نَّاسَ

26:227; 61:3, 4.

Important Words:

تنسون (forget) is derived from نسی meaning: (1) he forgot; (2) he ignored; (3) he left off a thing (Aqrab).

تعقلون (you understand) is derived from عقل meaning: (1) he understood; (2) he realized his mistake. عقل الغلام means, the boy reached the age of puberty. عقل البعیر means, he tied up the camel with a piece of rope. Thus عقل also embodies the sense of restraining (Aqrab).

بر (good) means, acting well towards relations and others; truthfulness; fidelity; righteousness; obedience; obedience to God (Aqrab). It also means, extensive goodness or beneficence (Mufradat).

Commentary:

The Quran questions the Jews, as if saying: Do you enjoin men to practise extensive beneficence, to deal kindly with one another, to be truthful, to act righteously and to serve and obey God, yet you neglect your own selves, while you claim to read the Book sent by God? Again, your Book contains prophecies concerning the Holy Prophet of Islam, yet you do not accept him. Thus you break a great commandment of the Lord but bid others to observe lesser commandments. Will you not then understand? The word 'Book' here refers to the Bible, but the clause, while you read the Book, does not imply that all the contents of the Bible have been admitted to be true and indisputable. The words have been used with the object of bringing home to the Jews the fact that while they think they are the People of the Book, they behave like ignorant men. Should the People of the Book behave as they behave?

The words, do you enjoin others to do what is good and forget your own selves, may be interpreted in another way also. As explained under Important Words, the word means, acting well towards relations. The Jews are thus invited to ponder over the fact whether they have acted well towards their brethren, the Ishmaelites? They went about enjoining others to act kindly towards relations but for more than two thousand years they themselves acted most shamefully towards their own kinsmen, and their rejection of the Holy Prophet was also due to the jealousy they bore towards the house of Ishmael.

Important Words:

تتلوا (followed). See 2:114

شیاطین (rebellious men). See 2:15.

علی (during) gives the sense of فی i.e. "in" or "during" (Aqrab & Mughni). It is also used to denote a hostile sense meaning "against", as one says خرج علیه i.e. he rebelled against him, or he went out against him with an army intending to fight (Wright). In this sense the phrase علی ملك سلیمان would mean, against the government of Solomon, or conspiring against his government.

سحر (falsehood and deception). In verbal senses سحرہ means, he deceived him; he coaxed him and involved him in trouble and deprived him of his understanding; he enchanted him. سحرالفضة means, he coated a piece of silver so as to make it look like gold. The noun سحر means, anything the source of which is not quite visible; showing off falsehood in the form of truth; a crafty device; craftiness; mischief; enchantment (Aqrab). It also means, producing what is false in the form of truth; any event of which the cause is hidden and which is imagined to be different from what it really is; embellishment by falsification and deceit (Lane). Thus every falsehood, deceit or crafty device which is meant to hide the real object from public view is included in the meaning of سحر.

ملكین (two angels) is the dual number from ملك (angel) for which see 2:31. Figuratively ملك is sometimes used to denote a handsome or holy person, as the Quran says, He (Joseph) is but a gracious angel, i.e. a handsome and pious youth (12:32). As in the verse under comment, the two angels are described as teaching something to the people, therefore the word cannot be taken in its literal significance, because angels do not live among men and do not generally have free intercourse with them (17:95, 96; 21:8). Thus in the present verse ملکین would not mean "two angels" in the literal sense of the word but "two holy men".

ھاروت (Harut) and ماروت (Marut) are both descriptive names. ھاروت is derived from ھرت which means, he tore up (Aqrab); hence ھاروت means, one who tears; the tearer. ماروت is derived from مرت which means, he broke (Aqrab & Lane). Thus ماروت means, one who breaks; the breaker. These names signify that the object of the appearance of these holy men was to 'tear' asunder and 'break' the glory and power of certain people.

فتنة (trial) means, the trial or means whereby the condition of a man may be demonstrated in respect of good or evil (Lane). They say فتن الصائغ الذھب i.e. the goldsmith melted the gold in the crucible so that its purity or impurity might be ascertained (Aqrab).

