread all over the world. The words, "We raised them up", refer to the great progress which these nations were destined to make in future. It is a peculiarity of the Quranic style that it uses the past tense for events which are to take place in future in order to emphasize the inevitability and certainty of their occurrence. The words mean to say that the day is sure to come when God will bring about an awakening among these people who are now asleep.

The words, one of them said; How long have you tarried, signify that Christian nations would begin to feel that it was now time for them to bestir themselves and shake off their lethargy. This awakening took place in the time of the Crusades when the Monarchs of England, France and Germany made common cause and the whole of Europe combined to make a concerted attack upon Muslims to wrest the Holy Land from their hands.

The expression, یوما او بعض یوم i.e. a day or part of a day, does not mean that the Dwellers of the Cave were not certain as to how long they remained asleep. According to Arabic idiom the expression denotes an indefinite period of time. Elsewhere the Quran has specified as one thousand years the period for which Christian nations of the west remained in a state of sleep or inactivity. In vv. 20:103,104 we have, The day when the trumpet will be blown. And on that day We shall gather the sinful together blue-eyed. They will talk to one another in a low tone: You tarried only ten days, The words "ten days" here stand for ten centuries and the word زرقا (blue-eyed) clearly refers to the peoples of the west who generally have blue eyes. It is a well-known historical fact that the foundations of British power in the east were laid in the beginning of the seventeenth century, in about 1611 A.D., when a British commercial company was allowed to open its first industrial concern in Surat and began to do business in the Bay of Bengal (March of Man, published by Enc. Brit. Society). This period approximates to one thousand years after the Holy Prophet began to preach his Mission in 611 A. D. The secret of the British power in subsequent centuries lay in their success in obtaining a foothold in the East. Other European nations only followed in the wake of the British people.

The word طعاما (provisions) in the verse under comment does not mean 'cooked food' as is generally misunderstood. It possesses a much wider significance and may mean, wheat, barley, millet, dates or other articles of food (Lane). The words, and let him bring you provisions thereof, refer to the import of Indian articles of food, especially wheat, by European countries for about 200 years. European businessmen had a special knack of being gentle and courteous in their commercial dealings. To this characteristic of theirs the expression ولیتلطف (and let him be courteous) refers.

The words, and let him not inform any one about you, refer to the quiet and unobtrusive penetration of Western influence in the East, particularly in India—the undivided India of pre-Partition days.

Commentary:

Singular number of the verbs اتت and تظلم shows that the two gardens were, in reality, two parts of one and the same garden.

The words, and failed not the least therein, indicate that these were not gardens in the literal sense of the word but gardens in a metaphorical sense because it is against the laws of nature that trees should continue to yield abundant fruits in many consecutive seasons. But the trees of the gardens mentioned in this verse yielded fruits uniformly in abundance. This shows that they were gardens in the metaphorical sense only.

Commentary:

The verse means to say that Islam has laid down these ordinances and commandments so that man may completely subdue his carnal desires and thus experience a new spiritual birth. But, as mentioned above the followers of Moses gave free play to their low passions and, abandoning themselves to a life of ease and pleasure, exceeded all bounds of moderation and sobriety.

Important Words:

ذوالقرنین (Dhul-Qarnain). قرن is derived from قرن (qarana). They say قرن شیئا بشیء i.e. he connected a thing with a thing. قرنmeans, horn; edge; border of the rising sun; trumpet of the Last Judgement; nobleman; one’s equal in age; a generation of men; people of one time; people of a time among whom there appears a Prophet of God; century; age (Lane & Aqrab). See also 6:7.

Commentary:

Before proceeding to know and establish the identity of Dhul-Qarnain it is necessary to state the reasons why at all his story has been related in the Quran and why it has found such prominent mention in the present Surah. A pointed reference has already been made in this Surah to the two periods of the great material progress of Christian nations. Its opening verses give a somewhat detailed account of the Dwellers of the Cave. We are told that in the early days of Christianity, Christians were true and righteous followers of their Faith. Even in later years when they came to acquire great political power but lost much of their former spiritual vitality and religious fervour, they did not altogether become divorced from their religion because till that time they had retained some faith in Jesus and because also a new Dispensation which demanded their allegiance had not yet come into force.

