هُنَّ

Important Words:

رفث (going in unto) has a number of meanings: amatory talk, kissing, caressing, embracing, compressing, coition, etc.; in fact, everything that a man desires of his wife. When رفث is followed by the preposition الی it means, coition or going in unto one’s wife, and it is in this sense that the word has been used here. رفث also means, immodest, foul and lewd talk or speech (Lane).

تختانون (you have been acting unjustly) is derived from خان. They say خانه i.e. he acted unfaithfully or perfidiously towards him; he was not faithful to the trust reposed in him. اختانه is like خانه, giving the same meaning. It also means, he acted wrongfully or unjustly towards him. The Arabs say خانته رجلاه i.e. his feet or legs acted unfaithfully towards him, meaning he was unable to walk. تختانون انفسکم would, therefore, mean, you failed to give your souls (i.e. yourselves) their due either (1) by preventing them from their duty to God, or (2) by refusing them the satisfaction of their natural and lawful cravings. The former act is a sin, while the latter, though not a sin, may endanger one’s health or deprive one of just happiness. The word has been used in both these senses in the Quran. In 4:108, it has been used in the sense of "sin", while in the present verse it has been used in the sense of "depriving the soul of the gratification of its natural and just desires".

عفاعنکم (afforded you relief). The word عفا gives a number of meanings (see 2:53). The expression عفاالله عن فلان is sometimes used where there is no question of pardoning any sin or obliterating traces thereof but simply in the sense of removing one’s mistake or misunderstanding or improving one’s condition or bestowing honour on one (Aqrab). It also means, making things easy, i.e. affording relief (Muhit).

باشروھن (go in unto them) is derived from بشر from which is also derived the word بشارة or بشری meaning, glad tidings. The expression بشربه means, he became glad and happy because of that. The words بشرالجلد mean, he removed or peeled off its skin. البشرة means, outer part of skin, or what is visible of the face or body. باشرالمرأة means, he came in contact with his wife skin to skin; he went in unto her. البشری (glad tidings) is so called because it changes the colour of the listener’s face. البشر (man) is also so called because, unlike other animals, man’s skin is visible and not concealed under hair (Aqrab, Mufradat & Lane).

Commentary:

It was a custom among the Israelites to abstain from all kinds of food from one evening to the other on the occasion of the fast of the Atonement Day, the only fast prescribed by Moses for his people. When fasts were first prescribed for Muslims, and details had not yet been revealed, they thought that, like the Jews, they too would have to fast for 24 hours with a slight intervening breakfast. Hence, following their own judgement, they concluded that it was lawful for them to eat and drink and to go in unto their wives only as long as they did not go to bed, and that after they had gone to sleep, they were not allowed to partake of any food or drink or to go in unto their wives until the next evening. Bukhari gives the following tradition on the authority of Bara’: "When the command to fast was revealed, if anybody kept a fast and then went to sleep in the evening, he abstained from eating, drinking and sexual intercourse until the time for breaking the fast the following day" (Bukhari ch. on Saum). This tradition and others of the same import show that it was not in obedience to any command from God or the Holy Prophet that his Companions abstained from sexual intercourse after going to bed at night, but it was owing to their own imitation of similar customs among the People of the Book that they had imposed these restrictions on themselves. As, however, these restrictions were against the will of God, a revelation was soon sent down allowing the Faithful to eat and drink and approach their wives as they liked during the night; only they were forbidden to do so while fasting during the day.

Some commentators have inferred from the words, you have been acting unjustly to yourselves, that the Companions of the Holy Prophet were unable to act upon the commandment to abstain from intercourse with their wives during the nights of fasts and frequently broke it. But this is evidently wrong, for the good reason that there was no such commandment to be broken. Moreover, the words of the Quran, i.e. you may now go in, also belie this interpretation, for the use of the word "now" clearly indicates that the Companions of the Holy Prophet were erring not on the side of indulgence but on that of abstinence. The Quran could not obviously say, you may now go in, to a people who were already going in unto their wives.

The clause, they are a garment for you and you are a garment for them, very beautifully describes the object of marriage. The verse points out that the object of marriage is not the gratification of carnal passions. The real object is the comfort, protection and embellishment of the parties, for such are the uses of a garment as explained in 7:27 & 16:82. Thus in a very few words, the Quran has described the true relationship that should exist between husband and wife, a description which has hardly a parallel in any other scripture.