Commentary:

Many a legend unwarranted by the Quran and the Hadith—and even running contrary to them—clusters round this verse. It would be quite unreasonable to interpret it on the basis of those myths. For their true interpretation no external evidence is needed, the words being self-explanatory. It is clear from the verse itself that Jews in the time of the Holy Prophet were bent upon the same mischief which characterized them in the days of Solomon and during the days of their captivity in Babylon. The verse further indicates that the mischief-mongers of Solomon’s time were those "rebellious men" who called him an unbeliever. God says that those wicked men themselves, and not Solomon, lacked belief. Again, the verse tells us that these men taught their associates such signs as conveyed to them meanings quite different from those generally accepted, for the purpose of deceiving other people and concealing their own activities. All this leads to the conclusion that this verse alludes to those secret plots which the enemies of Solomon made against him, and by which they wished to break his empire. It is pointed out that now, in the time of the Holy Prophet, these people are resorting to the selfsame tactics, but that they will fail.

As the verse refers to a number of historical events, it is advisable to relate them here at some length.

When Jews saw that the power of Islam was steadily expanding and that no opposition from the Arabs had been able to arrest the progress of Muslims, they began to excite outsiders against them. At that time there were two large empires in the neighbourhood of Arabia: (1) The Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire; and (2) The Persian Empire. As Jews were already at enmity with the Roman Government, because they were in constant trouble under it, so it was only the Persian Government to which they could look for support. Harassed by the oppression of Christian rulers, they had taken refuge in Persia, where they enjoyed a good deal of religious freedom, and their religious centre shifted from Judah and Jerusalem to Babylonia (Hutchinson’s History of the Nations, p.550). In the seventh century of the Christian era, i.e., during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet, Jews suffered exceptionally cruel persecution at the hands of the Christian Emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire. "Both Phocas and Heraclius", says the Historians’ History of the World (vol. 7, p. 175), "attempted to exterminate the Jewish religion, and if possible to put an end to their national existence. Heraclius not only practised every species of cruelty himself to effect this object within the bounds of his own dominions, but he even made the forced conversion or banishment of the Jews a prominent feature in his diplomacy." So, in the time of the Holy Prophet the only government to which the Jews could look for help was that of Persia, where their co-religionists enjoyed much influence, especially in the reign of Chosroes II (Jew. Enc., ix. 648).

Consequently, when the Jews saw that their efforts to check the progress of Islam had totally failed, they took to exciting the Persian Court against the Holy Prophet by various means; and as a result, Chosroes II issued orders to the Governor of Yemen to send to him the Arabian claimant as a captive. But when the envoys of the Governor came to the Holy Prophet, he asked them to see him the next day, when he told them that God had informed him that He had their king murdered. Thereupon they returned and related this incident to the Governor. A few days later, the Governor received a letter from Siroes, the son of Chosroes II, to the effect that he had killed his father on account of the latter’s tyranny and that the Governor should, on his behalf, renew the oath of allegiance from all the Chiefs of Yemen; and that the order of his father regarding an Arab should be considered as cancelled (Tabari, iii. 1573-1574).

Some historians, including Tabari himself, hold that it was the letter of the Holy Prophet to the king of Persia inviting him to Islam that was the occasion of his orders for the apprehension of the Holy Prophet. But on comparison of the dates of the above-mentioned events, this turns out to be a mistaken view. For, as we read in Zurqani (ii. 211-212), the letter in question was despatched from Medina on the first of Muharram, 7 A.H.–a date corresponding to 12th April, 628 A.D. (Lane under ھجرة); whereas Chosroes II, who sent orders for the arrest of the Holy Prophet, had been assassinated on the 29th of February, 628 A.D. (Historians’ History of the World, viii. 95). Thus the view that the letter of the Holy Prophet was the cause of Chosroes’ orders is quite untenable; and the only possible cause of Chosroes’ ignominious orders was that his ears had been poisoned by malicious reports, a fact admitted by Sir William Muir (The Life of Mahomet, p. 370). It is to these efforts of the Jews that the Quran alludes in the verse under comment.