After the story of the Dwellers of the Cave an account of the Isra’ (اسراء) or Spiritual Journey of Moses which represents the advent of the Holy Prophet of Islam has been given in some detail in order to show that with the Holy Prophet’s appearance the first period of the material prosperity and progress of the Christian people would come to an end and though it would still be possible for them to make some progress they would reach the zenith of their material glory and greatness for a second time long after his advent. Spiritually, however, they would be a dead people and without the Holy Prophet’s acceptance there would be no redemption for them. This second period of material pomp and grandeur and the spiritual death of the Christian people are represented in Divine Scriptures by the phenomenal rise to power of Gog and Magog which forms one of the central themes of the present Surah. Because politically Gog and Magog and Dhul-Qarnain are inseparably linked with each other, as will appear from the following paragraphs, Dhul-Qarnain’s account also has been given at some length in this Surah.

Now as to Gog and Magog. These names were given to certain tribes who lived in the extreme north-west of Asia and eastern Europe. The fertility of the Asiatic plains led these tribes to make inroads into the south and south-west of Asia. If these incursions had been uniformly successful the whole course of subsequent human history would have completely changed and, like the marauding Aryans before them, these people would also have settled in Asia and would have been converted to the various religions of the east. But, as is explained in the following verses, Dhul-Qarnain set up a formidable barrier which prevented their spreading into Asia and thus compelled them to move further west. Thus they became hedged in between the extreme north-west of Asia and eastern Europe and instead of penetrating into Asia they spread into other parts of Europe. There they came into contact with Christianity which they accepted and made their national Faith. But these people never ceased to cast longing eyes on the fertile lands of Asia and to cherish an intense desire to conquer them. The sense of frustration at their failure to fulfil their heartfelt desire deepened with every generation till it developed into a feeling of political hostility towards the Asiatic peoples which burst forth in its full fury in the last three centuries. Thus Dhul-Qarnain’s efforts to check these people from spreading into Asia, in a way, led to the great spiritual havoc caused among mankind by Dajjal which is the second name of Gog and Magog. As both Gog and Magog and Dhul-Qarnain are intimately connected with each other, Dhul-Qarnain has found a mention in the Quran along with the account of the second rise to power and prosperity of Christian nations who, in our age, represent Gog and Magog.

Who is this Dhul-Qarnain to whom the present and the following several verses refer and when and where did he live? Before an answer to this question is attempted it must be pointed out that the Quran is not a book of history. It does not merely record a historical event to establish its authenticity. The so-called stories mentioned in the Quran are, in fact, so many prophecies about future events. The story of Dhul-Qarnain also belongs to the same category. It is not merely an account of the military exploits of a great and noble conqueror who lived in the past but it contains also a prophetic reference to another great historical personage, a World Reformer, who was to appear in some future time—our own time. About the appearance of this Reformer who has been called "the Promised Messiah and Mahdi" repeated mention has been made in Muslim scriptures (Bukhari, Majah etc.). Thus the story of Dhu’1 Qarnain possesses both ahistorical and a spiritual significance and therefore deserves special study.

Dhul-Qarnain was the founder of the Medo-Persian Empire which represented the two horns of the ram of Daniel’s famous dream. Daniel says: "I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great" (Dan. 8:4). Quite in harmony with this part of Daniel’s dream, the Quran mentions three journeys of Dhul-Qarnain (vv. 87, 91, 94). This fact lends powerful support to the inference that Dhul-Qarnain is the descriptive name of a king of Media and Persia. And of all the kings of Media and Persia, the description given in the Quran most fitly applies to Cyrus. He ascended the throne of Persia after the death of his father and subsequently conquered Media which was a greater kingdom than Persia, and thus was fulfilled the second part of Daniel’s dream: "and behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other and the higher came up last" (Dan. 8:3).

