وَلَٰكِنَّ

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.

2:190.

76:9.

9:4; 13:21.

2:215; 6:43; 7:95.

49:16.

Important Words:

البر (righteousness) is derived from بر. They say بر والدہ i.e. he obeyed his father or he behaved kindly and lovingly towards him. بر الله means, he obeyed God. بر فی قوله means, he spoke truthfully. برت الصلوة means, the Prayer was accepted. بر(birr) therefore, means: (1) a gift or favour; (2) obedience; (3) righteousness; (4) truthfulness (Aqrab); also (5) extensive goodness or goodness of a high order (Mufradat). And بر (barr) is one who does good to others. It is also one of the attributive names of God (Aqrab).

ابن السبیل (wayfarer) literally means, son of the road. The word signifies: (1) one who travels much (Lane); (2) a traveller or wayfarer who is far away from home, i.e. one who is on a long journey (Mufradat); (3) simply one on journey; (4) one whose way has been cut short to him, i.e. one who is stranded on the way (Aqrab).

الرقاب (captives) is the plural of رقبة (a captive or a slave) which is derived from رقب. They say رقبه i.e. he waited for or looked for him; he watched or guarded him; he was on his guard against him; he put a rope round his neck. رقبة means: (1) neck; (2) the hinder part thereof; (3) a person or being possessing a neck; (4) a slave or bondman or captive or prisoner, particularly a slave or captive who has contracted with his owner or custodian for his freedom. Thus the expression فی الرقاب would mean, in the ransoming of slaves or captives, etc. (Aqrab, Mufradat & Lane).

الباساء (poverty) and الباس (war) are both derived from بؤس orبئس i.e. (1) he was or became strong and valiant in war or fight; (2) he was or became in a state of great want or poverty or distress. الباساء means: (1), distress; (2) poverty; (3) hardship; (4) misfortune; (5) calamity; and (6) war. And البأس means (1) might or strength in war or fight; (2) courage, valour and prowess; (3) war or fight; (4) fear; (5) punishment or torment; and (6) harm or injury, as in لاباس به i.e. there is no harm in it (Lane & Aqrab). See also below.

الضراء (afflictions) is derived from ضر meaning, he caused him a loss or an injury. الضراء means: (1) vicissitudes of time; (2) hardship; (3) loss of life or property; (4) afflictions; and (5) famine (Aqrab). الضراء is especially that evil or affliction which relates to one’s person, as disease, etc. whereas البأساء is that which relates to property, as poverty, etc. (Lane).

Commentary:

The verse points to an important principle relating to form and spirit. Every commandment must have an outward form as well as an underlying spirit. What, however, is really meant is the underlying spirit and not the outward form which mostly serves as an outer shell for preserving the inner kernel. To illustrate this principle, the verse refers to the commandment relating to the turning of faces to a particular direction while offering Prayers. The verse points out that Islam has not directed the Faithful to face in a particular direction during Prayers, because it considers such an act to be of any intrinsic virtue. The fixing of a special direction is merely meant to bring about uniformity, whereas what really counts is the purpose underlying it, which is perfection of faith and deeds. The Quran, accordingly, proceeds to give in a nutshell the Islamic teachings about these two subjects.

The literal translation of the clauses ولکن البر من آمن is, "but righteousness is one who believes" which is obviously incomplete. So some words must be understood here. According to Sibawaih, a great authority on Arabic syntax, the rules of the Arabic language sometimes permit the omitting of a word for the sake of brevity or for laying special stress or for affording greater elasticity in speech. In accordance with this rule, the clause would read: ولکن البر من آمن i.e. "but righteousness is the righteousness of one who believes." Instances of such omissions of words are not lacking in the Arabic language (Sibawaih, i. 109).

According to yet another rule of the Arabic language, a مصدر (infinitive noun) is sometimes used in place of an اسم فاعل(active participle) in order to convey an intensified sense. Thus the word بر (righteousness) in the verse would mean بر الکامل i.e. "perfectly righteous or very righteous," and the clause would be translated as "perfectly righteous or very righteous is he who believes in Allah…"

The pronoun in the expression حبه (love of Him) may refer either to the word "Allah" in the previous clause, and in that case, the clause آتی المال علی حبه would mean, "spends his money for love of God". Or it may refer to the word مال(money). In this case, the clause would mean, "spends his money notwithstanding his love for money". Lastly, it may also refer to the noun implied in the verb آتی i.e. the act of spending. In this case the clause would mean "spends his money for the love of spending it". All these meanings are correct and may be applied. Indeed, it is one of the inimitable beauties of the Quranic diction that it chooses words and constructions that go to convey a variety of meanings in the shortest of expressions.

