يَنْهَىٰ

5:80.

Commentary:

The words قولھم الاثم (uttering falsehood) literally mean "their uttering of sin". As اثم (sin), in spite of including a sinful utterance, is generally committed and not uttered, some commentators have suggested that the word قول has been used here in the sense of "doing." But it is more probable that the word قول has been joined to the word اثم (sin) in order to express the combined idea of both "uttering" and "doing". As will be noted, the present verse is preceded both by a saying of the Jews, viz. "we believe" (5:62), which being a false utterance is a sin, and by a "deed" of theirs, viz. "hastening towards sin and transgression" (5:63), which are obviously sinful acts. Thus, by joining the word قول (uttering) to the word اثم (sin), the Quran aims at combining both sinful words and deeds.

Mention of the second wicked deed of the Jews referred to in 5:63, viz. "their eating of forbidden things", is repeated in the present verse in order to point out that not only the common folk but the leaders of the Jewish community also were steeped in sin.

29:49; 42:53; 62:3.

48:30.

See 3:105.

Important Words:

امی (Immaculate One) is derived from ام. They say امه i.e. he repaired to it; or he aimed at or sought after it; or he endeavoured to get it. ماکنت اما ولقد اممت means, thou wast not a mother, but thou hast come to be sought like a mother. امیmeans, belonging to or pertaining to the mother, i.e. as innocent as a child at the breast of its mother. The word also means, one not having a revealed Scripture, parti-cularly an Arab; one who does not know the art of reading or writing; one belonging to Mecca which was known as ام القری i.e. the mother of towns. See also 3:21.

اغلال (shackles) is the plural of غل (ghullun) which is derived from غل (ghalla). They say غل فلانا i.e. he put upon the neck or the hand of such a one a collar or a manacle, etc. غل, therefore, means, a ring or collar of iron put upon the neck; a shackle for the neck or the hand; a pinion or manacle for the hand; a shackle of iron collecting together the two hands to the neck; a difficult and fatiguing work. The Arabs say ھذاغل فی عنقك i.e. this is tied to your neck, meaning, it is inseparable from you and the punishment of it will stick to you (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse qualifies and explains the last sentence of the previous verse, viz. those who believe in Our Signs.

The verse puts the words "Messenger" and "Prophet" side by side which may lead some to think that one may be a Messenger without being a Prophet or vice versa. But this is not so. A رسول (Messenger) of God is also a نبی (Prophet) of God. The former epithet is applied to him in his relation to God from Whom he brings a message, while the latter is applied to him in his relation to men to whom he conveys that message, the word نبی (Prophet) meaning, one who prophesies, or makes known hidden secrets.

The word امی (Ummi) literally means "belonging to the mother", i.e. as innocent as a newborn child. The Promised Prophet, who is none other than the Holy Prophet of Islam, has been called امی because he was to be innocent like a child at the breast of its mother. The word has also been translated as "illiterate" or "one belonging to Mecca" or "an Arab", but "innocent" or "immaculate" is a preferable rendering, inasmuch as it is in keeping with the sense of the prophecy contained in Deut. 18:18-22 to which this verse particularly refers and wherein truthfulness has been mentioned as a distinctive feature of the Promised Prophet. For some of the prophecies of the Bible about the Holy Prophet see under 2:42 and also Matt. 23:39; John 14:16, 26; 16:7-14; Acts 3:21-24.

If the word امی be taken in the sense of "unlettered", the verse would signify that although the Prophet had received no education whatever and was quite unread and illiterate, yet God vouchsafed to him such knowledge as can impart light and guidance even to those who are considered to be most advanced in learning and enlightenment.

The illiteracy (امیة) of the Holy Prophet, mentioned in this verse and believed to have also been hinted at in 10:17, has been subjected to much hostile criticism. George Sale, a well-known Christian commentator of the Quran, writes as follows: "For so old was Muhammad before he took upon him to be a Prophet, during which time his fellow-citizens well knew that he had not applied himself to learning of any sort, nor frequented learned men, nor had ever exercised himself in composing verses or orations, whereby he might acquire the art of rhetoric or elegance of speech" (Prelim. Disc, Section II).