The verse also points out that it was foolish on the part of the Jews to suppose that they would succeed in that way. Their attention is invited to the fact that they had already been responsible for two secret plots. The first was against Solomon, when some members of their community turned rebels, hatched plots and stirred up bitter feeling against him by calling him an infidel; whereas the infidels were those who opposed him, hurled imputations at him, and set up against him secret societies in which secret signs and symbols were taught. The Jews, however, themselves reaped the ill-reward of their sinister schemes: their power, as a consequence, fell into decay, and at last they became so powerless that they were driven into exile towards Babylon. This account of Jewish secret societies and conspiracies and treacherous signs and symbols, as alluded to in this verse, finds corroboration in the Bible (1 Kings 11:1-6), where we read that the charge of idol-worship was spread against Solomon. An account of his enemies is found in I Kings 11:14, 23, 26, and a reference to secret plots is met with in II Chron. 10: 2-4 where we learn that the Jews had sent for Jeroboam, a bitter enemy of Solomon, immediately after his death and had attempted to make Solomon’s son agree to some demands of theirs, involving certain imputations against Solomon, before his accession to the throne. We learn about the secret signs from I Kings 11:29-32, in which the ten tribes of the Israelites are likened to ten pieces of a garment, and Jeroboam is told that these ten tribes were on his side against Solomon; and so it proved to be, for on the death of Solomon, these ten tribes made Jeroboam their king (I Kings 12:20). Again, the reference of the Quran to the infidelity of Solomon’s enemies finds corroboration in II Chron. 11:15, from which we learn that his enemies, who falsely charged him with unbelief, themselves fell into idol-worship when they rose to power.

Besides the testimony of the Bible, there is other evidence to show that in the days of Solomon a secret society was at work against him. An old tradition, current among medieval Freemasons, indicates that Solomon was envious of the superior intelligence of Hiram, the chief architect who built the Temple at Jerusalem. He is said to have attempted to kill the great Mason by having him thrown into a tank of molten brass, but he was saved by the spirit of his ancestor, Cain, who prophesied that at last his people would get the better of their enemy. Solomon, however, as the tradition goes, had him afterwards put to death. It is said of him that he had fixed certain secret signs which were a sort of mystery known only to him and his associates (Secret Societies of the World, Volume II, pp. 1-8; as the original book could not be obtained, the reference is to an Urdu translation). We further learn from this book that before the period of the Accepted Masons, the same signs used in all the Lodges were current among the Masons of Solomon’s time (p. 11) and that at the time of initiation, the Hiram incident was related to the new member (pp. 29, 30). However incredible the story as a whole may be, it points at least to the conclusion that in one way or other, secret societies were associated with Solomon’s reign and were much in vogue in his time.

The second occasion when, according to the Quran, the Israelites had resort to secret societies was during their captivity in Babylon. But this time they were not acting against any Prophet but were, on the other hand, working under the leadership of two inspired personages, who were, in obedience to divine command, trying to bring about the deliverance of the Israelites. Their mission was to "tear asunder" and "break down" the empire of the enemies of the Israelites. These holy men told new members, at the time of initiation, that they were a sort of trial from God, serving to differentiate between the good and the bad, and that the Israelites should not therefore refuse to believe what they said, because this would lead them to infidelity. In their teachings they drew a distinction between males and females, confining membership to males only (this is an old practice found among most secret societies). It is also stated that the disciples of these holy men directed their activities against only those for whose chastisement they were commissioned by God.

In this narration, the Quran refers to the days when King Nebuchadnezzar brought the Jews as captives into Babylon and kept them there for a long time. The holy men referred to in the verse under comment were Haggai, the Prophet, and Zechariah, the son of Iddo (Ezra 5:1). When Cyrus, King of Media and Persia, rose to power, the Israelites entered into a secret agreement with him and greatly facilitated his conquest of Babylon. In return for this service, he not only allowed them to return to their own country but also helped in the rebuilding of the Temple (Historians’ History of the World, ii. 126).