The verse affords another example of this kind in the expression ابن السبیل (son of the road). As explained under Important Words, this expression gives no less than four meanings and all are equally applicable here. So spending on ابن السبیل would signify (1) spending money in order to encourage travelling, which is a means of increasing knowledge and extending social relations; (2) helping such travellers as are on long journeys and are far away from home; (3) helping all wayfarers; and (4) helping such wayfarers and travellers as become stranded on the way. This is indeed a wonderful example of the combination of brevity and comprehensiveness. The verse also throws some light on the Islamic teaching about slavery. Islam prescribes it as a sign of true faith and perfect righteousness that money be spent on emancipating slaves. Nay, even such as are made captives from among those who attack Muslims with a view to annihilating them, are to be shown mercy and granted freedom out of money supplied by Muslims. For the discussion of Islamic teachings about slavery see 24:34.

The word الصابرین (the patient) in this verse is in the accusative case, while, according to the common rules of Arabic grammar, it should be in the nominative case like the preceding word الموفون (those who fulfil). The change is not without purpose and has been made to put emphasis on the word. According to Abu ‘Ali, a well-known authority on Arabic syntax, when a sentence contains a number of nouns of praise or dispraise, it is considered idiomatic to vary their grammatical inflection (Muhit, part ii). This is done to intensify the meaning.

As pointed out in the beginning, this verse gives a gist of the teachings of Islam. It begins with the fundamental Islamic beliefs and doctrines which are the source and basis of all actions and on the rectitude of which depends the rectitude of' one’s actions. The most fundamental of these is belief in God Who is the central point of all faith. Second in importance is belief in the Last Day or the Day of Judgement, upon a real understanding of which depends the direction of man’s actions in this life. Then follows belief in angels who serve as a sort of intermediaries between God and His creation. Then there are Divine Scriptures embodying God’s revelation which point out the way to the attainment of His pleasure and the purification of man’s soul. Lastly are Prophets who are the recipients of God’s revelations, communicating to man the will of God and serving as models to be followed and imitated by him. These five objects of faith have been mentioned here in their natural order and not necessarily in order of importance.

After stating the fundamental objects of faith, the verse proceeds to mention some of the more important ordinances relating to man’s actions. Pride of place is given to charity which a man gives not as a duty imposed on him, but as prompted by love, solicitude and sympathy for his kinsmen and fellow beings or out of love for common humanity. Next come the commandments regarding Prayer and Zakah which help to establish a true connection between God and man on the one hand and regulate relations between man and man on the other. Finally are laid down the two bulwarks of character and morality, i.e. (1) the redemption of promises and pledges; and (2) the displaying of fortitude, patience and steadfastness in time of distress, the first-mentioned forming one of the bases of international morality and the latter the means of its perfection.

2:198; 9:36.

2:178.

Important Words:

الاھلة (new moons) is the plural of الھلال i.e. the new moon. The word is generally used about the moon of the first two or three nights. About the moon of other nights the word used is قمر (Aqrab).

مواقیت (means for measuring time) is the plural of میقات which is derived from وقت i.e. time. میقات means: (1) time; (2) time fixed or appointed for a certain thing; (3) a promise for which a time is fixed; (4) a place in which a meeting is appointed to take place at a particular time (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

When the Companions of the Holy Prophet heard of the great blessings of the month of Ramadan, they naturally desired to know the blessings attending other months. This question on their part shows how solicitous they were to win God’s blessings and attain His nearness.

The clause, they are means for measuring time, should not give rise to the misunderstanding that Islam looks upon the moon only as a means of measuring time; for elsewhere the Quran speaks of the sun also as such (6:97 and 17:13). In fact, Islam has made use of both the lunar and solar systems for measuring time. Where worship is to be performed in different parts of the day, the solar system of reckoning time is used, as in the five daily Prayers or for the opening and the closing of a daily fast; and where worship is to be connected with a particular month or part thereof, the lunar system is used, as in selecting the month of fasting or the appointment of the time of Pilgrimage, etc. As a matter of fact, as religious commandments are meant for the general public, the system used is always such as may be easily understandable by the common people. All commandments relating to a fixed time are therefore based on the visible part of the solar or the lunar system of reckoning time, as the case may be. Changes in the position of the sun during the day are visible but the beginning of a solar month is not visible. On the other hand, the appearance of a new moon in the beginning of a lunar month is visible. Therefore Islam has made use of both; and the solar system is as much Islamic as the lunar system.

The clause, and it is not righteousness that you come into houses by the backs thereof, points to a very important principle that the real purpose in appointing different acts of worship is the intrinsic usefulness thereof and not that to each change of time there should be attached an act of worship. Therefore the question, resulting from the over-eagerness of the Faithful, that, like fasting, there may be prescribed other acts of worship relating to other months also, was like approaching a house not through its door but by "the back thereof". The primary thing was worship and time was only secondary, but those who put the question wanted to make time primary and worship merely secondary. This was like putting the cart before the horse.

The clause also means that one should adopt the right course to attain an object. Every end can be attained by having recourse to certain means. Similarly, certain ways have been prescribed by God for winning His pleasure and attaining His nearness. People should faithfully stick to these and not devise ways of their own. By doing so, they will only suffer trouble, and gain nothing.

