کَفَرَ

Important Words:

طرفک (thy noble messenger) is infinitive noun from طرف (tarafa). They say طرف فلان i.e. such a one saw. طرف عینه means, his eyes moved in order to see. طرف means, the extremity or end of anything; eye, look, glance, blinking; a noble or generous man in respect of ancestry; government revenue; a messenger from Yemen. کریم الطرفین means, noble in respect of both father and mother. اطراف الارض means, the noble or exalted and the learned men of the earth. اطراف الناس means, the lower orders of the people. علی طرف means, beside, aside or apart (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The phrase قبل ان یرتد الیک طرفک may mean, (1) before thy messenger from Yemen returns to thee; (2) before the nobleman whom thou hast sent comes back to thee from Yemen; (3) in the twinkling of an eye, i.e. in a very short time; (4) before the government revenue is deposited in the treasury. In the last-mentioned meaning of طرف the expression would mean, "I would need no more money, the money already in the government treasury would be quite sufficient to meet the expenses of constructing a throne for the queen."

The expression "who had knowledge of the book" seems to refer to one who knew the intricacies of finance. He might be Solomon’s finance minister.

In this and the previous verse two offers to make the throne for Solomon have been mentioned, one by the ‘Ifrit who offered to prepare the throne before Solomon had raised his camp and started back, and the other by "the man who had knowledge." The latter made a still better offer of finishing the throne before Solomon’s messenger came back with the reply to his letter from the Queen. The context shows that Solomon accepted the second offer because he wanted to have the throne finished before the Queen came to pay her respects to him as he was to stay at that place till she had come and the whole ceremony was over. The verse also implies that all sorts of men were employed by Solomon—men of knowledge and experience, skilled and unskilled labourers, craftsmen and technicians.

Important Words:

تتلوا (followed). See 2:114

شیاطین (rebellious men). See 2:15.

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:98; 14:36; 27:92: 28:58; 29:68; 106:5.

Important Words:

مصیر (destination) is derived from صار meaning, he returned, or he became. مصیر is thus a place or condition to which a person or thing comes or returns; a destination (Aqrab).

Commentary:

When Abraham offered the prayer, there was no town existing near the Ka‘bah. There existed only the House of God. So Abraham prayed that in that wildest of wildernesses there might grow up a town, and that that town might become a place of security, affording peace to mankind. In fulfilment of this prayer, there grew up the town of Mecca which has remained a place of peace and security for thousands of years. The prayer also implied that the Baitullah, would be the means of bringing peace and security to mankind. This was destined to come about in two ways: Firstly, those who accepted and followed Islam were to become secure from all evils and to become recipients of God’s blessings. Secondly, Islam was to be the means of bringing about peace and concord among the different nations of the world.

While praying to God to grant sustenance to the dwellers of Mecca, Abraham restricted his prayer only to its good and righteous dwellers. The reason for this was that when Abraham had previously prayed to God to raise Reformers and Religious Leaders from his progeny, God had replied that such men would be raised from among the righteous only (2:125). So when he prayed a second time to God to grant sustenance to the people of Mecca, he was more careful and confined his prayer to the righteous only. This shows how submissive and careful God’s Prophets are. But Abraham had now evidently become overly cautious, for this time God answered, saying, that He would grant sustenance to all men, irrespective of whether they were righteous or not, because He was the Provider for the whole universe, not for the righteous only. The wicked, however, shall be duly punished for their crimes.

Another reason why Abraham restricted his prayer to the righteous was that he wished Mecca to be the abode of the righteous alone; but God knew that even that sacred town was not going to remain untarnished throughout the long centuries of history.

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.

3:157; 9:116; 40:69; 57:3.

Commentary:

The preceding verses spoke of the great rise and success in store for Muslims—their being brought out of darkness into light. Now the Quran proceeds to illustrate the promised rise and advancement. It takes us back to the days of Abraham.

An incident in the life of the great Patriarch has been cited to illustrate the truth of the statement made in the previous verse, viz. that God is the friend of believers; He helps them against their enemies and shows them the way of success, leading them out of darkness into light.

Abraham was a native of Ur of the Chaldees. His people worshipped the stars and their chief god was the Sun. Their greatest god was Merodach (or Madruk), who was originally the god of the morning and the spring sun. He was also called Bel, i.e. Lord (Enc. Bib. and Enc. Rel. Eth. ii. 296).

