Topic: Adoration (Sabbih), Praise, Exalt, Pray, Glorify

Important Words:

سبحانك (Holy art Thou). The word سبحان is the infinitive of سبح for which see 2:31. The infinitive form is used to intensify the meaning.

Commentary:

As the angels were conscious of their nature and limitations, they frankly confessed that they were unable to reflect God’s attributes as man could do, i.e. they could reflect only such of His attributes as He, in His eternal wisdom, had given them the power of reflecting. Man was a fuller image of God than the angels, or, for that matter, any other created being. Says God: We have created man in the best of constitutions (95:5).

4:172; 6:101, 102; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 19:36, 89, 90; 21:27; 25:3; 39:5; 43:82.

30:27.

Important Words:

قانتون (obedient) which is the plural of قانت is derived from قنت which means: (1) he obeyed; (2) he showed humility and submissiveness; (3) he remained silent, refraining from speech; and (4) he stood praying or he stood long in Prayer (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The verse speaks of the Christians with whom the Muslims were to come in contact in their great march as the torchbearers of Islam. Failing to get converts from among the Jews, the early Christians turned their attention to the Romans and the Greeks but succumbed to their philosophies and freely borrowed ideas from them, incorporating them into their own beliefs and doctrines. As a result of this, Jesus began to be represented as the Son of God and the dogma of Trinity became the basic doctrine of the Christian Faith. The expression "son of God" metaphorically used in Jewish religious literature in the sense of "a beloved servant of God" or "a Prophet" came to bear a literal connotation (Luke 20: 36; Matt. 5:9, 45, 48; Deut. 14:1; Exod. 4:22; Gal. 3:26; Wisd. 2:18, etc.). The Quran has exploded this doctrine and has, in the verse under comment, given several arguments to expose its falsity: (1) If God has a son, He must be subject to sexual desires and need a wife and be divisible, because the son is a part of the father’s body. Again, He must be subject to death because the procreation of species, which the attribution of a son to God implies, is the characteristic of perishable things. But Islam repudiates all such ideas; for according to it, God is Holy and free from all defects and weaknesses. (2) One sometimes needs a son or a successor to extend one’s dominion and bring into subjugation such territories as do not acknowledge one’s rule. But God has no such need; for everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him. (3) A son or helper is sometimes required to keep under control the turbulent or far-flung parts of one’s kingdom; but God has no such requirement, for "all are obedient to Him." Thus, from whatever angle we may view the question, God is proved to need no son, no helper or assistant to help Him in the work of controlling and managing the universe. In fact, it is blasphemy to say so. The argument is further elaborated in the next verse.

4:104; 10:13; 39:10; 62:11.

38:28.

Important Words:

باطلا (in vain) is derived from بطل meaning, it was or became false or vain, or void or futile or devoid of virtue or of no account. They say ذھب دمه باطلا meaning his blood went for nothing, i.e. went unretaliated. بطل فی حدیثه means, he jested or was not serious in his discourse. باطل therefore, means: false, spurious, vain, useless, void and of no account (Lane).

Commentary:

Such a grand system to which an allusion has been made in the previous verse could certainly not have been brought into being without a definite purpose. The phenomenon of day and night referred to in the preceding verse affords an illustration of how this purpose is served. With the rising of the sun the whole world is illuminated, and men begin to work. Then night falls and the light of the sun is hidden from our view and men go to sleep, but even then some heavenly bodies are busy doing their allotted task. Thus both during day and night heavenly bodies perform their appointed functions and loyally serve man. The whole universe having been created to serve man, the creation of man must also have a great purpose. Of men, some are bright in themselves like the sun, and there are others who possess no intrinsic light of their own but borrow it from others. Such men as place themselves in right relation to the Sun of the spiritual realm become enlightened, while those that keep away from it are left in the dark.

When man ponders over the spiritual implication of the physical phenomenon of the creation of heavens and earth, the alteration of day, and night and the consummate order that pervades the universe, he is deeply impressed by the great wisdom of the Creator, and from the inmost depths of his being rises the cry: Our Lord, Thou hast not created this in vain. Then apprehension takes hold of him lest he should become deprived of the light of the spiritual Sun and he cries out: Save us from the punishment of Fire, which is nothing but being overtaken by spiritual darkness and moral degradation.

5:78.

58:23.

5:74.

2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 112:4, 5.

Important Words:

کلمته (His word). کلمة has been used in the Quran in different senses:(1) good tiding (e.g. 37:171, 172); (2) warning of coming punishment (e.g. 39:20); (3) a thing or being created without the instrumentality of any physical means, i.e. by the Will of God expressed by saying "Be" (e.g. 3:46-48); (4) a Sign (e.g. 18:110); (5) a message (e.g. 3:65); (6) a design; (e.g.9:40); (7) a word or saying (e.g. 23:101). See also 3:46.

روح (mercy) is derived from راح i.e. it became cool and pleasant; he was brisk, lively, active, prompt or quick. روح means, soul or spirit; the subtle substance in man which is the principle of vitality and of sensation and of voluntary motion; the breath which a man breathes and which pervades the whole body, after the exit of which he ceases to breathe; Divine revelation or inspiration; the Quran; angel; joy and happiness; mercy (Lane).