Referring to this view of Sale, another Christian commentator of the Quran, the Rev. E. M. Wherry, says:

"This view, however, does not agree with what is recorded of his previous career. Is it likely that he should have been trained in the same household with ‘Ali, who knew both how to read and write, and not have received similar instruction? Could he have conducted an important mercantile business for years without some knowledge of letters? That he could read and write in later years is certain. Tradition tells us, he said to Mu‘awiyah, one of his secretaries: 'Draw the ب straight, divide the س properly', etc., and that in his last moments he called for writing materials. The question arises, when did he acquire this art? The commentators say that God gave him the power, as he did his inspiration, and they quote chap. xcvi. 4, one of the earliest verses of the Quran, in proof. Certainly that verse seems to teach clearly that he could write as well as read, though it by no means teaches that he had not received the knowledge of both beforehand, or that he did not receive it in the ordinary way. His use of amanuenses does not militate against his knowledge of the art of writing, for such use of amanuenses was common in that age, even among the most learned. But still there remains the testimony of many traditions and the almost universal belief of Muhammadans. How account for this? I am inclined to think it originated with a misunderstanding of Muhammad’s repeated claim that he was the "Illiterate Prophet", or rather the "Prophet of the Illiterate", the term "illiterate" being generally applied by the Jews to the Arabs. See notes on chap. v. 85, 86. This misunderstanding turned out to the furtherance of Muhammad’s claims, inasmuch as the miracle of the matchless style of the Quran was enhanced by the consideration that the Prophet was illiterate. On the whole, we think there is very good reason for believing Muhammad to have been acquainted with the art of both reading and writing from an early period in his life" (Commentary of the Quran, ii. 326).

The above constitutes the gist of Wherry’s criticism of the generally accepted view that the Holy Prophet was امی or illiterate. But this contention seems to possess no substance. It is indeed a poor argument to say that because the Prophet "had been trained in the same house with ‘Ali, who knew both how to read and write", therefore he should also have learnt reading and writing. It only betrays ignorance of elementary facts of the Holy Prophet’s life on the part of the reverend gentleman. Even a desultory acquaintance with the life history of the Holy Prophet should make one know that ‘Ali and the Holy Prophet could not be brought up together. There was a great difference between the ages of the two. The Prophet was no less than 29 years older than ‘Ali; therefore, it was impossible for the two to be trained and brought up together.

Those whom prejudice against the Holy Prophet has not blinded to the patent facts of history know that, let alone the Prophet being educated and trained together with ‘Ali, which the great disparity in their ages evidently obviated, it was ‘Ali who got his training in the house and under the fostering care of the Holy Prophet (Hisham). Abu Talib in whose house the Holy Prophet was brought up was a man of very meagre means. He did not know the value of learning and knowledge nor was their possession regarded as an asset and acquisition in his time. The Holy Prophet, therefore, remained illiterate in his house. But ‘Ali was brought up in the house of the Holy Prophet himself, whose marriage with Khadijah, a wealthy lady of great repute, had placed ample means at his disposal. The Prophet also fully realized how priceless a thing good education was. So under his benign care and ennobling influence, ‘Ali, judged by the standards of that time, naturally grew up to be a young man of good education.

Wherry’s second objection is that if the Holy Prophet had been illiterate and did not know how to read and write, he could not have proved such a successful business man as he actually was. This objection is born of the mistaken concept of a good and successful Arab business man of the Prophet’s time. Judging by the present European standards of a successful business man, Wherry thought that lack of education and success in business could not go together. He would not have made this objection if he had known that in Asia even in the present twentieth century, highly successful business men are to be found who have not received even elementary education. In Mecca, in the Holy Prophet’s time, education was not much in favour. There were very few persons there who could read and write, though hundreds carried on most successful and flourishing business. Education was not at that time regarded in Arabia as the sine qua non of a good business man. Moreover, the fact that Khadijah had given the Prophet, a slave named Maisara who knew reading and writing and who always accompanied him on his trade journeys, knocks the bottom out of Wherry’s objection.