Abraham was hostile to the worship of idols and false deities and vehemently preached against them. He once set fire to a house which contained wooden images. On another occasion, be broke certain idols to pieces and burned them, whereupon he was produced before the king, whose name is recorded as Nimrod (Gen. 10:8, 9 and Jew. Enc. under Abraham) and who was also worshipped by the people as a representative of their deities. The king, it appears, threatened Abraham with ruin and death, to which Abraham firmly and boldly replied that he could do him no harm, for it was His Lord God Who granted life and caused death. As the king laid claim to godhead, he wrathfully rejoined that it was he who exercised these powers. Now Abraham knew that Nimrod and his people believed that all life depended on the sun, so if it was true that it was the king who controlled life and death, it meant that even the sun was under the control of the king and that the final power of life and death attributed by Nimrod and his men to the sun was a mere farce. So he pertinently asked the king to send back the sun from the west to the east (i.e. put it aside), for in such case the sun could not be recognized as the final controlling power. The king was in a fix. He could not say that he did not possess the power to send back the sun, for that would have exposed him. At the same time he could not say that it was he who caused the sun to rise from the east and set in the west, for his people looked upon the sun as the supreme deity, superior to the king himself, and if he had claimed any power over the sun, he would have surely roused the ire of his people against him. So he was dumbfounded and knew not what reply to make.

2:126.

14:36; 28:58; 29:68.

22:28.

Commentary:

After alluding to the historical evidence in favour of the Ka‘bah, the Quran proceeds to state that reason also demands that the Ka‘bah should be adopted as the Qiblah. The verse gives reasons to show that the Ka‘bah is entitled to be adopted as the Qiblah or the centre of God’s religion.

The first reason, as hinted in the words, the place of Abraham, is that Abraham came and prayed here. Jews and Christians, to both of whom Abraham is worthy of great reverence, have to admit that Abraham visited the place. Therefore, it cannot be denied that it is a blessed place.

The second reason, referred to in the words whoso enters it enters peace, is that the Ka‘bah not only promises but also affords peace and security to those who enter it. This promise has been literally fulfilled. Temporally, God has ever protected it against wars and invasions both in ancient and modern times. The way in which Abrahah, ruler of Yemen, and his hosts were destroyed when they tried to invade the Ka‘bah and the way in which this territory, which then formed a part of the dominion of Turkey, was kept outside the conflict during the First World War (1914-18) afford remarkable instances of how miraculously God protects the Ka‘bah. Unlike the sacred places of other nations, it has never fallen into the hands of a people who would not revere it. Even in the Days of Ignorance when the different tribes of pagan Arabia were constantly at war with one another, the territory of the Ka‘bah was held to be sacred and no fighting was allowed therein. Spiritually, also, it is a place of security for those who enter it in the spiritual sense, i.e.embrace the religion of Islam. They become recipients of divine favours and enjoy security from the punishment of God.

The third reason which entitles the Ka‘bah to be adopted as the Qiblah is hinted at in the words, pilgrimage to the House is a duty which men…owe to God. The verse contains an implied promise on the part of God that the Ka‘bah shall ever continue to be the centre to which men of different countries and diverse nations will resort for Pilgrimage. The fulfilment of this promise is proof of the fact that the Ka‘bah has indeed been designed by God to be the Qiblah of all nations.

Every Muslim who can find a way to Mecca is bound to perform Pilgrimage to the Ka‘bah once in his lifetime. If he performs it more than once, it is regarded as a supererogatory act of devotion.

The words, who can find a way thither, embody three conditions: (1) one should have the necessary conveyance for performing the journey; (2) one should have the necessary money to bear the expenses; and (3) there should be peace and security on the way (Dawud). If a person is sick, he is supposed to have no "way" and Pilgrimage does not become obligatory on him.

The words, and whoever disbelieves (let him remember) that Allah is surely independent of all creatures, signify that whoever refuses to accept the Ka‘bah as the Qiblah, in spite of the arguments given in its favour, should remember that these commandments have been given for the good of man himself; so if he does not act upon them, he only harms himself and does no harm to God, Who is "Independent of all creatures".

The object of Pilgrimage is to accustom men to leave their home and country and suffer separation from relatives and friends for the sake of God. The Pilgrimage to Mecca is also a symbol of the respect shown to places where the will of God was specially manifested and a reminder of the incidents connected with that manifestation. It reminds believers of the long and hazardous journey of Abraham and Ishmael to the desert valley of Mecca and of Ishmael’s being left in that desert by Abraham; it tells them in speechless eloquence how those who make sacrifices in the way of God are protected and honoured by him; and it fosters their faith in the power and might of God. Again, the pilgrim, on finding himself near the place which has, from the beginning of the world, been dedicated to the worship of God, is sure to experience a peculiar spiritual association with those who have, through centuries, been bound together by the love and remembrance of God.