Commentary:

From the above-mentioned different meanings of روح and کلمة becomes clear that no higher spiritual status can be assigned to Jesus than to the other Prophets, on account of the word روح or کلمة having been used about him in the Quran. These and similar expressions have been used in the Quran about other Prophets also and even about persons who were not Prophets, such as Mary and the children of Adam (see 58:23; 15:30; 32:10; 21:92). It may be noted here that the words روح منه (mercy from Him) do not mean that the روح formed a part of the Divine Being but that it was only a gift of God. The expression منه (from Him) has been used in the Quran in this sense in 45:14.

In fact, the Quran uses these words about Jesus because foul charges were brought against him and his mother, Mary, by the Jews. These words are thus meant to exculpate and exonerate him from those charges and not to deify him. The Quranlends no support whatsoever to the absurd and unfounded view that Jesus was anything higher than a human being. He was human and of the earth, and yet a Messenger of God (e.g. 43:60; 19:31).

The verse refers to the three alleged persons of the Trinity, i.e. the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and condemns Trinity, declaring Allah alone to be the one true God, and the Messiah and the Holy Spirit as only the servants of God and in no way sharers in Godhead.

5:110; 9:78; 34:49.

Important Words:

The words ما یکون لی (I could not) may be interpreted in various ways, such as, it was not fitting or proper for me to do so; or it did not behove me; or it was beyond my power or position; or it was impossible for me; or I had no right to do so, etc. See also 3:80.

نفس (mind) means, among other things, knowledge; purpose or intention (Lane). See also 3:29.

Commentary:

The expression, Holy art Thou, besides hinting that it is only God Who is free from error, embodies a beautiful reply on the part of Jesus to the question put to him by God in the words, didst thou say to men, 'Take me and my mother for two gods', which seemed to imply a sort of reproach and an expression of displeasure. The reply of Jesus appears to be something like this: "I was only a humble Messenger, O God, therefore I could not ask men to take me and my mother as gods beside Thee, for if I had done so, that would have been a reflection on Thee that Thou didst choose as Thy Messenger a person who turned faithless to Thee and asked his followers to take him and his mother as gods beside Thee. But Thy choice, o God, cannot be wrong; hence it was impossible that I, a Messenger of Thine, should have bidden men take me and my mother as gods, and Thine own all-embracing knowledge, o God, is a testimony of my innocence."

The word نفس (mind) when used about God implies "intention." Thus the last sentence of the verse would mean, "I do not know what Thou meanest by this question. Thou, being All-Knowing, well knowest that I did not say so; hence, I fail to understand the object or purpose of Thy ques-tion." This reply of Jesus shows that in his heart he was afraid that some shortcoming in the execution of his duty might have displeased the Almighty.

2:117; 9:31; 10:19.

Important Words:

الجن (the jinn) is derived from the verb جن i.e. he covered up or concealed. The word here signifies such beings as remain aloof from the people, as if remaining concealed, e.g. kings and other potentates. In its wider significance the word extends to angels and other hidden creatures. See also 2:26; 6:77 & 6:129.

خرقوا (they falsely ascribe) is derived from خرق. They say خرقه i.e. he made a hole in it, or he cut it or tore it. خرق الارضmeans, he traversed or crossed the land by journeying so as to reach the furthest part thereof.

خرق الکذب means, he forged the lie. Sometimes the word خرق even when used without a qualifying word means, he forged a lie, or he lied, or he falsely ascribed something to somebody (Taj).

Commentary:

This verse draws attention to the way in which man stumbles when he rejects divine revelation and follows his own judgement and reason. It calls upon the reader to mark the difference between divine and man-made teachings. Men, unguided by divine light and following their own reason, have strayed so far away from the path of rectitude that some suppose the jinn (kings, etc.) to be co-partners with God, as did the Egyptians in the time of Moses; while others attribute sons and daughters to Him, as do the Christians, who have deified Jesus and believe him to be the son of God. A comparison of these man-made teachings with those revealed by God definitely proves the need of Divine revelation.

2:254; 4:165.

Important Words:

تجلی (manifested Himself) is derived from جلا . They say جلاالامر i.e. the affair was or became clear, manifest, displayed, uncovered or laid open. تجلی الشیء i.e. the thing became manifest or apparent. تجلی الشیء used transitively means, he looked at the thing standing upon a higher position. The Quranic expression فلماتجلی ربه للجبل means, when his Lord became manifest to the mountain, i.e. when He manifested Himself on the mountain (Lane & Aqrab).

دکا (pieces) is the noun-infinitive from دك i.e. he broke or crushed or pounded a thing. They say دك الارض i.e. he made even the elevations and depressions of the earth. دکته الحمی means, fever weakened him. دك , therefore, means, an even or level place; a land broken and made even; a crumbled mountain; a mound or hill or dust or earth such as is a sandhill. The Quranic words جعله دکا means, He made it even or level; or He made it crumbled (Lane).