After stating that the Jews of the Holy Prophet’s time were following the same course which was adopted by the rebels of Solomon’s days and which was later adopted by the Jews under two holy men in Babylon, it was necessary here to state the ultimate upshot of their efforts against the Holy Prophet, because on the two previous occasion’s their efforts had met with different results. On the first occasion the conspiracy of the Israelites, being directed against a Prophet of God, had ended in the total loss of their prestige and finally in their banishment to Babylon. On the second occasion, they took a similar course under two inspired personages and were successful. Hence, in order to indicate whether the efforts of the Jews against the Holy Prophet would meet with failure, as they did in the days of Solomon, or with success as in Babylon, the Quran says: these people are learning that which would harm them and do them no good; hinting that they will not be successful as in Babylon. Accordingly, the consequence of their hostile efforts against the Holy Prophet was that Chosroes, their only supporter, met his death at the hands of his son, and they themselves were exiled from Arabia in the time of ‘Umar. In the concluding portion of the verse, God adds: And they have certainly known that he who trafficks therein has no share of good in the Hereafter, meaning that a mischievous plotter never succeeds ultimately. The last clause, had they but known, throws a flood of light on how intensely God desires that His creatures should always take the right course and not be misled by mischievous people.

3:191; 10:7; 30:23; 45:6.

Important Words:

اختلاف (alternation) is derived from خلف. They say خلفه i.e. he or it was or became his or its successor. خلف الرجل means, he came after or remained after the man and stood in his place. اختلفه means, he followed him as his successor. اختلفوا means (1) they came one after another by turn; (2) they differed or disagreed (Aqrab).

الفلك (ships) is derived from the verb فلك meaning, it became round or circular. الفلك (al-fulk) means a ship, or a boat, probably because it looks round and shapeless when seen at sea from a distance. The word is both singular and plural. الفلك (al-falak) means, the vault of heaven or the firmament in which the stars move. This is also probably owing to the apparently round shape of the sky (Aqrab, Mufradat & Lane).

دابة (beast) is the active participle from دب which means, he or it crept or crawled or walked slowly like an ant or a reptile or a child or a weak or sickly person. دابة means, all such animals or insects as creep or crawl or walk slowly (Aqrab). The word is used about all moving animals, whether big or small, whether walking on two legs or on four legs or creeping on the belly, etc. (24:46). It is also used about beasts used for riding or for carrying burden, like the horse, the mule, the donkey, etc. (Lane).

المسخر (pressed into service) is the passive participle from سخر sakhkhara. They say سخره (sakhkhara-hu or سخره sakhara-hu, not سخر sakhira which gives a different meaning), i.e. (1) he employed him or imposed on him a task without compensation; (2) he subjugated him and made him subservient to himself. Thus مسخر is that who or which has been made subservient to another, being unable to free himself or itself from constraint (Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse gives a twofold meaning, one literal and the other metaphorical. In the former sense, it supplies an argument in support of the existence of God referred to in the preceding verse. A careful study of the universe unfailingly points to a Creator on the one hand and to man being created with a definite object on the other. It also proves that, having created the world, God did not leave it alone but continues to watch over and control its affairs and is the First Cause of all change and every working in the universe. Heaven and earth, night and day (with alternating light and darkness), the supply of provisions, rainfall with its power of quickening and devastating, the means of communications, the blowing of winds, and shade and sunshine, all point to one controlling agency, God, the Maker of heavens and earth. And if God has done so much for the material requirements of man, He cannot be imagined to have neglected his spiritual needs which are much more important. Let all thinking men think and ponder and again think and ponder.

The Quran takes the universe as a whole to prove its theme. The objects of nature taken individually do not furnish such conclusive evidence of the existence of God as the whole universe taken together. The earth may be said to owe its existence to a fortuitous concourse of atoms, or a similar reason may be given for the origin of the sun and the moon and so on. But when the universe as one united whole and the deep order that permeates it are taken into consideration, it becomes impossible to escape the conclusion that this universe has not come into existence accidentally. Indeed, the consummate harmony that prevails throughout the universe, forcefully points to the fact that the whole system has been created and is being directed by one Intelligent Being Who is All-Powerful and All-Knowing.