It is also on record that it was the practice among the idolaters of Arabia that when they left their homes and started on Pilgrimage to Mecca, then if for some purpose or object they had to come back to their houses, they did not enter them by their doors, but climbed into them by their back walls (Bukhari, ch. on Tafsir). Islam does not approve of such meaningless practices.

5:27.

Commentary:

The commandments relating to conjugal relations were mentioned as an offshoot of the subject of جھاد (holy war) dealt with in 2:217 and the following verses. The Quran now reverts to the original subject and by way of re-introduction cites the example of the Israelites who had left the land of the Pharaohs for fear of death. Trodden under the foot of the tyrant, the children of Israel were then in a most abject condition, and the wise God, in His eternal wisdom, decreed that they should lead a life of ordeals in the wilderness before becoming fit for the great life that awaited them in the Promised Land. The words, Allah said to them: 'Die', point to the great truth that all life must be preceded by death, i.e. great trials and extraordinary sacrifices.

As mentioned above, the clause, those who went forth from their homes, refers to the Israelites who had gone forth from Egypt to escape persecution by Pharaoh. It was the fear of death which had made the Israelites migrate from the land (2:50).

The words, they were thousands, contradict the Bible which represents the number of the Israelites migrating from Egypt as six hundred thousand. Recent researches favour the Quranic view (See History of the People of Israel, p. 145, by Ernest Renan, London, 1888, and History of Palestine and the Jews, i. 174 by John Kitto, London, 1844). See also. 2:55.

The story of the exodus of the Israelites is briefly this. When, being persecuted by Pharaoh, they left Egypt and crossed over to Asia, Moses wanted them to enter the Promised Land, but they were afraid of the people that dwelt there and refused to march ahead, saying Go thou and thy Lord and fight and here we sit (5:25). The result was that they drew upon themselves the wrath of God, Who said to Moses, Verily, it shall be forbidden them for forty years; in distraction shall they wander through the land (5:27). The promise was thus put off for forty years and the children of Israel were left to wander in the wilderness until those who had refused to fight perished in the desert, whereafter the younger generation led by Joshua conquered the land. Thus it was that the people whom God had caused to perish had new life breathed into them. It is with reference to these events that the Quran uses the word "die" in the verse under comment. This very death, i.e. destruction of the rebellious and training of the youth through trials and ordeals, proved the forerunner of life. Elsewhere, the Quran says about the Israelites: Then We raised you up after your death (2:57).

It may also be noted here that from this verse onward, the Quran begins the description of تزکیة or means of national progress spoken of in 2:130, reference to "Signs" and "the Book" and "Wisdom" having already been made.

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.

17:56.

4:165.

4:159;

2:88.

4:56; 10:41.

Important Words:

اقتتلوا and اقتتل (fought with one another) are derived from قتل i.e. he killed. اقتتلوا means, they fought with, and attempted to kill, one another (Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse supplies an answer to an implied question that naturally arises from the preceding verse. The Prophets that had been raised previous to Islam were sent to particular peoples and their missions were confined to specified periods, but the Holy Prophet was sent to all nations and for all times. Hence it may be argued that the case of David or similar other Leaders who had to deal with certain hostile tribes could not apply to him. God answers this implied question by saying that the previous Prophets also were not all alike, for some of them were greater in rank and had to perform more difficult tasks than others. David, for instance, whose name has just been mentioned as the final link in the chain of the Israelite Prophets and kings who had to contend with their enemies, performed a much greater work than many of his predecessors. So the final victory promised to the Holy Prophet should not appear doubtful in the eyes of the people.

The clause, among them there are those to whom Allah spoke and some of them He exalted by degrees of rank, does not mean that there are some Prophets to whom Allah does not speak or that among them there are those who are not raised in rank. The expression has been used to point out that there are two kinds of Prophets: (1) those who bring a new Law, i.e. those who receive revelation bearing new and direct commandments from God; and (2) those who are not Lawgivers, i.e. those whose prophethood consists only in the loftiness of their spiritual rank. By the word "speaking" therefore is here meant a special kind of speaking, i.e. a revelation which brings a new Law. Thus those Messengers who are represented here as having been "spoken to" by God are the Law-giving Prophets, while those who are spoken of here as having been simply raised in rank are those Messengers of God who are raised to the rank of Prophets without being given any new Law. Of Moses who was a Law-giving Prophet the Quran says: And Allah conversed with Moses particularly and freely (4:165). That there are two kinds of Prophets, (1) مکلم (to whom God speaks particularly), i.e. Lawgivers, and (2) غیر مکلم (to whom God does not speak in that particular manner), i.e. Non-Lawgivers; is also clear from the sayings of the Holy Prophet. For instance, when asked by Abu Dharr whether Adam was a Prophet, the Holy Prophet is reported to have answered, "Yes, he was a مکلم (Mukallam) Prophet" (Musnad). The addition of the word Mukallam to the word Prophet clearly shows that Prophets are of two classes, Mukallam (Lawgivers) and Ghair Mukallam (Non-Lawgivers). Adam was a Lawgiver because it was he who brought the elementary Law.