Commentary:

This verse sheds light on one of the most important religious subjects—whether it is possible for one to see God with the physical eyes. The verse lends no support to the view that God is visible to the physical eyes. Let alone seeing Him, the human eye cannot even see angels. Says the Quran: If God had appointed as Messenger an angel, He would have made him appear as a man (6:10). As we cannot see angels but only a manifestation of them, similarly we can see only a manifestation of God, and not God Himself. It is, therefore, inconceivable that a great Prophet of God like Moses with all his knowledge of the attributes of God, should have desired an impossibility. Moses knew that he could see only a manifestation of God and not God Himself. But he had already seen a manifestation of God in "the fire" when travelling from Midian to Egypt (28:30). What then did Moses mean by his request to see God, contained in the words, My Lord, show Thyself to me that I may look at Thee? The request seems to refer to the Perfect manifestation of God that was not granted to Moses but was to take place at the time of the Holy Prophet of Islam who was to be a مثیل or like of Moses. Indeed, Moses had already been given the promise that there was to appear, from among the brethren of the Israelites, a Prophet in whose mouth God was to put His word (Deut. 18:18-22). The words in which the promise was given implied a greater manifestation of God than had been vouchsafed to Moses. So Moses was naturally anxious to see what sort of God’s Glory and Majesty the promised Manifestation would be. He, therefore, wished that something of that Glory and Majesty might be shown to him. But a manifestation of that Glory was beyond the capacity of Moses to bear; it could not take place in or upon his heart. He was, therefore, asked to see a manifestation of it taking place at the Mount. But this should not be understood to mean that the Mount was to serve as a receptacle for the Great Glory: for, according to the Quran (33:73), the heart of Moses was certainly more capable of enduring it than the Mount. The Mount thus served only as the site or locality where that great manifestation was to take place. But even this proved too much for the Mount which shook violently.

The effect on the Mount was similar in nature to that produced on a Companion of the Holy Prophet when the latter’s head happened to be resting on his thigh at a time when a revelation descended on the Prophet. He felt such a heavy weight on his thigh that he feared that it would be crushed under it. Moses, too, could not bear to see the manifestation of Divine Power and Majesty and fell down unconscious, in spite of the fact that he had been warned beforehand of the terrible quaking that was to overtake the Mount. Thus it was that Moses realised that he did not possess the capacity for that powerful manifestation of Divine glory which was to take place later through the Holy Prophet of Islam. This is why when he recovered his senses, Moses cried, Holy art Thou, I turn towards Thee, and I am the first to believe. These words meant that he had realized that he did not possess the capacity for that perfect manifestation of Divine glory which was to take place through the Promised Prophet and that he was the first believer in the great spiritual eminence which that Prophet was destined to attain. This belief of Moses in the Holy Prophet has also been referred to in 46:11.

The words, He broke it into pieces, should not be taken literally, for the Mount was not actually broken into pieces. The words are used figuratively to express the great severity of the earthquake.

It may be also noted here that Moses was told to look at the mountain, and he was also told that he would see God if it remained in its place. The laying down of this condition shows that Moses had not asked for an impossible thing; for the laying down of a condition for an impossible thing is evidently meaningless.

The words, look at the mountain, implied that he should look outside himself because the manifestations could not take place within him. The fact that Moses fell down in a swoon shows that he did witness some manifestation, though only partly and imperfectly. The manifestation that takes place in the heart is permanent and lasting, while that which takes place outside is only temporary and passing.

A reference to this request of Moses to see God is to be found in Exod. 33:18.

12:41; 17:24; 98:6.

Important Words:

For احبار (learned men) and رھبان (monks) see 5:45 and 5:83 respectively.

Commentary:

احبار (learned men) belonged to Jews and رھبان (monks) to Christians. Both these people virtually looked upon their religious leaders as so many gods besides the true God.

14:24; 36:59.

Commentary:

The verse purports to say that on having been endowed with the rewards of Heaven and on experiencing its supreme bliss, the believers will at once cry out, Glory be to Thee, O Allah. This glorification will be spontaneous and instinctive, because in Heaven the true reality of things will become manifest to all. Even in this life a true believer praises and glorifies God whenever he sees a praiseworthy thing, the inward reality of which he does not know. He does so because he knows that no work of God is devoid of wisdom. But in Heaven, the reality of all things will become apparent to man. He will come to realize on the basis of his personal observation and experience that every work of God is founded in deep wisdom. The realization of this eternal truth will make him exclaim instinctively and involuntarily, Glory be to Thee, o Allah.

The verse proceeds to say that believers in Heaven will salute each other with the greeting of peace. In fact, all our sufferings (i.e. lack of peace) in this world are due to our ignorance of the true reality and properties of things and, as these will be disclosed to us in Heaven, we shall attain there complete and real peace, for we shall then become secure against all harm by knowing the true properties of all things and will get complete freedom from pain and suffering. Hence, after glorifying God on learning the realities of things and experiencing the complete bliss of Heaven, believers will go about exclaiming, "There is peace here, nothing but peace", for, after attaining perfect knowledge of things, they will no longer suffer by making wrong use of them.

Finally, when believers will see perfect peace reigning in Heaven and will have vented their happy feelings to one another, they will turn again to God and the conclusion of their prayer will be, "All praise be to Allah, Who has placed us in such a place of perfect bliss."

16:74; 22:72; 29:18.

49:17.