The tradition which says that the Holy Prophet had once asked Mu‘awiyah to write correctly the letters ب and س does not seem to be quite reliable. In the ‘Abbasid period many traditions derogatory to the Umayyads were forged. This tradition seeks to show off Mu‘awiyah, a prominent member of the distinguished House of Umayyah, as a man of very poor education who could not even write properly such simple letters as ب and س. Even, however, if this tradition be proved to be reliable, it does not show that the Holy Prophet was literate, because he had become so used to dictating the Quran that it was not impossible for him to have become familiar with the general form of letters and to give instruction regarding an improperly written word. It is also possible that someone, while rehearsing some portion of the Quran to the Prophet, might have stopped at a certain place, not being able to decipher the writing, and the Holy Prophet having asked the cause of stopping, the reader might have replied that the delay was due to the letters ب and سnot having been written properly or legibly. This might have led the Holy Prophet to instruct Mu‘awiyah to see that the letters were written correctly.

The fact that the Holy Prophet sent for pen and paper in the last moments of his life also lends no support to Wherry’s assumption. It is an established fact of history that whenever any verse was revealed, the Holy Prophet used to send for pen and paper and dictate to one of his scribes what had been revealed to him. The mere sending for pen and paper cannot, therefore, prove that the Holy Prophet himself knew how to read and write.

Nor do the words, referred to by Wherry in support of his contention viz. "read in the name of thy Lord", prove anything. The Arabic word اقرء (read) used in the verse referred to above not only means the reading of a written thing, but also repeating and rehearsing what one hears from another person. Again, the words ھویحسن القراءة (i.e. he recites well) occurring in a tradition can be spoken of even of a blind man who can recite the Quran properly and well. Moreover, the Hadith establishes the fact that when, at the time of the first revelation, the angel Gabriel said to the Prophet اقرء(read), no writing was actually placed before him to read. He was simply asked to repeat orally what the angel was reciting to him. The word قراءة not only means to read a writing but to repeat orally or recite or rehearse what another man has uttered.

Wherry’s inference that the idea that the Holy Prophet could not read or write originated with a misunderstanding of his repeated claim that he was the "Illiterate Prophet", is as strange as it is ill-based. It is really very surprising to say that those with whom he had lived day and night for years could not find out that he was illiterate but were misled into this belief only by his own repeated claim that he was امی (illiterate). Only a man of Wherry’s hostile attitude could come to such a conclusion. The question is whether it was the Prophet’s own contempor-aries who suffered from this misunderstanding or those who came afterwards. If it were the former, then the question would naturally arise how those, who saw him daily with their own eyes reading and writing, could possibly fall victims to the glaring misunderstanding that he was illiterate. If it were the latter class, even then the whole theory of misunderstanding advanced by Wherry looks frivolous, because the argument put forward by him is that because the Holy Prophet was considered to be illiterate, therefore, the matchless style of the Quran was regarded as a miracle. This inference is both foolish and flimsy, inasmuch as Muslims and other contemporaries of the Prophet, who were fully aware that he knew quite well how to read and write, could never believe in such a miracle.

Wherry’s last argument in support of his contention, that "his (the Holy Prophet’s) use of amanuenses does not militate against his knowledge of the art of writing, for such use of amanuenses was common in that age, even among the most learned," betrays his ignorance of Arab and Islamic history. The fact is that there were no ulema or learned men among the Arabs in the time of the Holy Prophet in the sense in which this word is understood now, nor were they used to keeping amanuenses and scribes. There is no instance on record of an amanuensis having been kept by an Arab. We know of only one learned man among the Meccans in the Prophet’s time, viz. Waraqah bin Naufal, and he was his own secretary. It is a pity that in their zeal for misrepresenting Islam, some Christian writers do not even hesitate to invent historical facts.

The words, and remove from them their burden and shackles, occurring in the latter part of the verse, contain a hint that by accepting the Promised Prophet Christians will get rid of the curse of the original sin of Adam and Eve and of the punishment thereof which, according to them, has dogged their footsteps through no fault of theirs.

Important Words:

ذی القربی (like kindred). قربی is infinitive noun from قرب which means, it or he was or became near قرابة like قربی is also infinitive noun from قرب but whereas the former is relationship in a general sense, the latter viz. قربی is relationship by the female side, but both words may also mean relationship or relationship by the female side (Lane).

منکر (manifest evil) is derived from نکر. They say نکرالرجل i.e. he did not know or recognize the man. نکرالامر (amra) means, he was ignorant of the affair. نکرالامر (amru) means, the affair was or became difficult, hard, arduous or severe or it was or became bad, evil, abominable, foul or disapproved. منکر means, ignored or unknown, denied or disacknowledged, any action deemed or declared to be bad, evil, hateful, foul, abominable, indecent, unbecoming, etc., (Lane & Aqrab).