The Arabic clause منھم من کلم الله و رفع بعضھم درجات may also be rendered as, "Among them there is he to whom Allah spoke and one of them He exalted by degrees of rank." In this case the clause would signify that by the Prophet to whom Allah spoke is meant Moses and by the Prophet whom He exalted by degrees of rank is meant the Holy Prophet to whom God did not only speak, as He speaks to all Prophets, but whom He raised above all others by so many degrees.

The clause, And We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs, does not mean that other Prophets were not granted such proofs. As a matter of fact, all Prophets are given clear proofs and all are strengthened with the Spirit of Holiness; but here God makes particular mention of Jesus in order to refute the objections of the Jews who declared that he had shown no Sign and that he was possessed with an Evil Spirit (Luke 11:15, 16). The Quran declares that Jesus was not an impostor, as the Jews believe, but a true Prophet, and that he was not possessed with the Devil but, like all other holy men, was aided with the Spirit of Holiness. In this connection see also note on 2:88.

The Arabic clause translated as, if Allah had so willed, those that came after them would not have fought with one another, does not mean, as some may wrongly think, that God is the originator of differences. The expression like لوشاء according to the Quranic idiom, does not simply mean "if Allah had willed" but "if Allah had acted according to His will", i.e. if He had enforced His will. In fact, Allah has, in His infinite wisdom, made man free to choose or reject a thing as he likes. That being so, differences are sure to arise among men. But God does not remain a placid on-looker; for whenever differences become vast and acute, He raises a new Reformer. This is why when discord and disagreements began to rend the ranks of the followers of the previous Prophets, God, in accordance with His old law, raised the Holy Prophet of Islam.

The words, Allah does what He desires, further indicate that the infinite wisdom of God demanded that man should be made a free agent. So God does not compel anyone to adopt this course or that. He has given man the power to choose the good or the evil course as he may like and God rewards him accordingly; He does not force anyone to accept the truth; nor should the Faithful.

28:57; 92:13.

2:282; 4:174; 8:61; 39:11.

Commentary:

As the verse relates to believers, the word ھدی occurring in it does not mean "showing the right path," for believers have already accepted guidance. It means "making them follow the right path". It is indeed God alone Who can enable believers to continue treading on the right path and protect them from the dangers of the way. See also 2:6.

The Quran has here selected the word خیر (wealth) instead of any other word meaning wealth or property; for this word not only signifies "property" but "good and well-earned property". Nay, it signifies even more, for it extends to "anything and everything good". The choice of this word thus greatly extends the scope of charity and does not confine it to the spending of wealth alone. The expression includes the doing of good to mankind in any form.

The clause while you spend not but to seek the favour of Allah, is a great tribute to the Companions of the Holy Prophet. They are not bidden to spend their wealth to seek the pleasure of God, but are told that such is already their practice. This is also a form of exhortation which is considered to be more effective than a direct command or prohibition.

8:38; 29:3-4.

72:27-28.

Important Words:

لیطلعکم (would reveal to you). یطلع is derived from طلع, which means, he appeared; he rose; he ascended. اطلعه علیه means, he revealed it to him or he made him acquainted with it; or lifted him high up so that he might have a clear view of it. The expression لیطلعکم علی الغیب therefore, would mean, that He should cause you to ascend the unseen; or lift you high up to have a clear view of the unseen, i.e. cause you to obtain mastery of the unseen; or in other words, reveal to you the secrets of the unseen in abundance. Elsewhere the Quran says لایظھر علی غیبه احدا God discloses not the unseen to anyone in abundance (72:27). Here, too, the word used, i.e. یظھر points to mastery of a thing or having a thing in abundance.

Commentary:

The sentence, Allah would not leave the believers as you are, signifies that the trials and tribulations through which Muslims have so far passed would not soon end. There are yet many more in store for them, and they will continue to come till true believers are distinguished from hypocrites and those weak of faith.

The expression, Allah chooses of His Messengers whom He pleases, does not mean that some of the Messengers are chosen and others not, but that of the persons whom He has ordained to be sent as His Messengers, He chooses the one suited for the particular age in which he is sent. Or the particle من (of) may be taken to give the sense of intensification or emphasis without restricting the sense to a specified section of the class. In that case the sentence will read as, Allah does choose as His Messengers whom He pleases. It must be remembered that all Messengers are raised under a special divine decree.

When it was stated that God intended to separate the wicked from the good by revealing His will to His Messengers, the question was asked by disbelievers, why did not God reveal Himself to them? To this question God has given the answer that He reveals His will only to His Messengers and the Elect. All are not pure or ennobled enough to receive His revelation.