The clause, the white thread becomes distinct from the black thread of the dawn, does not refer to the thread made of yarn but to the streak of light that appears along the eastern horizon at the time of dawn. The verse enjoins that from dawn till sunset Muslims should abstain from food and drink and intercourse while fasting. But they are free to have recourse to these things between sunset and dawn. At places where days and nights are unusually long, i.e. nearer the poles, calculation should be made for the purpose of fasting on the basis of average conditions, i.e. in such a case day and night would each be supposed to be of twelve hours’ duration (Muslim, ch. on Ashratus-Sa‘at). The clause, while you remain in the mosques for devotion, refers to the practice of اعتکاف which is observed by remaining in the mosque, night and day, during the last ten days of Ramadan. During these days, the devotee who decides to observe اعتکاف is not to leave the mosque except from human necessity, i.e. to answer a call of nature, etc. He enters the mosque on the morning of the 20th of Ramadan

and abides therein till the end of the month, fasting from daybreak to sunset and occupying himself in prayer or recitation of the Quran or other religious study or meditation. During اعتکاف (I‘tikaf), which is, as it were, the consummation of the spirit of fasting, intercourse with wives and preliminaries thereto are not allowed even at night time. The clause, these are the limits fixed by Allah, so approach them not, points to the very important principle that a man can attain true piety only if he refrains from even "approaching" the things that have been forbidden by God. "Some acts," says the Holy Prophet "are of doubtful character, one not knowing whether they are right or wrong. It is always better to avoid these. The forbidden things are like a pasture-land which the Wise God prohibits to the people. If you make your beasts graze on the borders of such land, i.e. allow your beasts to approach near them, there is danger of their trespassing upon the prohibited area" (Bukhari, ch, on Iman). This is an extremely wise injunction which cuts at the root of all trespass. Only those can protect themselves against sin who give all unlawful things a wide berth. The final clause, that they may become secure against evil, repeats the idea contained in 2:184 in which the subject of fasting was first introduced. In both verses the underlying object of fasting has been stated to be the attainment of تقوی i.e. piety, righteousness and protection against evil, which are all different forms of divineblessings. The reader may, with advantage, compare this idea with the belief of the Christians that the Law is a curse (Gal. 3:10, 13).

11:2.

39:24.

7:54; 18:79.

4:163.

Important Words:

محکمات (decisive in meaning) is derived from احکم which again is derived from حکم which means, he decided or he judged; he prevented or restrained or withheld. احکمه means, he rendered it firm, stable and secure; he restrained it. Hence محکم means: (1) that which has been made secure from change or alteration; (2) that in which there is no ambiguity or possibility of doubt; (3) that which is clear in meaning and decisive in exposition (Aqrab, Mufradat & Lane).

ام (basis) is the noun-infinitive from ام (amma), i.e. he aimed at or sought or took himself to. ام possesses a variety of meanings some of which are: (1) mother; (2) source or origin or basis of a thing; (3) anything which is a means of sustenance and support or of reformation and correction for another; (4) anything to which other things surrounding it are linked (Aqrab & Mufradat).

متشابھات (susceptible of different interpretations) is the plural of متشابھة which is derived from شبه. They say شبھه به i.e. he made it to be like that; he likened it to that. شبه علیه الامر means, he rendered the affair confused or obscure or ambiguous to him. تشابه الرجلان means, the two men were so like each other that it was difficult to distinguish one from the other. متشابهmeans, mutually resembling. Thus the expressions متشابھه is used about (1) that phrase, sentence or verse which is susceptible of different, though concordant, interpretations; or (2) that whose parts resemble or are concordant with one another; or (3) that whose true significance bears a similarity to a sense which is not meant; or (4) that of which the true meaning is known only by referring it to what is termed محکم (decisive); or (5) that which cannot be rightly understood without repeated consideration (Aqrab, Lane & Mufradat).

زیغ (perversity) is the noun-infinitive from زاغ which means, he declined or deviated, or turned aside from the right course. So زیغ means, deviation from the truth or the right course; crookedness; doubt. ازاغه means, he made him deviate from the right course (Aqrab & Mufradat).