احسان See 2:113.

فحشا See 4:16.

بغی See 2:91.

Commentary:

In the preceding verse the Quran claims to possess four great qualities: (1) It is an explanation of everything, (2) it is a guidance and (3) a mercy and (4) glad tidings for those who submit to God. The present and the following section (ruku‘) establish the truth of this claim and show that the Quran eminently fulfils the supreme purpose which its revelation was intended to serve. The present verse also, as it were in a nutshell, proves this claim of the Quran to be well-founded. It contains three commandments and three prohibitions. These three commandments and prohibitions briefly embody all the various stages of the moral and spiritual development of man. The verse thus constitutes a very good example of what has been said about the Quran in the preceding verse i.e. that it is an explanation of everything تبیانا لکل شیء. The verse ends with the words لعلکم تذکرون which mean, that you may remember the obligations which you owe to God and His creatures and also that you may extol the glory of God and celebrate His praise. Since these are the objects of man’s creation, the verse gives the Faithful the glad tidings that by following injunctions embodied in it they will achieve the purpose of their creation. It is indeed marvellous that the Quran should have, in the brief compass of a short verse, thrown light on all those matters which establish its above-mentioned great claim.

It is impossible to find such combination of brevity and compre-hensiveness in any other religious Scripture. And what is more remarkable is the fact that the words of the verse are quite plain and simple and can be easily understood by a person of ordinary intelligence.

A question cannot be understood to have been fully dealt with unless light is thrown on both its positive and negative aspects. Again, a religious Scripture cannot claim to be perfect unless it possesses the following essential characteristics:

1. It must enjoin the performance of such actions as lead to man’s moral and spiritual perfection and forbid the doing of such actions as are detrimental to the realization of such perfection.

2. It must prescribe laws which are applicable not to one particular individual or community but to the largest number of individuals and communities; and in the formulation of these laws due regard should have been paid to the dispositions and temperaments of all those people for whom it is intended, so that they may not find it difficult to act upon its teaching, every person according to his or her capacity.

3. The third characteristic that a perfect Law must possess is that its teaching should be practical and practicable and acting upon it should not lead to deterioration in human morals, intellect or civilization. The present verse beautifully combines all these essential qualities of a perfect Law. It has not failed to deal properly with both the positive and negative sides of the all-important question of the moral development of man. It has enjoined justice, the doing of good to others and kindness as between kindred; and has forbidden indecency, manifest evil and wrongful transgression.

Now strict justice implies that a person should treat others as he is treated by them. He should return to others the good or evil to the extent or measure to which he has received it from them. In relation to God عدل (justice), which is the first virtue mentioned, would mean that just as God has been good to man, man should render to God His due, and should not by his conduct render Him liable to criticism. He must not give to others what is due to God, for example, his love or devotion. The association of false gods with Him is also doing injustice to God. Similarly, it is contrary to the demands of عدل (justice) that a man should arrogate to himself an attribute which belongs exclusively to God. For example, it is the special prerogative of God to reveal religious Laws. Now if any man arrogates to himself this Divineprerogative and begins to frame a religious Law and seeks to give it the status of a revealed Law, he transgresses the bounds of justice. The observance of عدل in relation to God is calculated to abolish all kinds of shirk (idolatry), infidelity and disobedience to God. Higher than عدل (justice) is the stage of احسان (goodness). At this stage man should have no regard for the kind of treatment he receives from others. He should do good to others regardless of what sort of treatment he receives from them. He must do good to others even if he is maltreated by them. His conduct at this stage should not be actuated by considerations of reciprocity but he should do good to others regardless of the fact whether he has received any good from them or even if they have ill-treated him. This is certainly a higher stage of morals than the first stage of عدل. The qualities of forgiveness, charity, the giving of alms, social service, etc., all fall under this category. The promotion and patronage of knowledge and the systematization of its different branches also are included in this head because it has for its object the material and spiritual wellbeing of man.