The Quran has mentioned four distinctive marks of Dhul-Qarnain: (1) He was a righteous servant of God, and he was blessed with Divine revelation (vv. 87, 92 & 99). (2) He was a great conqueror and a kind and just ruler; and he treated the nations he conquered most benevolently (vv. 85, 89). (3) He marched to the west and made great conquests till he came to a place where he found the sun setting in a pool of murky water and then he turned to the East and conquered and subdued vast territories (vv. 85, 87, 88, 89). (4) Last of all he went to a midway region where lived a savage people and where Gog and Magog made inroads, and he built a wall there to stop these inroads (vv. 94-98). Now of the great monarchs and famous military captains of ancient times Cyrus possesses in the greatest measure the four above-mentioned qualifications. He therefore more than anybody else deserves to be considered as the Dhul-Qarnain of the Quran.

The first distinguishing mark of Dhul-Qarnain mentioned above is that he was a righteous man of God and was blessed with Divine revelation. The Bible agrees with the Quran in this respect. The Bible says:

That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Thus saith the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus whose righthand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, that thou mayest know that I, the Lord which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel…Now in the first year of Cyrus King of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus King of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing saying: Thus saith Cyrus King of Persia, the Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth and He hath charged me to build Him a house at Jerusalem which is in Judah (Isaiah, 44:28; 45:1-3; Ezra. 1:1-2 & 2 Chron. 36:22-23).

Thus according to the Bible Cyrus was Jehovah’s "friend", His "anointed" and "shepherd" and "performed all His pleasure" (Jew. Enc., vol. 4, p. 404 & Enc. Bib., vol. 1, col. 980).

Dhul-Qarnain’s second characteristic according to the Quran is that he was a great conqueror and ruler of vast territories. About this the Bible says:

Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, the Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he hath charged me to build Him a house at Jerusalem…Whose hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two-leaved gates…I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight; I will break in pieces the gates of brass and cut in sunder the bars of iron; and I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places (Ezra 1:2; Isaiah 45:1-3).

In this respect history also supports the Quran and the Bible. It represents Cyrus as a great conqueror and a very humane ruler who treated the nations he conquered most generously and in return received their most willing allegiance:

I knew that there were some who willingly obeyed Cyrus, that were many days’ journey, and others that were even some months’ journey distant from him, some, too, who had never seen him and some who knew very well that they never should see him; and yet they readily submitted to his government; for he so far excelled all other kings, as well as those that had received their dominion from their fore-fathers, as those that had acquired it by their own efforts…More than this he was most humane. His shield is stained by no horrible deeds of blood, of frightful revenge and cruelty…He spared and made gifts to conquered enemies…because no wide stream of blood separated him from the vanquished, he found the only possible basis for his giant structure in the raising of the conquerors and the conquered to equal privileges…Who is there that approaches him? He is not only beloved by his own people as a father incomparable in every way…He was not the product and child of his age but its creator and father. (Historians’ History of the World, under Cyrus).

Dhul-Qarnain’s third outstanding mark mentioned in the Quran is that he conquered and established a vast empire in the East as well as in the West. Now it is a well-known fact of history that Cyrus ruled over vast territories which extended to the waters of the Black Sea in the west and to the confines of Afghanistan, Samarkand and Bukhara in the East. About his conquests in the West it may briefly be stated that he had hardly become the ruler of Media and Persia when Croesus, the King of Lydia (Asia Minor), from his capital, Sardis, instigated the rulers of Babylon, Egypt and Sparta, and rose against him but within a few days suffered a crushing defeat and opened the way for Cyrus’ conquests up to the banks of the Black Sea. Cyrus conquered Babylon, Nineveh and Greek colonies which had extended to the north of Asia Minor to the Sea of Marmora. Thus he reached that pool of murky water which was situated to the West of that country. About Cyrus’ conquests in the East the Historians’ History of the World (vol. 2, under Cyrus) says:

How far to the East Cyrus extended his dominion we do not know, but it is probable that all the countries to the East which are mentioned in the older inscriptions of Darius as in subjection or rebellion were already subject in the time of Cyrus. In this case Chorasmia (Kharezm, the modern Khiva) and Sogdiana (Samarkand and Bukhara) belonged to him. He doubtless ruled also over a large portion of modern Afghanistan.

The following extract also from the Historians’ History of the World (under Cyrus) throws further light on the vast range of the conquests of Cyrus in both the West and the East.