تاویله (its interpretation). تاویل is the noun-infinitive from اول which is derived from آل i.e. he or it turned or returned. اولهmeans, he caused it or him to turn or return. اول الکلام means, he interpreted or explained the speech or writing. اول الرؤیاmeans, he interpreted the dream. تاویل means, (1) interpretation or explanation; (2) conjecture about the meaning of a speech or writing; (3) turning away a speech or writing from its right interpretation; (4) interpretation of a dream; (5) end, result or sequel of a thing (Lane & Aqrab). In the present verse the word تاویل occurs twice, the first-mentioned تاویلgiving the second or the third meaning, while the second-mentioned gives the first or the fifth meaning.

الراسخون (firmly grounded) is the plural of الراسخ which is derived from رسخ i.e. he or it was or became firm, stable or established. رسخ الشیءmeans, the thing became firmly established. رسخ العلم فی قلبه means, knowledge became firmly established, or sank deep, in his heart. الراسخ فی العلم is one whose knowledge is extensive and deep-rooted, being firmly established and based on sure ground (Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

The verse, which was revealed when a party of Christians from Najran visited the Holy Prophet in Medina (Jarir), serves a fourfold purpose: (1) it gives the genesis of the later Christian doctrines and explains how the true original doctrines became perverted; (2) it tells how the critics of Islam, particularly the Christians, distort true Islamic teachings in order to find an excuse for attacking Islam; (3) it warns Muslims to take a lesson from the history of Christians; and (4) it supplies a sure and trustworthy principle of interpreting revealed Books, or, for that matter, any writing or speech, in a right manner.

What proved the perversion of the Christian faith was that expressions like "Son of God" etc. used metaphorically were taken literally and the simple and straightforward faith of Jesus was transformed out of all recognition, the متشابهbeing given the place of محکم.

Again, it is on record that when the party of Christians, referred to above, visited the Holy Prophet and had a discussion with him on the godhead of Jesus, they, like clever casuists, who when it suits their purpose tear a passage from its context and then base their arguments on it, asked the Holy Prophet if the words کلمة الله (word of God) and روح(spirit) were used about Jesus in the Quran, and, receiving an answer in the affirmative, joyfully exclaimed that the divinity of Jesus was thereby proved. They did not care to ponder over the explanation of these words in their context, which did not at all bear out the sense which they thought they possessed. It is to such objectionable practices that allusion is made in this verse, which lays down the golden rule that, in order to prove a controversial point, the decisive and clearly worded parts of a Scripture should be taken into consideration, and that if they are found to contradict the construction put upon a certain ambiguous passage quoted in support of an argument, that interpretation should be rejected and the passage should be so interpreted as to make it harmonize with the decisive and clearly worded parts of the text.

This golden rule should always be observed whenever it is required to interpret or explain a passage which is susceptible of several interpretations and is not easily comprehensible. Its observance is all the more necessary when a seemingly difficult and knotty verse of the Quran is sought to be explained. Any interpretation which clashes with other verses of the Quran and runs counter to the clearly worded parts thereof should be rejected and only that interpretation which is in harmony with its basic principles should be accepted.

According to the verse, the Quran has two sets of verses. Some are محکم (decisive in meaning) and others متشابه(capable of different interpretations). The right way to interpret a متشابه verse is that only such interpretation of it should be accepted as agrees with the verses that are محکم and all other interpretations should be dismissed as incorrect. It is on record that one day the Holy Prophet, on hearing people disputing about the interpretation of certain verses of the Quran, angrily said: "Thus were ruined those who have gone before you. They interpreted certain parts of their scriptures in such a manner as to make them contradict other parts. But the Quran has been so revealed that different parts of it should corroborate one another. So do not reject any truth by making one part contradict the other. Act on what you understand thereof and refer that which you do not understand to those who know and understand it" (Musnad).

The above hadith also refutes the theory of abrogation, for it speaks of the Quran as a Book of which all parts corroborate one another and condemns those who think that some of its verses contradict others. To Ahmad, the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, goes the credit of exploding the so-called abrogation theory. He and his disciples have given convincing explanations of those verses which were previously regarded as abrogated.

It may be noted here that in 39:24 the whole Quran is called متشابه and in 11:2 all the Quranic verses have been described as محکم. This should not be taken as contradicting the verse under comment, according to which some verses of the Quran are محکم and others متشابه. The apparent in-consistency is easily explained. So far as the real significance of the Quranic verses is concerned the whole of the Quran is محکم (decisive), inasmuch as all its verses contain decisive and eternal truths. In another sense, however, the whole of the Quran is متشابه inasmuch as the Quranic verses have been so worded as to give, at one and the same time, several meanings equally true and good. The Quran is also متشابه (i.e.mutually resembling) in the sense that there is no contradiction or inconsistency in it, its different verses affording support to one another. But parts of it are certainly محکم or متشابه for different readers according to their mental and spiritual capacities, as the present verse points out.