13:32.

Commentary:

The subject of the previous verse is continued in this one. One of the functions of the angels is to suggest good ideas to men and to invite them to virtue (2:32). They sometimes perform this function through the medium of dreams and visions. The opening words of the verse refer to this very function.

The words, the dead speak to them, refer to the testimony of pious men of the past to the truth of a Divine Messenger either by means of prophecies which are handed down to posterity in writing or orally, or by their appearing to men in dreams and visions.

There is another way also in which the dead may speak to men. This happens when a person who is spiritually dead or a nation which is devoid of spiritual life is quickened to life by seeing the truth of their Prophet and then testifies to his truth before other persons or nations.

The words, and We gather to them all things face to face, refer to the testimony of the different objects of nature to the truth of a Prophet before his enemies. The different objects of nature bear testimony in the form of earthquakes, pestilences, storms, floods, famines and other visitations. These things come upon the enemies of a Prophet as punishments from heaven. Nature itself appears to be angry with them; the very elements are up in arms against them. All things that are God’s (and what is there that is not God’s?) stand up in opposition to the enemies of a Divine Messenger. Thus it is that both heaven and earth bear testimony to a Prophet’s truth.

It should be noted that all these signs were actually shown in the time of the Holy Prophet. As for the angels, they appeared at the Battle of Badr and were even seen by some of the disbelievers (Jarir, iv. 47), but those who were hard-hearted did not believe. They knew the Holy Prophet to be a truthful and upright man but, surrounded by evil associates and swayed by evil passions, they denied his claims. In the beginning even men like Abu Jahl were impressed by the truth and honesty of the Holy Prophet; for it is recorded that when the verses of the Quran were recited to Abu Jahl for the first time, he admitted that it was the truth. In spite of this, however, he exclaimed, "When did we follow the children of ‘Abd Manaf?" (an ancestor of the Holy Prophet), meaning that he could not accept the leadership of the Prophet. Thereafter he gradually increased in perversity, so much so that at the Battle of Badr he actually prayed to God to destroy whichever of them (meaning himself and the Holy Prophet) had created mischief and discord among his people. The prayer was heard, but he himself was its victim. His case is a typical instance of how the hearts of men were hardened because they rejected the Holy Prophet at the very outset, in spite of knowing him to be sincere and truthful.

The words, most of them behave ignorantly, imply that they will not believe unless God forces His will on them and compels them to accept the truth; but God will not do that, and these people are so foolhardy that they would not change their hostile attitude unless compelled to do so.

Commentary:

The Prophet referred to in this verse is the Holy Prophet of Islam and not Moses; for wherever the Quran used the word النبی (the Prophet), it invariably refers to the Holy Prophet. Even the Jews referred to him as "that Prophet" (see John 1:21, 25), i.e. the Prophet whose advent had been foretold in Deut. 18:18.

The verse means to say that if Jews had accepted the Holy Prophet and acted upon the Quranic principle that when making friends with others those who are nearer in faith should be given preference over those who are not, they would never have preferred idolaters to Muslims as friends; for, while the latter have most things in common with them and believe in all their Prophets, the former do not. In contravention of this great principle, however, Jews, to their own detriment, not only chose to make friends with idolaters in preference to Muslims, but even declared the former to be better guided than the latter (4:52).

6:137.

Important Words:

بحیره (Bahirah) is derived from بحر which means, he cut or slit lengthwise; he split or clave. Bahirah was a name given by the pagan Arabs to a camel (or a goat) which they let loose to feed, after slitting its ears. The word may be applied both to males and females, but in practice it was only the females that were thus let loose to pasture where they liked. They were dedicated to some god and their milk was not used nor their back. The description of Bahirah varied among different tribes.

سائبة (Sa’ibah) is derived from ساب which means, it or he went away at random or went wherever it or he liked. سائبة was a name given to a she-camel set free to go wherever she pleased. She was generally let loose as an offering to the gods when one recovered from a sickness or returned safe from a journey. Often a she-camel having given birth to 10 female young ones was let loose to pasture where she would, and she was not ridden nor was her milk drunk except by her young.

وصلیة (Wasilah) is derived from وصل which means, he connected or joined. وصیلة was the name given to a she-camel that was let loose in the name of a god after she had consecutively given birth to seven female young ones. If at the seventh birth, she bore a pair, male and female, each of the latter was also let loose.

حام (Ham) is derived from حمی. They say احمی الشیء i.e. he prohibited the thing; or he protected it; or defended it against encroachment, invasion or attack. حام which is really حامی therefore means a stallion camel that has his back prohibited or interdicted to be used for bearing a rider or carrying a burden; such camel was neither ridden nor shorn of his fur; he was left at liberty and was not debarred from pasturage or from water. The word is also used about a stallion camel whose offspring’s offspring has conceived (Lane).