Commentary:

The real cause of shirk (idolatry) lies in failure on the part of men to understand the object and purpose of their creation. A mushrik (idolater) has a false conception of the person and attributes of God and of his own great inborn capacities and capabilities. He entertains the foolish belief that he cannot have access to God without the aid of an intermediary, and also that God cannot condescend to come to him except through the medium of those who have already attained His nearness. Islam is opposed to both these views. It does not allow us to entertain any such suspicion about God, nor does it permit us to underrate our own natural powers. God has created man that he may attain His nearness and He does not tolerate that anyone should intervene between Him and His creatures. Even the Prophets of God are not intermediaries. They are only Divine Messengers and Warners, and their intercession is also based on Divine sanction. See also 2:49.

The expression, Would you inform Allah of something He knows not, contains an excellent refutation of shirk (idolatry). It purports to say that if God had appointed anyone as intercessor either in the heavens or in the earth, a declaration would have been made by Him to that effect. But no such announcement has ever been made by God. It is the people themselves who declare that such and such a person has been appointed as an intercessor, and so they, as it were, inform God of something which He does not know.

The words, Holy is He, are meant to point out that it is incompatible with the perfection of God that He should first create man for a certain purpose and then should Himself place obstacles in his way, or should reveal no guidance to warn him of those obstacles.

2:117; 4:172; 9:31; 17:112; 18:5, 6.

Commentary:

In v. 67, it had been hinted that in the false doctrines of disbelievers lie hidden the seeds of their destruction. In the present verse, the Quran proceeds to refute the doctrine of the plurality of gods, the most heinous of all false beliefs, and of the various forms of this doctrine it selects the belief that God has a son. This doctrine differs from other known polytheistic dogmas in that, whereas in other forms of shirk, idolaters claim only that they can attain nearness to God through the instrumentality of their gods, by this doctrine a person is believed to be an actual partner in Godhead.

Four arguments have been given here in refutation of the doctrine that a person can be a Son of God. The first is contained in the words, Holy is He, which mean that God is free from all defects and imperfections. But the belief that God has a son presupposes the presence of carnal passions in Him as well as His being subject to the laws of decay and death, for only such beings or things are perpetuated in their progeny as are subject to decay and death. The earth, the sun and the moon, for instance, have no issue because they are above the familiar law of death and decay; but animals and plants wither and die. Therefore they produce their substitutes which take their place when they are gone. Thus the existence of the progeny of a thing presupposes its mortality.

The second argument is embodied in the words, He is Self-Sufficient, which mean that in His work of running the universe God does not need anybody’s help. Progeny, besides saving a person from extinction, helps him to carry on his work. But God being Self-Sufficient needs no helper in that respect either.

The third argument is contained in the sentence, To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. Sometimes one can make or originate a thing but lacks the power or ability to keep it in his possession or under his control and therefore needs assistance. But God does not need anybody’s help to keep the universe in His possession or under His control.

The fourth argument is implied in the expression, You have no authority for this, which signifies that the doctrine of the plurality of gods is based on no sound or solid ground. Its whole basis lies in the fancy and caprice of men. This fact alone constitutes an argument against this foolish doctrine. All efforts to find some real evidence in support of shirk, do not go beyond mere indulgence in idle philosophical discussion, and no real basis has so far been found for it.

The argument embodied in the words, Do you say against Allah what you know not?, is given in 13:34, in the words, Would you inform Him of what He does not know in the earth? The difference in the wording is due to the fact that in the verse under comment it is pointed out that shirk springs from the ignorance of man and is not based on any sound reasoning, while in 13:34 it is said that the doctrine of shirk involves the charge of ignorance on the part of God, for it means that He failed to know and make known the existence of gods and it was left to idolaters to disclose the godhead of their deities by the force of their own knowledge.

6:58.

Commentary:

In this verse the Holy Prophet is represented as saying that his wont is to benefit by the signs of God, to believe in Him alone, and to eschew all forms of idolatry, because he has received clear proof and sure knowledge from God. This shows that a blind and unthinking faith which is not based on sound arguments carries no weight. A true Muslim, like his Master, the Holy Prophet, should possess clear and irrefutable proofs and evidence to support and substantiate all his beliefs and doctrines. Mere hearsay or traditional belief is nothing.

5:53.

Commentary:

The word 'decree' may refer either (1) to the punishment with which disbelievers were threatened in the previous chapter in the words, the hour is sure to come (15:86), or (2) to the promise contained in the words, lower thy wing of mercy for the believers (15:89). The words, the decree of Allah is coming, mean to say (1) that the time of punishment for disbelievers or (2) the time of the ushering in of the new order, has arrived.

The words, so seek ye not to hasten it, refer to both the aforesaid claims: (1) Disbelievers are told not to be in a hurry to demand punishment, for the time of punishment had already drawn near. (2) Believers are told not to be impatient for the new order which is already at their very doors.

At the end of the previous Surah, the Holy Prophet and the believers were asked to shun disbelievers and give up further reasoning with them (15:86), and confine themselves to the glorification of God (15:99). Now by the words, Holy is He, it is announced that the time has come when the Sanctity and Holiness of God will be established. The Prophet possesses no material resources and has no means while disbelievers possess all sorts of means and resources. So the fact that the Prophet, notwithstanding his weakness and resourcelessness, will have power and dominion over his enemies will constitute clear evidence of the Holiness of God.