Taken in the metaphorical sense, the ship mentioned in the verse will be taken to stand for Prophets who help men to cross the gulfs of carnal desires and materialistic concepts of things which separate men from God, rain being likened to God’s revelation which comes down like rain and gives life to the world after it has become dead. The clouds send down no new water. Water already exists in the vast oceans of the earth but, as it is impure, men cannot make use of it. God purifies it and changes it into clouds and then sends it back to earth in the form of pure rainwater. Similarly, by sending a new revelation God purifies beliefs, which, with the passage of time, get mixed up with false notions and superstitious ideas. It is inconceivable that God Who supplies man with fresh rainwater for the maintenance of his physical life should have omitted to supply him with heavenly water which is so necessary for the preservation of his spiritual life. Similarly, night and day stand for the alternating periods of light and darkness, it being hinted that the coming of the Holy Prophet heralds the dawn of a new day.

Moreover, by laying special emphasis on the study of the phenomena of nature in the verse under comment, the attention of disbelievers is also drawn to the fact that they could not possibly hope to succeed in their designs against the Holy Prophet, because the whole universe is controlled by God and is working in favour of His Prophet and in furthering his cause.

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.

48:30.

Important Words:

ضرباً (move) is from ضرب. They say ضرب الشیء i.e. the thing moved. ضربه means, he struck or beat him with a sword or a stick, etc. ضرب فی الارض means, he set out on a journey through the country or he journeyed through it (Aqrab).

تعفف (abstaining) is derived from عف i.e. he abstained from doing what is unlawful or improper. تعفف in verb form also gives the same meaning with greater effort. عفة means, abstaining from the gratification of low desires. So تعفف means, abstaining from what is improper or unlawful (Aqrab).

سیما (appearance) is derived from سوم which is again derived from سام. They say سوم الفرس i.e. he branded the horse with some distinguishing mark or sign. سیما or سیمة or سومة means, a distinguishing sign or mark, or general appearance serving as such (Aqrab).

إلحافاً (with importunity) is derived from لحف. They say لحفه i.e. he covered him with a sheet or a blanket, etc. الحفه also gives the same meaning. الحف السائل means, the beggar begged with importunity, as if sticking to one like a covering (Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

Circumstances sometimes compel people to remain confined in a place where they are unable to earn their living. Such men deserve help from the better-off members of the community. Two kinds of people come particularly under this verse: (1) Those who voluntarily stick to a place owing to the love of a holy man and never quit his company so that they may listen to whatever he says and observe whatever he does and then impart the knowledge thus acquired to others. A remarkable example of persons of this class was Abu Hurairah, who embraced Islam only three years before the death of the Holy Prophet, but thereafter clove to the Mosque at Medina so that he might remain in constant contact with his beloved Master. The result was that he reported to the world a much larger number of the sayings and acts of the Holy Prophet than those reported by even such Companions as had embraced Islam long before him. (2) Sometimes a Muslim becomes confined to a place owing to the hostility of disbelievers and, being surrounded by persecutors, he has often to suffer extreme hardships and remain without the necessities of life. Such men are also among the fittest objects of help.

People generally help those who beg for help, ignoring those who need help but, through modesty or shyness, do not ask for it. The Quran exhorts Muslims not to confine their charity to those who beg, but also to look for those who are really needy and whom a sense of honour or modesty prevents from begging.

The words, thou shalt know them by their appearance, contain a tribute to the Holy Prophet, who is here spoken of as being able to know such persons as are in want but refrain from disclosing their needs to others; and believers are exhorted to follow the example of the Holy Prophet in this respect. Abu Hurairah relates a personal incident which beautifully brings out this characteristic of the Prophet. He says that one day he was suffering from extreme hunger but, as Islam did not approve of begging, he could not ask anybody for food, and at the same time he would not leave the Prophet’s mosque for fear of losing his company. At that time Abu Bakr happened to pass by and, in order to draw his attention to his own famished condition, Abu Hurairah asked him to explain a verse of the Quran which dealt with charity. Abu Bakr, failing to understand his real object, explained to him the verse and passed on. Then came ‘Umar, and the hunger-stricken Abu Hurairah approached him also with the request to explain the verse. ‘Umar too failed to catch his purpose and, explaining to him the verse, went on his way. The Holy Prophet, who at that time happened to be within hearing inside his house, opened his window and with a bowl of milk in his hand, called Abu Hurairah and smilingly asked him whether he was hungry. And, receiving a reply in the affirmative, he further asked him to invite all the seven men who happened to be present in the mosque at that time. Before handing the cup of milk to Abu Hurairah, the Holy Prophet offered it to those seven men who were also hungry like Abu Hurairah. All the seven drank milk out of the bowl but, says Abu Hurairah, it remained as full as ever. Then the Prophet gave it to Abu Hurairah who drank his fill. When Abu Hurairah could drink no more, the Holy Prophet took the bowl and drank the remaining milk (Tirmidhi ch. on Zuhd).