Commentary:

After having said that minor matters and details should be left to man to legislate as he thinks proper, the Quran, in the present verse, fittingly draws our attention to the fact that such freedom and discretion cannot be allowed to man in fundamentals and things of importance, because in such matters unanimity is essential and divergence of opinion may prove immensely harmful. The verse under comment gives an illustration to show that human intellect cannot be trusted with the making of laws on fundamental matters, for, if left to itself, it is likely to make laws that would lead man to perdition. An instance of such laws is given in this verse. It is really Christians for whom the address in this verse is meant; but instead of drawing attention to the laws devised and invented by Christians, the Quran very wisely refers here to certain practices of the pagan Arabs, for one can more easily see a mote in another man’s eye than a beam in one’s own. The Arabs used to let loose the animals mentioned in the verse in honour of their idols. Besides being based on disbelief and superstition, the practice was also highly foolish. The animals thus let loose wrought great havoc wherever they went. They devastated field crops and gardens and killed children. The Quran refers to the letting of these animals as an example of man-made laws and warns Christians who question the wisdom and blessings of a revealed Law to learn a lesson from the degrading practices to which the pagan Arabs had fallen victim, because they had no revealed Law to guide them.

15:98; 16:104.

Commentary:

The verse signifies that the Holy Prophet was grieved at the attitude of disbelievers, not because they accused him of falsehood but because their denial of him meant the denial of the signs of God. Thus the grief of the Holy Prophet was not personal, the cause of his grief being that God was being denied. It pained him to see people denying God. He did not mind denial of himself, but he could not bear to see men rejecting God and His Signs.

10:21; 29:51.

Commentary:

The words, Allah has power to send down a sign, do not mean that though God has the power to send down a sign, yet He will not actually do so. The word قادر (having power) used as active participle is intended to denote readiness to show the required power and the closing words of the verse support that inference.

The word قادر also embodies the sense of measuring and determining (Lane). In this sense, the clause would mean that God is devising means for the success of Islam, for people are already joining Islam and swelling the number of Muslims. This is a clear indication of the will of God, but disbelievers would not ponder over it. The Quran makes this point clear by suitable illustrations in the following verse.

22:26.

10:63, 64.

Commentary:

The verse purports to say that when the Quraish did not enjoy either of the two basic protections against Divine punishment (see preceding verse), they were being rightly punished for their false beliefs and wicked deeds. The verse also says that the Quraish have no right to act as guardians of the Sacred Mosque. As guardians thereof, they ought to have been worshippers of the One True God; but they have put idols even in the Sacred Mosque; hence, far from having any right to act as its guardians, they deserve to be expelled therefrom and punished for the sacrilege.

The words, Its true guardians are only those who are righteous, contain a prophecy to the effect that Muslims would soon become guardians of the Sacred Mosque, the words, most of them know not, signifying that although most of the disbelievers do not at present think this announcement to be true, yet it would surely come to pass.

3:14.

Important Words:

منام (dream) is derived from نام i.e. he slept. منام means, sleep; place where one sleeps; dream (Aqrab).

Commentary:

While on his way to Badr, the Holy Prophet was shown the Meccan army in a dream to be less in number than they actually were (Tabari, x. 9). In the language of dreams, this meant that the Meccan force, in spite of their superior numbers and equip-ment, would be overcome by the Muslims. On the other hand, if the enemy had been shown in a dream to be in large numbers, the interpretation of the dream would have been that the party to which the dreamer belonged would lose heart and would be overpowered by the enemy.

27:48; 36:19.

Important Words:

یطیروا (ascribed the evil fortune) is really یتطیروا which is derived from طار, from which also the word طائر (evil fortune ) is derived. They say, طار الطائر i.e. the bird flew or moved in the air by means of its wings. تطیربالشیء means, he augured evil from the thing, because it was the custom among the Arabs to take augury from the flight of birds, طائر meaning a bird. An Arab would say جری له الطائربامرکذا i.e. the bird, viz. fortune brought to him such an event. طائر therefore, means, a bird; a thing from which one augurs either good or evil; an omen, a bodement of good or of evil; an evil fortune or ill-luck; actions; the means of subsistence; the brain. The words انما طائر ھم عند الله mean, their evil fortune is with God; or the cause of their good and evil is with God; or the cause of their evil fortune is with God, i.e. their actions which are the real cause of their evil fortune have reached God and lie in store there (Lane & Lisan). See also 3:50.

Commentary:

The people of Pharaoh ascribed to Moses the evils and misfortunes that befell them. They pretended to think that the miseries with which they had been afflicted were due to the inauspicious advent of Moses. Such has always been the practice of disbelievers. When, at the advent of a heavenly Messenger, misfortunes befall the people in consequence of their misdeeds, they, instead of repenting of their sins, ascribe them to the inauspicious advent of the heavenly Messenger.