The words, The decree of Allah is coming, fulfil the prophecy of punishment implied in the words, the hour is sure to come (15:86), while the words, Holy is He, fulfil the prophecy embodied in the words, glorify thy Lord praising Him(15:99). This beautiful order and continuity of themes disposes of the ignorant criticism that there is no order or arrangement in the Quran.

The words, Exalted above all that which they associate with Him, signify that the associate-gods of disbelievers can never frustrate God’s plans or interfere with His decrees and decisions.

This loud proclamation of the Unity of God and His freedom from associates or partners constitutes a very cogent proof of the Divinesource of the Quran. False claimants always seek to form a powerful party of their supporters, and if they fail to do so, attribute the failure of their mission to this fact. But the True and All-Powerful God proclaims His Oneness as well as His independence of all partisans, associates or supporters.

6:101; 37:153-154; 43:17; 52:40; 53:22.

Commentary:

The verse does not imply that the offence of disbelievers lies in attributing to God daughters and not sons. In 19: 91, 92, it has been clearly mentioned how it displeases God when a son is attributed to Him. The present verse only points to the folly of disbelievers that they go against their own accepted principles. The rejection of truth makes them impervious to this patent fact that they attribute daughters to God while they themselves feel humiliated at daughters being attributed to them. This shows how helpless human intellect, unaided by Divinerevelation, is to understand even very easy and simple things, let alone difficult and complicated religious problems. A possible objection that the Quran wrongly assumes that polytheists regard daughters as a source of humiliation is answered in the next verse.

5:22; 7:138.

Important Words:

اسری (carried) is derived from سری. They say سری باللیل او سری اللیل i.e. he journeyed or travelled by night or in the night. اسراهاو اسری به means, he made him journey or travel, or he transported him by night or in the night; he journeyed or travelled with him, by night or in the night, or simply, he carried him. The Quranic expression سبحان الذی اسری بعبدہ لیلا means, Glory be to Him Who transported His servant by night. According to some lexicologists اسری is used for journey in the first part of the night and سری for the last part of it. According to others, the verb اسری is from سراة which means, a wide tract of land. According to this meaning the expression اسری بعبدہ means, Who transported His servant over a wide tract of land (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).

المسجد الاقصی (the Distant Mosque). اقصی is derived from قصی. They say قصی المکان i.e. the place was or became distant. اقصیmeans, distant or very distant (Aqrab). المسجد الاقصی may signify the Prophet Solomon’s Temple at Jerusalem, the Holy Prophet’s Mosque at Medina or the Promised Messiah’s Mosque at Qadian.

Commentary:

The verse is supposed by almost all commentators of the Quran to refer to the معراج (Spiritual Ascension of the Holy Prophet). The subject of Mi‘raj has become much complicated and confused on account of the many divergent traditions that deal with it. Contrary to popular view we are, however, inclined towards the opinion that the present verse deals with the اسراء (Night Journey) of the Holy Prophet while his Mi‘raj (Spiritual Ascension) has been dealt with in Surah An-Najm. That Surah removes all the obscurities and ambiguities that have confused the popular mind in regard to this important subject. In Surah An-Najm we have:

It is nothing but a revelation that is revealed. The One of mighty powers has taught him (this knowledge): the One Possessor of strength. So He manifested His ascendance (over everything) and He revealed His Word when he was on the uppermost horizon. Then he drew nearer (to God); then he came down to (His creatures), so that he became, as it were, the one chord of two bows or closer still. And He revealed to His servant that which He revealed. The heart (of the Prophet) was not untrue to that which he saw. Will you then dispute with him concerning that which he saw? And certainly he saw Him a second time, near the Lote-tree beyond which none may pass, near which is the Garden of Abode. This was when a wonderful and glorious Divine manifestation covered the Lote-tree. The eye deviated not nor did it wander. Surely, he saw the greatest of the Signs of his Lord. (53:5-19).

These verses give a graphic description of the Mi‘raj, for the facts mentioned in them all relate to it, e.g. the Holy Prophet went up to the Lote-tree; (2) the Lote-tree was covered with "something"; (3) the Prophet saw the Paradise (the Garden of Abode) near the Lote-tree; (4) he became, as it were, the one chord of two bows; (5) he saw God (and the heart of the Prophet was not untrue to that which he saw); and (6) the word of God descended on the Lote-tree.

All these details have also been mentioned in the traditions which deal with the Mi‘raj. As for the Lote-tree, AbuHurairah (as reported by Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abu Hatim, Ibn Merdawaih, Abu Ya‘la and Baihaqi) says, "In the night of Mi‘raj, after having seen other Prophets of God in heaven, the Holy Prophet proceeded further till he reached the Lote-tree." The same fact has been mentioned in the tradition quoted on the authority of Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri by Ibn Jarir, Ibn Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Merdawaih, Baihaqi, and Ibn ‘Asakir, and in the tradition quoted on the authority of Malik Ibn Sa‘sa’ by Ahmad bin Hanbal, Bukhari, Muslim and Ibn Jarir and in the tradition quoted on the authority of Anas by Bukhari (Bukhari, chapter on Mi‘raj, & Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. 1, pp. 153, 167 & 174).