But Cyrus finding, in like manner, the nations of Asia independent and setting out with a little army of Persians, obtained the dominion over the Medes by their own choice, and over the Hyrcanians in a similar manner; he subdued the Syrians, Assyrians, Arabians, Cappadocians, both the Phrygians, the Lydians, Carians, Phoenicians and Babylonians; he had under his rule the Bactrians, Indians and Cilicians as well the Sacians, Paphlagonians and Magadidians and many other nations of whom we cannot enumerate even the names. He had dominion over the Greeks that were settled in Asia and going down to the sea over the Cyprians and Egyptians. These nations he ruled though they spoke neither the same language with himself nor with one another; yet he was able to extend the fear of himself over so great a part of the world, that he astonished all and no one attempted anything against him… without a struggle the greatest empires, the two conquerors of Nineveh, surrendered to him both themselves and their own kings in chains, as had been done to none other; even Tyre, that proud and mighty city, unconquered and unconquerable, with whose lion-courage his predecessor and his successor, Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander alike, wrestled so fiercely and so long, did homage to him of her own free will. Above all, the little people of the Jews hailed him at the waters of Babylon as they had done no mortal before or since, as the victor and rescuer, the liberator and saviour.

The fourth notable feature of Dhul-Qarnain referred to in the Quran is that after his conquests he turned his attention to a midway region. Here lived a half savage people who were the target of constant attacks by Gog and Magog and he built a wall to stop these inroads. Now in order fully to understand and appreciate this Quranic passage it is necessary to know who Gog and Magog were. About these people the Bible says:

Son of man, set thy face toward Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, and prophecy against him, and say, Thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal: and I will turn thee about and put hooks into thy jaws…Persia, Cush and Put with them (Ezekiel 38:2-6).

This shows that according to the Bible, which is our first and main source of information about Gog and Magog, Russia, Moscow and Tobolsk which are all situated in northern regions were the homeland of these people.

History supports this Biblical account about Gog and Magog. Magog is mentioned in Genesis 10:2 as the second son of Japheth, between Gomer and Madai. Gomer representing the Cimmerian who lived to the east of Asia Minor and Madai the Medes, Magog must be a people located east of the Cimmerian and west of the Medes. But in the list of nations (Gen. 10) the term connotes rather the complex of Barbarian peoples dwelling at the extreme north and north-east of the geographical survey covered by the chapter…In Ezek. 39:6 Magog occurs as the name of a northern people, the leader of whom is Gog and in Revelation Gog and Magog are considered as a comprehensive term for the powers of evil. Josephus identified them with the Scythians, a name which among classical writers stands for a number of unknown ferocious tribes. According to Jerome Magog was situated beyond the Caucasus, near the Caspian Sea. This also is the same northern region where the Scythians lived. Herodotus indicates that these nomads (Scythians) came through the natural gate between the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea, the pass of Darband (Jew. Enc., under Gog and Magog & Historians’ History of the World, vol. 2, p. 582).

Now as quoted above from the Bible, Gog and Magog had conquered Persia and it is a well-known fact of history that "Persia fell into the hands of the Scythians or Median Emperor who ruled Ecbatana from whom it was delivered by Cyrus the Great" (Historians’ History of the World, vol. 2, p.589).

So it seems quite clear that the Scythians or Gog and Magog occupied territories to the north and north-east of the Black Sea and that they came from these territories through the pass of Darband and invaded and conquered and ruled over the Persians and that Cyrus had defeated them and delivered the Persians from their clutches.

As to the last point about Dhul-Qarnain—that he built a strong wall as a barrier against the inroads of Gog and Magog—we find that exactly at the place which according to Herodotus was the pass through which the Scythians made raids upon Persia stood a wall, the famous wall of Derbent. The Encyclopaedia Britannica (under Derbent) refers to this wall as follows:

Derbent or Darband, a town of Persia, Caucasia, in the province of Daghestan, on the western shore of the Caspian…And to the south lies the seaward extremity of the Caucasian wall, 50 miles long otherwise known as Alexander’s wall, blocking the narrow pass of the Iron Gate or the Caspian Gate. This, when entire, had a height of 29 feet and a thickness of about 10 feet, and with its iron gates and numerous watch-towers formed a veritable defence of the Persian Frontier.