Beside this, the Pilgrimage to Mecca has great social and political significance; for Muslims from all parts of the world who meet here once a year can exchange views and establish and renew relations of love and brotherhood. They have opportunities of acquainting themselves with the problems that confront Muslims in different countries, of copying one another’s good points, profiting by one another’s experience and of cooperating with one another. It is, however, a matter of great regret that at present little advantage is being taken of this aspect of the Pilgrimage.

2:41, 84.

2:61; 7:161.

See 2:26.

2:109.

Important Words:

نقیبا (leaders) is the verbal adjective from نقب. They say نقبه i.e. he perforated or made a hole through it. نقب فی الارض means, he went through the land. نقب عن الاخبار means, he scrutinized or examined the news. نقب علی قومه means, he acted as نقیب (leader or supervisor) over his people. نقیب means, a thing perforated or pierced through; a musical reed or pipe; the head or chief of people who investigates and superintends their affairs, takes notice of their actions and is responsible for them (Lane).

عزرتموھم (you support them) is derived from عزر. عزرہ means, he censured him; he helped him. They say عزره عن کذا i.e. he prevented or hindered him or turned him away from such a thing. عزره (‘azzarahu) means: (1) he chastised or punished or censured or corrected him, in order to turn him away from evil; (2) he aided and assisted him; he strengthened him; he aided him against his enemy by repelling the latter; (3) he treated him with reverence, respect or honour (Lane).

Commentary:

The verse contains a veiled warning to Muslims that they can expect the help of God only so long as they adhere to their covenant with Him and obey His behests.

By the words "twelve leaders" are meant the twelve Prophets of Israel who came after Moses. According to some authorities, these were the twelve "Princes" said to have been appointed by Moses (Num. 1:4-16).

The words قرضاحسنا (goodly loan) may either mean good deeds for which a reward is expected from God, or voluntary contributions to help the cause of religion. The verse is addressed to the Israelites.

5:73, 74.

See 3:190.

Important Words:

یھلك (bring to naught) is derived from اھلك which is the causative form of ھلك which means, he or it perished or came to naught; or he or it came to an end and became non-existent. اھلكه means, he caused him or it to perish, or he destroyed him or it, or he brought him or it to naught (Lane). اھلكه also means, he punished him (Mufradat). The Holy Prophet is reported to have said: اذاقال الرجل ھلك الناس فھواھلکھم i.e. "When a man says, such and such people have perished (viz. they have become morally and spiritually ruined and their state is past recovery), it is he himself who causes them to perish by saying so, for he makes them despair of recovery and of salvation" (Muslim, ch. on Birr Was-Silah). The word is used in this sense also elsewhere in the Quran (67:29; 8:43).

Commentary:

The expression یھلك (bring to naught) is used here not simply in the sense of destroying but in that of destroying by punishment. It is indeed a jealous and indignant God that speaks in this verse. He condemns Christians in a tone of strong indignation and vehement reproach at their preposterous claims about the Godhead of Jesus; and as Jesus and his mother, Mary, have become the means and object of this highly sinful doctrine, the verse fittingly refers to the divine power of punishing them also if God should so desire. It will be noted that a section of Christians looks upon Mary also as Divine and superhuman.

The words, those that are in the earth, obviously refer to those who deify Jesus. God’s purpose in using such strong language is to expose the monstrosity of the doctrine that Jesus was God or the Son of God. Elsewhere also in the Quran strong language has been used about those who hold such blasphemous beliefs and they are threatened with exemplary punishment (19:89-92).

The words, what is between them, corroborate and add force and strength to the argument given in the earlier part of the verse at the same time hinting at the final dissolution of Christian empires as a result of the most blasphemous doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. See also 3:27.

What the Christians say is, "The Messiah, son of Mary, is God," and not "God is none but the Messiah" as the verse puts it. The assertion has been inverted in order to bring home to Christians their great error; for, to say that "The Messiah is God" is really tantamount to saying that "God is none but the Messiah," But Christians, being too conscious of the weaknesses of their Messiah, dare not accept the latter proposition, which thus goes to prove the hollowness of their claim that the Messiah, son of Mary, is God.

Important Words:

یمھدون (will earn good) is derived from مھد which means, he spread out; he attended to a business and drew profit from it. مھد الامر means, he reformed the affair and made it easy and put it in proper order. مھد لفلان عذرہ means, he accepted the excuse of such a one. مھد لنفسه خیرا means, he provided good for himself and sent it ahead (Aqrab). See also 3:47.

4:172; 5:18; 9:30.

5:118; 19:37.

Commentary:

That Jesus taught the Israelites to worship God alone is apparent even from the Gospels in their present distorted form (e.g. Matt. 4:10; Luke 4:8). Also see 5:18.