The second important detail mentioned in Surah An-Najm is that when the Prophet reached the Lote-tree, he saw it covered with some extraordinary thing (53:17). This has also been mentioned in the traditions that deal with Mi‘raj. In the tradition reported by Abu Hurairah to which reference has been made above we read فغشیھا نور الخلاق عزوجل i.e. when the Holy Prophet reached the Lote-tree, the light of the Powerful and Glorious Creator covered it (Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 174). Similarly, in the tradition reported by Anas we have: "Then the Lote-tree became covered with a special Divine grace so much so that in its newly changed condition its beauty defied all description" (Muslim, Kitabul-Iman)

The third incident referred to in chapter 53 (An-Najm) is that the Holy Prophet saw Paradise near the Lote-tree. This has also found mention in traditions which deal with Mi‘raj. In the tradition quoted on the authority of Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri by Ibn Jarir and mentioned in some other books of Hadith we read: ثم انی رفعت الی الجنة i.e. after I had seen the Prophets in the heavens I was taken up to Paradise. This is followed by the words ثم انی رفعت الی سدرة المنتھی i.e. after paradise I was led up to the Lote-tree (Ibn Jarir, vol. 15, p. 11).

The fourth important detail mentioned in chapter 53 is that when the Holy Prophet had a vision of those celestial scenes he was transported into a highly spiritual state which has been described in the words, So that he became, as it were, the one chord of two bows or closer still.

This fact has also been mentioned in the traditions about Mi‘raj. In the tradition reported by Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri and referred to above we find the words: فکان قاب قوسین او ادنی i.e. between God and the Prophet there was the one chord of two bows or closer still.

The fifth important and relevant incident mentioned in chapter 53 is that during the Mi‘raj the Prophet had a vision of God Himself (53:12). This fact has also been mentioned in the traditions quoted by Ibn Merdawaih on the authority of Asma’, daughter of Abu Bakr (Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 177), and by Muslim on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas (Muslim, Kitabul-Iman). In the latter tradition we read راٰہ بفؤادہ مرتین i.e. twice the Prophet saw God with the eyes of his heart.

The sixth notable detail mentioned in chapter 53 is that God spoke to the Holy Prophet near the Lote-tree (53:11). This fact has also found a mention in the traditions. For instance, in the tradition reported by Abu Hurairah we have فکلمهاللّٰه تعالی عند ذالک i.e. so God spoke to him near it—the Lote-tree (Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 174). Similarly, Ibn Abu Hatim has reported on the authority of Anas bin Malik that when the Prophet arrived near the Lote-tree, God addressed him by name saying یا محمد i.e. O Muhammad, and then Anas continues to finish the hadith. These very striking similarities and resemblances between the subject matter of Surah An-Najm and the traditions about Mi‘raj leave no doubt that it is the Mi‘raj of the Holy Prophet which has been described in that Surah.

After having established the fact that Surah An-Najm contains a description of the Mi‘raj it is important to point out that this Surah has been admitted by the consensus of scholarly opinion to have been revealed in the fifth year of the Call or even earlier. The following very well-known historical event proves it. A party of early Muslims had sought refuge in Abyssinia. They left Mecca in the seventh month of the fifth year of the Call (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, 1923, p. 69). Now the traditions agree that three months had hardly elapsed since this little band of the Faithful had left for Abyssinia when they returned to Mecca (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, 1923, p. 80). The reason which, according to traditions, led to their early return was this. The Holy Prophet was one day reciting chapter 53. When he came to the words, Rather prostrate yourselves before Allah, and worship Him (53:63), the Prophet and the Muslims with him fell prostrate on the ground. The disbelievers present on the occasion, being overwhelmed with the grand theme of the Surah and the solemnity of the occasion, also joined the Prophet in prostration. This gave rise to the rumour that the Quraish had converted to Islam. When this rumour reached Abyssinia, Muslim refugees hastened back to Mecca. This shows that the recitation of the Surah which led to this incident having taken place, must have been revealed in the fifth year of the Call or sometime prior to it.

After a brief description of the Mi‘raj or the Spiritual Ascension of the Holy Prophet and of the time when it took place, it may be noted here that the اسراء Isra’ or the Night Journey of the Holy Prophet from Mecca to Jerusalem, with which the present verse deals took place in the eleventh year of the Call (Zurqani, vol. 1, p. 306). Christian writers, however, put it in the twelfth year of the Call (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, 1923, p. 121). Traditions relating to this incident also corroborate the date referred to above. According to the traditions quoted by Ibn Merdawaih and Ibn Sa‘d, the Isra’ took place on the seventeenth of Rabi‘ul-Awwal, a year before the Hijrah (Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 162). Similarly, a tradition quoted by Baihaqi on the authority of Ibn Shihab, relates that the Isra’ took place a year before the Hijrah. Another tradition also quoted by Baihaqi places the Night Journey to Jerusalem six months before the Hijrah (Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 162).

All these traditions go to prove that the Isra’ took place six months or a year prior to the Hijrah and it has been shown above that the Mi‘raj took place about the fifth year of the Call. Thus the two incidents are separated from each other by an interval of six or seven years and therefore cannot be identical; the Mi‘raj must be regarded as quite distinct and separate from the Isra’.