This extract shows that there existed a wall which served as a barrier against, and protected Persia from, the attacks of the Scythians in the north. It is generally believed that this was built by Alexander the Great but this popular belief is against proven facts of history. Alexander defeated Darius in the summer of 330 B.C., but this defeat did not give him possession of the whole of Persia. Without pausing to take rest he proceeded to subdue the whole country, but had hurriedly to come back to quell a revolt in his rear. After this he marched on to Kabul, where he had to face another revolt in his army and it was only in the winter of 329 B.C., that he could come to India. He finished all this journey in such haste that some historians have doubted whether it could have been accomplished in such a short time. Anyhow, it is admitted that he fought his way to India and did not stop anywhere. From India he returned in 324 B.C. to Persia, where he had again to face a revolt in his army. After subduing it he started for home and died on the way in June, 323 B.C. (Enc. Brit., 14th edition, vol. 1, pp. 569, 570). These facts show that his military expeditions were like a whirlwind and he conquered a large part of the world in a very short time. Amidst these whirlwind expeditions he could not give attention to any vast project such as the building of a large wall of the nature of that under discussion. The popular notion that Alexander had built this wall seems to have arisen from the fact that Muslim commentators of the Quran mistook Dhul-Qarnain for Alexander.

But if Alexander did not build this wall it does not prove that Cyrus built it. We are not in possession of quite incontestable and conclusive historical evidence to show that Cyrus did build this wall. Our conclusion that he was its builder is based only on the following circumstantial evidence:

(a) Darius about whom Cyrus had seen a vision that his wings would overshadow Europe and Asia ascended the Persian throne after the death of the son of Cyrus. In order to break the power of the Scythians Darius passed through Greece and attacked them prom across Europe. It is inconceivable that Darius should have undertaken such a long, arduous and roundabout journey to attack these people from across south-east Europe when they lived very near him in the north. The inevitable conclusion is that the existence of a huge wall which only Cyrus before him could have built had made it impossible for him to cross over to the other side with a large force. Nor was it possible for him to demolish it or take his army safely through its gates. So in order to fulfil his mission the only possible and wise cause open to Darius was to attack the Scythians from the side of Europe.

(b) If there existed no impassable barrier of the nature of that under discussion it is inconceivable that, wise and far-seeing strategist as he was, Darius should have adopted a circuitous route of thousands of miles across Europe to attack the Scythians, his own country exposed to their attacks from across the border.

(c) The fact that before the time of Cyrus the Scythians made constant and uninterrupted raids on Persia but after his conquests these raids completely ceased, leads to the very probable conclusion that he must have set up a barrier which effectively checked these attacks, and that the barrier must be the famous wall at Derbent, mistakenly known as Alexander’s wall.

11:18.

Important Words:

عقیم (destructive) is derived from عقم. They say عقمت المرأة i.e. the woman was or became barren. امرأة عقیم means, a barren woman, a woman that does not conceive or give birth to a child. یوم عقیم means, a severe fighting. یوم عقیم means, a day having no day after it; a destructive day, a day of hard fighting, so called because many women having lost their sons in the fighting become عقیم (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

"Hour" in the verse signifies the final triumph of Islam. It may also refer to the Fall of Mecca, when the power of the disbelieving Quraish was finally broken. The fall took place quite suddenly. The Quraish had not had the least inkling of the approach of Muslim army till it reached the very gates of Mecca.

The words, "the punishment of a destructive day," may refer to any form of punishment, preferably to the day of the Battle of Badr.

This and the following two verses imply a prophecy about the ultimate triumph of Islam, and the defeat and discomfiture of disbelievers.

10:13; 39:9, 50.

Commentary:

Having referred in the previous few verses to the Unity of God as being the basic principle of all religions, this and the next three verses deal with Shirk, i.e. associating false gods with the One True God.

34:28; 46:5.

Commentary:

As the Arabs, who were the first addressees of the Message of the Quran, were steeped in worst form of idolatry, God has exposed the futility of their polytheistic beliefs again and again in the Quran. In the present verse the idolaters are asked, why do they worship other gods beside Allah when these false gods have neither created any earthly thing nor have they made any contribution to the creation of the celestial bodies? They are further asked whether they have a revealed Book which gives them the authority to preach and promulgate their false beliefs. They should at least possess some reason or authority for their idolatrous beliefs and practices.