The verse incidentally praises those who abstain from begging and hints at the impropriety of begging as the words تعفف (abstaining from an improper or unlawful thing) and الحافا (with importunity) clearly indicate. The Holy Prophet greatly disapproved of begging and there are diverse sayings of his to that effect.

7:102; 9:70; 14:10; 40:23.

Commentary:

This verse draws a great moral from the simple incident related in the foregoing verses. The incident of the two sons of Adam had a parallel in the history of nations, as hinted in the words, On account of this We prescribed for the Children of Israel, etc. If the incident simply related to "the two sons of Adam" it had obviously no direct bearing on the Israelites.

As a matter of fact, what is hinted at is that an incident similar to that of the two sons of Adam mentioned here, but of much greater import, was to take place later. There was to appear among the brethren of the Israelites a Prophet whose offering God was to favour with acceptance, while that of his brethren, the Israelites, was to be rejected owing to their impiety and lack of righteousness. This was to enrage the Israelites against that Prophet and they were to become thirsty for his blood on account of envy, even as Cain had become thirsty for the blood of his brother Abel. The story of Cain and Abel was, therefore, intended, as hinted in the opening words of this verse, to serve as a warning for the Israelites. The Prophet meant to be raised from among the brethren of the Israelites was to be no ordinary soul. He was to be a World-Reformer ordained to bring the eternal Law for mankind whose entire future depended on him and, therefore, his slaying was equivalent to the slaying of the whole of mankind, and the preservation of his life was, as it were, the preservation of the life of the whole of mankind. This great soul had killed no person, nor had it created disorder in the land.

The advent of this Prophet was foretold in the Bible (Deut. 18:18-22), and therein it was also announced that God would demand requital of those who did not hearken to this Prophet.

19:11.

19:12.

Commentary:

It appears from the Bible that tokens or signs for the fulfilment of certain prophecies used to be fixed in former times. Sometimes certain phenomena of nature were fixed as such tokens. For instance, Gen. 9:17 fixes the rainbow as a token for the fulfilment of God’s promise that there shall be no more flood to destroy the earth. God also appointed the observance of circumcision as a token for the bestowal of the blessings which He promised to Abraham and his seed (Gen. 17:11). Again, the observance of the Sabbath was fixed as a sign for the divine covenant made with the Israelites (Exod. 31:13-17). Similarly, at Zachariah’s request God appointed a token for the fulfilment of His promise. Zachariah was to abstain from speaking for three days, and then was the promise to be fulfilled. He was not deprived of his power of speech, as the Gospels seem to allege as a punishment for his not believing the words of God (Luke 1:20-22).

As to the question why the token of keeping silent and refraining from the use of the tongue was fixed for Zachariah, it may be briefly noted that, firstly, it was intended to afford Zachariah a suitable opportunity for passing his time in meditation and prayer—a condition particularly helpful in drawing Divine mercy and grace. Secondly, refraining from speech has also been found helpful, in some cases, in making one regain lost vitality and health. The practice seems to have been in vogue among the Jews of those times (19:27) and is even now resorted to by certain people among Hindus and others. Islam does not recognize such practices as tend to suspend the useful activities of man, but it certainly discourages talkativeness (Tirmidhi, ch. on Birri Was-Silah)

5:111.

Important Words:

المھد (cradle) is the noun-infinitive from the verb مھد. They say مھد المكان i.e. he made the place plain, even or smooth for himself. مھد فراشا means, he spread a bed for himself and made it even and smooth. مھد لنفسه خیرا means, he prepared good things for himself. مھد له منزلة سنیة means, he prepared or established for him a high station or position. مھد لنفسه also means, he gained or earned or sought to earn sustenance, etc. for himself. المھد means, a place prepared for a child and made plain, even or smooth that he may sleep in it; a child’s cradle; a bed; a thing spread to lie, recline or sit upon; a piece of plain ground or a smooth expanse (Lane & Aqrab). In its verbal senses the infinitive مھد would also mean, making a thing even and smooth; preparing a thing; preparation; gaining or earning a sus-tenance, etc.