Irrefutable evidence which shows that the Mi‘raj and the Isra’ were two separate incidents is the fact that it was during the fifth year of the Call that the five daily prayers were enjoined upon Muslims. If the Mi‘raj be considered as identical with the Isra’, then it will also have to be admitted that the five daily Prayers were enjoined upon Muslims in the eleventh or twelfth year of the Call which is evidently wrong because all traditionalists agree that the five Prayers were prescribed in the very early years of the Call.

It may incidentally be stated here that the Mi‘raj itself seems to have occurred twice. As it appears from the Hadith, the first Mi‘raj occurred in the beginning of the Holy Prophet’s ministry when the foundation of the Shari‘ah may be said to have been laid and Prayers were made obligatory, which seem to have taken place in the first year of the Call (Bukhari, chapter on Tauhid; Jarir, vol. 15, p. 4). The second or the better known Mi‘raj took place about the fifth year of the Call when the five prescribed Prayers were made obligatory and chapter 53, containing a description of it, was revealed (or it may have taken place even earlier and may have been subsequently referred to in Ch. 53). The Isra’, however, is quite a separate event which undoubtedly occurred in the eleventh or twelfth year of the Call when the Prophet was living in the house of his cousin, Ummi Hani, after the death of his wife, Khadijah, which took place in the tenth year of the Call after the Prophet had come out of the Valley (شعب) of Abu Talib.

In addition to this strong historical evidence, other relevant circumstances also lend support to the view that the two incidents are quite distinct and separate from each other:

(1) The first evidence in this connection is furnished by the Quran itself. It gives an account of the Prophet’s Mi‘raj(Spiritual Ascension) in chapter 53 but makes no reference to his Isra’ (Night Journey to Jerusalem), while in the present Surah it speaks of his Isra’ but omits all allusion to his Mi‘raj. This shows that the two incidents took place separately and, therefore, could not be mentioned together. It is inconceivable that the Quran should have mentioned the concluding portion of this incident in one Surah and the first portion of the selfsame incident in another Surah five years later.

(2) The second evidence which supports this inference is the fact that there was only one person, namely Ummi Hani, who was present with the Prophet during the night when the Isra’ (Spiritual Night Journey to Jerusalem) took place and she speaks only of his visit to Jerusalem and makes no mention of his journey to the heavens. She was the first person whom the Prophet informed of his Night Journey to Jerusalem and at least seven collectors of traditions have given her account of the incident on the authority of four different reporters who have reported the incident from her. All these four reporters concur in saying that the Prophet went to Jerusalem and returned to Mecca the same night. If the Prophet had spoken of his Ascension to the heavens also, Ummi Hani could not have failed to refer to it in one or other of her reports. But she does not do so in any of her reports, which conclusively shows that during the night in question the Holy Prophet made the Isra’ or the Spiritual Night Journey to Jerusalem only and that the Mi‘raj did not take place on that occasion. So the Isra’ or the Prophet’s Spiritual Night Journey to Jerusalem should not be confused with the Mi‘raj or his Spiritual Ascension to heaven.

(3) All the different reporters of this incident may be placed in three categories: (a) those who speak of the Prophet’s Ascension direct to heaven and make no mention of his Journey to Jerusalem; (b) those who speak first of his Journey to Jerusalem and then of his Ascension to heaven; and (c) those who only speak of His Journey to Jerusalem and make no mention at all of his Ascension to heaven. Of the reporters of this last group, there is a goodly number who say expressly that the Prophet returned to Mecca after his Journey to Jerusalem.

It is evident that the reports of the first group point to the Mi‘raj as being distinct from the Isra’ inasmuch as, according to them, the Holy Prophet was taken from his house direct to heaven, so Jerusalem could not lie in his way. The reporters of this group are Anas, Malik bin Sa‘sa’ and Abu Dharr, who was one of the earliest converts to Islam.

Similarly, the reports of those who speak only of the Prophet’s Journey to Jerusalem and make no mention of his Ascension to heaven also show that when he made his Night Journey to Jerusalem, he did not ascend to heaven, for if he had ascended to heaven after his visit to Jerusalem, it is inconceivable that the reporters, after mentioning the less important part of the vision, should have omitted to mention its more important part which related to his Ascension to heaven, and to his having seen God and having had communion with Him. The reporters of this group of traditions are Anas and ‘Abdullah bin Mas‘ud, the latter being one of the earliest and best-loved of the Prophet’s Companions.

Reports of the third group clearly state that the Prophet returned to Mecca after his visit to Jerusalem and did not ascend to heaven. These also demonstrate the two events to be distinct and separate from each other. The reporters of this group are ‘Abdullah bin Mas‘ud, ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas, ‘A’ishah and Ummi Salma and Ummi Hani. All of them with the exception of ‘Abdullah bin Mas‘ud, who, as stated above, was among the earliest converts to Islam, were the Prophet’s very near relatives and enjoyed his intimate and constant company. It is impossible to impugn their evidence.