Since the word طائر (lit. a bird) signifies an action or evil fortune, the verse constitutes a severe rebuke administered to the people of Pharaoh. They are told that the misfortunes which had befallen them were due not to what they called the "inauspicious" advent of Moses, but to their own sins and iniquitous deeds. Thus the expression, the cause of their evil fortune is with Allah, means that the evil and malicious words which they uttered concerning Moses would be preserved with God and they would be duly punished for their insolence.

16:78; 54:51.

33:64; 78:2; 79:43.

31:35; 43:86.

Important Words:

ایان مرساھا (when will it come to pass?) مرسی is derived from رسا. They say رساالجبل i.e. the mountain was firmly based or fixed upon the ground. رست السفینة means, the ship cast anchor and became stationary. مرسی is the noun-infinitive or a noun of time or a noun of place, meaning, the act of anchoring or the time or place of anchorage; or the time and place of becoming stationary; or of coming to pass. The expression ایان مرساھا means, when will it come to pass, or what is the time of its taking place; or when will it occur or happen? (Lane & Aqrab).

حفی (well acquainted) is derived from حفی which means, he walked barefooted; or his feet became chafed by walking much. حفی به means, he showed him much honour and kindness and affection; or he behaved towards him with solicitude and manifested joy and pleasure. حفی عنه means, he asked or inquired much respecting him; he exceeded the usual bounds in making much inquiry respecting him. So حفی means, showing much honour and solicitude and manifesting joy or pleasure at meeting another; asking or inquiring much respecting another’s state or condition; going to the utmost in asking or inquiring; or knowing in the utmost degree (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The reference in the opening sentence of the verse is to 7:186. When the opponents of Islam were told that their hour had already drawn near, they inquired of the Prophet the exact time when the promised hour would come. The awarding of punishment is as painful to God as the receiving of it is to men, and this is the meaning of the words, It lies heavy on the heavens and the earth. The word "heavens" here represents God and angels, while the word "earth" represents human beings.

The word حفی signifies (1) importunate in inquiring; or (2) well acquainted. The sentence would thus mean: (1) They ask thee concerning the exact time when the hour of their punishment will come to pass, as if thou wert repeatedly inquiring of God as to its time of occurrence; or (2) they ask thee about the time of the "Hour", as if thou wert well acquainted with it. In both these cases the clause would imply that the Holy Prophet neither knew when the "Hour" would come to pass nor was he very solicitous about it.

33:12.

Important Words:

لیبلی (that He might confer). یبلی is derived from ابلا which is derived from بلاء . They say بلاہ or ابتلاہ i.e. he tried, proved or tested him with something good or evil. ابلاہ اللّٰه بلاء حسنا means, God did to him a good deed. ابلیته معروفا means, I conferred upon him a favour or benefit. بلاء means, the act of trying or testing; a trial or a test; an affliction of any kind by which one’s patience or any other virtue is tried or proved or tested; a benefit, favour or blessing; grief; imposition of a difficult or troublesome thing. بلاء حسن means, a great benefit or favour or blessing of God or a good gift of God. الابتلاءsignifies trying, proving or testing with something; seeking and desiring; choosing or selecting (Lane).

Commentary:

The words, So you killed them not, but it was Allah Who killed them, signify that the victory at Badr was not due to any effort on the part of the Muslims; it was purely an act of God. Thus, as enjoined in the preceding verse, there is no justification for Muslims to flee from a battlefield.

The Battle of Badr, fought in the second year of Hijrah, began with single combats; then there was a general attack. At this juncture the Holy Prophet took a handful of pebbles and cast them towards the enemy. That was a token for the help of God to come, just as striking the water of the sea with the rod by Moses was a signal for God’s aid to arrive. When the Holy Prophet cast the pebbles, there rose a strong gale which, blowing directly in the direction of the enemy, blinded their eyes with sand and thus contributed to their discomfiture and the victory of the Muslims. It is to this incident that the words, it was Allah Who threw, refer, hinting that really it was the hand of God, and not the hand of the Prophet, which cast the pebbles, and that the victory was due to the fact that God had come to the help of the Muslims.

The reader should note that while speaking of the Companions of the Holy Prophet in the words, you killed them not, the verse ascribes no act to the Companions, but simply denies their having killed the enemy, whereas in the case of the throwing of the pebbles by the Holy Prophet the verse says, thou threwest not when thou didst throw, but it was Allah Who threw, thus hinting that although victory came from God, yet the Holy Prophet also had a share in the affair. He contributed his share in the form of earnest prayers which drew the help of God.

The throwing of a handful of pebbles and sand by the Holy Prophet bears a remarkable resemblance to the striking of the waters by Moses with the rod. Just as in the latter case the act of Moses was a signal for the wind to blow, which led to the drowning of Pharaoh and his hosts in the sea, similarly, the throwing of a handful of pebbles by the Holy Prophet was a signal for a strong wind to blow which led to the destruction of Abu Jahl (of whom the Holy Prophet spoke as the Pharaoh of his people) and his host in the desert. Again, after the Battle of Badr, the bodies of Abu Jahl and other leaders of the Quraish were cast into the bottom of a pit or an old well, and thus the similarity of the fate of Abu Jahl with that of Pharaoh was completed; for, just as the latter together with his host was drowned into the depths of the sea, so was the former with his comrades cast into the bottom of a well.