کھلا (of middle age) is the noun-infinitive from کھل i.e. he was or became of middle age اکتھل الرجل means the man attained middle age. اکتھل النبات means, the plant became tall and full grown and blossomed. کھل means, one who is of middle age, or one who is of the age when a person’s hair becomes intermixed with hoariness; or one who is between thirty or thirty-four and 51 years of age (Lane & Aqrab); or one who is between 40 and 51 years of age (Tha‘labi).

Commentary:

It is evident that by the words, he shall speak, the Quran does not mean simple utterance of words; for such speaking is done by all children and all grown up men except the few congenitally dumb. The expression is, therefore, meant to refer to a particular kind of speaking, i.e. speaking wisely or speaking words of wisdom. Similarly, the clause, in the cradle and when of middle age, refers to the two periods of childhood and manhood when Jesus would speak words of wisdom, thus indirectly hinting that he would not die young but would live to a good ripe age. According to Ibn Qayyim, a writer of great eminence, some scholars have denied the crucifixion and (the so-called) ascension of Jesus at the age of 30 or 33 on the ground that Jesus was, according to the Quran, to speak to men when he was a Kahl, i.e. of middle age. This shows that these scholars look upon Tha‘labi’s definition as the correct one.

That Jesus spoke words of wisdom in his childhood has nothing miraculous or supernatural about it. Many intelligent and well brought up children speak like that. Luke supplies an instance of how Jesus spoke in childhood: "And when they had fulfilled the days, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem. And it came to pass that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers" (Luke 2:43-47).

The Quranic reference to the two distinct periods of Jesus’ life may also be taken to hint that his speaking in the latter period was to be of a different nature from that in the former. In the latter period, he was to speak to men as a Prophet of God. Thus, the glad tidings given to Mary consisted in the fact that Jesus was not only destined to be an intelligent child but was also to live to a ripe age as a righteous servant of God.

It should, however, be noted that the expression "in the cradle" does not necessarily mean childhood. The word مھد(cradle) has not been used in the verse literally but only broadly to signify the period of unripe age, i.e. that preceding کھولة or full-grown manhood. In fact, as shown under Important Words, مھد does not originally mean a cradle. That meaning is rather secondary, the primary meaning being the state or period of preparation when one is, as it were, being prepared and made even and smooth for the duties of ripe age. The fact that the Quran has mentioned the two periods, (i.e. "in the cradle" and "middle age") side by side also shows that there is no intervening period between them. The entire period before کھولة (middle age) is that of مھد i.e. a period of preparation; otherwise the verse would become a dispraise rather than praise; for in that case the insinuation would be that Jesus did not speak wisely in the period lying between childhood and middle age.

Finally, it may be noted that, according to the Quran and authentic Hadith, Jesus did not die on the cross at the age of 33 but lived up to a very old age, but of this we would speak later at its proper place.

Important Words:

الوکیل (guardian). وکیل is derived from وکل. They say وکل الیه الامر he left the matter to him and did not interfere in it. کلنی الی کذاmeans, leave thou me to manage this thing as I may deem proper. وکیل means, one to whom the management of an affair is left or consigned; guardian; agent or deputy. الوکیل is one of the names of God meaning, Guardian; One Who watches or looks after the affairs of the Faithful; One sufficing for His servants (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

The reference here is to the false rumours spread by Nu‘aim bin Mas‘ud that the Meccans had made great preparations against the Muslims and were about to attack them. See also the preceding verse.

3:181; 17:30; 25:68.

Commentary:

Some persons are so niggardly that, far from spending their wealth for the benefit of others, they do not spend it even upon themselves, lest people should come to know of it. These, as it were, conceal Allah’s bounty. They are not only deprived of the rewards and good results of charity but also become guilty of concealing God’s bounty which He has bestowed upon them for the good of mankind. Elsewhere the Quran says: Acknowledge the bounty of thy Lord in word and deed (93:12).