The last and highest stage of moral development of man is ایتاء ذی القربی (giving like kindred). At this stage a man is expected to do good to others not in return for any good received from them, nor with the idea of doing more good than the good received, but prompted by a natural impulse, as good is done to very near blood relations. This is a much higher moral stage than the stage of احسان (doing of good). At the stage of احسان the doer of the good may have at the back of his mind the idea that the person concerned has done him some good and that he should do him a better turn and thus win public approbation. Or, in forgiving a person who has done him some wrong, he has the satisfaction that his act of forgiveness would turn a foe into a friend. But at the stage of ایتاء ذی القربی (giving like kindred) a person does good to others prompted as if by natural impulse. His condition at this stage resembles that of a mother whose love for her children is the result of a natural impulse. Her sacrifices and the hardships she willingly suffers for her children are prompted by no hope of return or appreciation. They spring from the natural fountain of love which God has implanted in her nature. At this stage the moral development of man becomes complete.

It may be noted that man’s relations with God cannot possibly go beyond the stage of عدل, for there can be no question of man’s doing good to God in any form. It is only his fellow human beings with whom he can deal according to his own moral condition at the stage of احسان or ایتاء ذی القربی. This implies a beautiful hint that in order to attain the nearness of God and to win His favour it is essential for man to do good to His creatures. A description of these three stages of morals constitutes the positive side of the subject of man’s moral development. Its negative side is portrayed in the three prohibitions which are explained by the three Arabic words viz. فحشاء (indecency), منکر (manifest evil) and بغی(wrongful transgression). فحشاء means such vices of which the knowledge is confined to the doer alone, while منکر means those evils which other men also see and condemn, though they may not suffer any loss or the infringement of their own rights by them. بغی (wrongful transgression), however, comprehends all those vices and evils which not only are seen, felt and hated by men but which do them definite harm also. These three simple words cover all conceivable vices.

A perfect teaching must have due regard for the moral requirements of men of different temperaments and dispositions. The verse under comment fully satisfies this very essential condition. For there are men who may be guilty of indecent acts but would not approve of wrongful acts of which the harm extends to others. There are others who would not infringe the rights of other people but who suffer from moral indecencies whose harm is confined to their own selves, such as back-biting, jealousy and the harbouring of ill-will against others. The three brief words mentioned above embody all the different forms of vice to which man can fall a victim. Thus this short verse of the Quran has covered, by its three commands and three prohibitions, the whole field of virtue and vice and contains requisite guidance for men holding different motives at the different stages of their moral development.

By an appropriate selection and arrangement of its words the verse has explained how a man can effectively eschew all vices and acquire all virtues. It mentions the three categories of virtues implying thereby that in acquiring them a man should first cultivate the quality of عدل (justice), then will he be able to cultivate the nobler and higher quality of احسان (goodness), and lastly, after he has acquired these two moral qualities, will he succeed in cultivating the quality of ایتاء ذی القربی, the highest and noblest of all the moral qualities. But in eschewing vices he should begin with the most obvious and harmful of them viz. بغی (wrongful transgression), and after he has been successful in conquering this vice he should try to master the less obvious vice of منکر (manifest evil) and when he has mastered this evil also he should try to bring under control the more subtle vice of فحشاء (indecency). The description of the good moral qualities and that of the corresponding vices together is intended to draw attention to the important fact that in the cultivation of good moral qualities one has to start from the lowest rung of the ladder, while in the renunciation of vices he has to begin with the most pronounced and harmful one. Thus for his moral perfection man has to traverse six stages of development and the gradation of these stages into six quite harmonizes with a well-known law of nature, viz. that everything has to go through six stages of evolution before it reaches perfection. The verse, as it were, embodies the complete course of moral and spiritual evolution and growth of man.

Commentary:

The verse makes it clear that the commandment to Muslims to have nothing to do with disbelievers has a proviso. It applies only to those disbelievers, as the next verse shows, who are at war with Muslims and are inimically disposed towards Islam. Friendly relations as such with non-Muslims are not forbidden. Besides, extra emphasis has been laid, in this verse, on kind and equitable treatment of non-Muslims.

The fact that this and the following verse were revealed at a time when relations between Muslims and disbelievers were highly strained helps to understand the real purpose and object of the prohibitory commandment.

4:145; 5:52.

Commentary:

See preceding verse.

2:115; 72:20.