The reference in the words, Allah is All-Hearing All-Knowing, is to the prayers of the Holy Prophet which God heard and accepted and in response to which He conferred such a signal victory on the Muslims.

3:104.

Commentary:

The verse is intended to meet any possible demur on the part of believers in the matter of accepting a peace offer made by the enemy. It is no favour of the believers upon God or His Messenger, if they have helped the Prophet; on the other hand, it is God’s favour upon them that He has put affection "between their hearts," for, before their acceptance of Islam they too were enemies of one another.

4:41; 9:70; 18:50; 30:10.

Commentary:

This verse forms a fitting sequel to the preceding ones. It says that God Who has sent the Prophet and should, on account of his rejection by disbelievers, naturally be disposed to inflict swift punishment on them, is granting them respite and does not desire to punish them soon, but disbelievers themselves demand a speedy punishment. God does not wish to do wrong to them, i.e. He does not like to destroy them while there is yet time for them to repent and accept guidance, but they themselves demand punishment and thus wrong their own souls.

This verse also furnishes an explanation of all such verses from which some people conclude that men are prevented from accepting guidance because they are predestined to be misguided and that it is God Who makes men commit all the sins they commit. All such conclusions are based on the supposition that God acts unjustly towards His creatures. The present verse contradicts this baseless supposition by expressly stating that God never acts unjustly towards His creatures. On the contrary, He affords them all possible opportunities to accept the truth.

2:285; 10:67; 31:27.

Commentary:

The verse points to a great truth. As all that is in the heavens and the earth belongs to Allah it is vain and foolish to try to please Him or His Messengers by offering them bribes (see the preceding verse). The Prophets of God cannot be prevented from carrying out their mission for the sake of bribes. The Meccans, desiring to stop the preaching of the Holy Prophet against idolatry, offered him every kind of bribe; but the only reply which all those bribes and temptations elicited from him was to the effect that even if they placed the sun on his right and the moon on his left, he would not give up his mission (Hisham & Zurqani).

The fact is that as kings and potentates need the things of this world, therefore bribes and ransoms please them, but God Himself being the Creator of all things, ransoms have no value for Him except that one should offer the sacrifice of one’s own self, which finds ready acceptance with Him, for such sacrifice is a means of self-purification.

27:74; 40:62.

Important Words:

یوم القیامة (of the Day of Resurrection). In this expression the particle فی (of or about) is understood before the word یوم (Day).

Commentary:

The verse purports to say that no man can forge lies against God, if he has any faith left in Him. So matters like eatables should not be treated lightly. In fact, forging lies against God in such matters is, as the verse hints, a sign of loss of faith in the Day of Resurrection. People dismiss such matters as of no importance, because they have no faith in God-sent guidance and prefer their own conjectures to revealed teachings.

The verse may be interpreted as containing another argument of the fact that the religion of disbelievers is based on no sound reason. That argument lies in their denial of the Day of Resurrection. The verse points out that the very thought that on a certain day sinners will have to render an account of their deeds sends a shudder through them, and so they deny the very existence of such a day. But the denial of a thing cannot disprove its existence. It is foolish to deny the infliction of punishment on the basis of fear. Moreover, the Day of Resurrection is meant to serve as an incentive to spiritual progress, and not to frighten men. It is just like an examination, the object of which is not that students should fail but that they should work hard and make themselves deserving of promotion and prizes. But those who do not work hard must fail.

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.

12:57.

Important Words:

مثوی (stay) is derived from ثوی. They say ثوی بالمکان i.e. he remained, stayed or dwelt in the place; or he remained, stayed or dwelt long therein; or he alighted in the place. اثواہ means, he made him to stay, or dwell, or he made him to stay or remain long. ثوی means, a guest. مثوی means, a place where one remains, stays or dwells; it also means staying or staying long in a place (Lane & Mufradat).

Commentary:

The Egyptian who bought Joseph is known as Potiphar in Jewish literature (Enc. Bib. & Jew. Enc. under Potiphar; also Gen. 39:1). He was captain of the royal guard, an officer of high rank in ancient times. He seems to have been struck by the noble appearance of Joseph, and asked his wife to treat him with such honour and affection as are not ordinarily shown to a slave or servant. He expressed the hope that they might one day benefit by his ability or, if he proved to be worthy, might adopt him as their son. It appears that Potiphar had no issue.

2:134.

Commentary

The expression, This is of Allah’s grace upon us and upon mankind, shows that prophethood is a boon not only for the person on whom it is conferred, but also for the entire people to whom he is sent, for all men profit by it according to their respective capacities.