As regards prophecies, those that are couched in plain and direct language, susceptible of only one meaning, would be regarded as محکم and those that are described in figurative or metaphorical language, capable of more than one interpretation, would be regarded as متشابه. The prophecies described in metaphorical language should, therefore, be interpreted in the light of the prophecies that have been clearly and literally fulfilled and also in the light of the basic and fundamental principles of Islam. For an example of محکم prophecies, the reader is referred to 58:22; whereas 28:86 contains a متشابه prophecy.

The term محکم may also be applied to such verses as embody full and complete commandments while متشابه verses are those which give only part of a certain commandment, and require to be read in conjunction with other verses to make a complete injunction.

Moreover, محکمات (decisive verses) generally deal with the Law and the doctrines of Faith, while متشابھات generally deal with topics of secondary importance or describe incidents in the lives of Prophets or the history of peoples and, while so doing, sometimes make use of idioms and phrases capable of different meanings. Such verses should not be so interpreted as to contradict the clear-worded tenets of the Faith.

The Arabic clause which has been translated as and none knows its right interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge; they say, ‘We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord', may be rendered in two ways, according as the pause is made after the word الله (Allah) or after the word العلم (knowledge). If the pause is made after العلم (knowledge), the clause would be translated as above and the term would in this case apply to verses pertaining to events of the past or verses containing general exhortation. If, however, the pause is made after الله (Allah), the term متشابھات would refer to prophecies of which the real interpretation is known to God only. In this case the clause would be translated as, "and none knows its interpretation except Allah; and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say, "We believe in it, the whole is from our Lord". Grammatically, both constructions are correct.

Finally, it may be noted that the use of metaphors, the main basis of متشابھات verses, in religious scriptures is necessary; (1) to assure vastness of meaning in the fewest of words; (2) to add beauty and grace to the style; and (3) to provide for the people a trial (ابتلاء) without which spiritual development and perfection is not possible.

15:68.

7:81; 29:29.

15:72.

Important Words:

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

Commentary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

29:62; 31:26; 44:8.

9:129.

Commentary:

The verse means to say that though idolaters, out of superstition or traditional attachment to false gods, worship such gods, yet if the argument is driven home to them, they have to, and invariably do, confess that God is the Creator of heavens and earth and in Him alone resides all real power.

33:5

Commentary:

Zihar or calling ones wife "mother" has been declared here a heinous sin. For a somewhat detailed note see 33:5.

The words لعفو غفور mean that God in His great mercy has made allowance for man’s weakness and that He is always ready to forgive his lapses, provided he comes to God with a penitent heart and makes amends.

The verse has redeemed a right which through a cruel custom was denied to women and thus has raised them to the status to which they were entitled.

4:5, 25.

2:222.

Commentary:

Here is a testimony to the irresistible appeal of the Message of Islam. At a time when Muslims were being bitterly persecuted and it was not safe to leave Mecca and join the Muslim Community at Medina, a continuous stream of believers was pouring into Medina, leaving behind in Mecca their dear and near ones. These Refugees contained a fair number of women among them. The verse under comment refers to such refugee Muslim women. The verse also constitutes an eloquent commentary on the Holy Prophet’s anxiety not to accept into the Muslim Community any woman who had fled from Mecca unless there was proof available, after subjecting her to searching examination, that she was sincere, and honest in her faith and that she was accepting Islam out of no ulterior or otherwise objectionable motives. The verse further states that the marriage-tie between a refugee believing woman and her dis-believing husband becomes dissolved when she joins the Muslim Community, and a believer is allowed to marry such a woman, provided he fulfils two conditions: (a) He should have paid back to the disbelieving husband of such woman what the latter had spent on her, and (b) he should also have fixed or paid her dowry. Similarly, the marriage-tie between a Muslim and his wife who gives up Islam could not continue and the same procedure would be adopted if such an apostate woman marries a disbeliever as in the case of marriage between a Muslim and a refugee believing woman. The reciprocal arrangement prescribed in this verse is not the private affair of the individuals concerned but is to be carried out by the State, as is the practice in time of war, to which the verses particularly apply; there could not and should not continue any social relations between individual believers and individual disbelievers.