Another argument in favour of Isra’ being distinct from Mi‘raj are the traditions which speak of the Prophet’s transportation to the heavens after his visit to Jerusalem and then of his return from the heavens to Jerusalem and from Jerusalem back to Mecca (Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. I, p. 154). Now, going to Jerusalem before ascending to heaven may be considered as reasonable, for it served for the Prophet the purpose of offering Prayers at the place where a large party of heavenly Messengers had delivered their Divine Message, but it is difficult to understand why the same route should have been followed during the return journey, when on his return from heaven the Prophet is not reported to have performed any specific act at Jerusalem. The only reasonable assumption is that the account of the Isra’ became mixed up with that of the Mi‘raj. Anas seems to have related the account of both the Isra’ and the Mi‘raj to some reporters who mixed up the two accounts and mistakenly thought that they formed the two parts of the same event and thus these reporters were led to believe that while coming back from his Mi‘raj the Prophet went to Jerusalem from where he returned to Mecca. In fact, the confusion seems to have arisen from the same word اسراء (which means a night journey) having been used for both the Holy Prophet’s اسراء (Spiritual Night Journey to Jerusalem) and his معراج (Spiritual Ascension to heaven); and the resemblance that existed in some of the details in the description of the اسراء (Isra’) and the معراج (Mi‘raj) heightened and confirmed it.

Internal evidence of the traditions also points to the fact that the Isra’ and the Mi‘raj were two distinct and separate events. The traditions which first give an account of the Prophet’s visit to Jerusalem and then of his transportation from Jerusalem to heaven also state that at Jerusalem he met the former Prophets, including Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, and that in the heavens he met the same Prophets again but could not recognize them. Now how did these Prophets whom he had met at Jerusalem reach the heavens before him and why could he not recognize them while he had seen them only a short while ago in the course of the same journey? If the two meetings had taken place separately and at a distance of long intervals, it was possible that he could not have recognized some of them at the time of the second meeting in a changed atmosphere. But it is inconceivable that he should have failed to recognize them when he had met them only a short while ago in the course of the same journey.

It having been established that the Isra’ and the Mi‘raj were two separate and distinct events, it is necessary to give a somewhat detailed account of Isra’ as given in the traditions as it forms the subject matter of the verse under comment. The most reliable account of it is to be found in the tradition quoted by Ibn Jarir on the authority of Anas bin Malik. It is briefly as follows:

'When the Archangel Gabriel brought the Buraq to the Holy Prophet, he mounted it, and had gone only a short distance, when he saw an old woman. The Prophet asked Gabriel who she was, but Gabriel gave no answer to his question; on the contrary he told him not to ask questions, just as Moses in his معراج (Spiritual Ascension) was told not to put unnecessary questions (18:71). After the Prophet had gone a little further he saw a man calling him by name from across the road in order to invite his attention to himself. But Gabriel asked him again not to heed his call. When the Prophet had proceeded a little further, he met a party of men who greeted him with the greeting of peace. Gabriel told him to return their greeting. After this, the Prophet reached the Holy House in Jerusalem. There Gabriel presented him with three cups containing water, milk and wine. The Prophet took the cup containing milk and drank it and refused to accept the other two. Upon this Gabriel said to him, "Thou hast, indeed, chosen the right course which is in perfect harmony with a pure, unsullied nature. If thou hadst accepted water or wine, thou and thine followers would have been lost." Then Adam and the other Prophets were presented to him, and the Holy Prophet led them in Prayers. After this Gabriel explained to him that the old woman he saw on the way was an embodied representation of the life of this world and only as much was left of the life of the world as was left of the life of that old woman. As for the person who called him from across the road, he was Iblis, the enemy of God. The party of men who greeted him were the Prophets Abraham, Moses and Jesus' (Ibn Jarir).

This tradition serves as a key to resolve this whole allegory. It gives the most reliable and correct account of the Isra’. It shows that the Journey to Jerusalem was no physical act but only a vision. This is clear from the following facts:

(a) It is stated in this tradition that during the Night Journey to Jerusalem, the Prophet saw an old woman, a person standing on one side of the road, and three cups full of water, wine and milk (of which the Prophet chose the last), and Gabriel told him what all these things signified. The explanation and interpretation by Gabriel of the things the Prophet saw shows that the Journey was only a vision, for it is only things seen in visions that need interpretation and explanation.

(b) The Night Journey has been spoken of as a vision in the present Surah (v. 61). Accordingly, we find that several Companions of the Prophet and some of the later scholars of Islam have, on the basis of this verse, declared the Isra’ to be a vision. For instance, Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Jarir report that when Mu‘awiyah was asked concerning the Isra’, he said that it was a vision which came out to be true (Manthur, vol. 4, p. 197). ‘A’isha is also reported to have held the same view. (Hisham and Mas‘ud, vol. 1).

(c) We learn from the hadith that when the Holy Prophet spoke of his Night Journey to Jerusalem he was asked to give a description of the Temple at Jerusalem. The Prophet is reported to have said that at that time God presented before his eyes an embodied representation of the Temple and he was thus able to describe it as demanded of him (Ibn Kathir, vol. 6, p. 18).

The Vision of the Prophet referred to in the present verse implied a great prophecy. His journey to the Distant Mosque (المسجد الاقصی) meant his Migration to Medina where he was to build a Mosque which was destined to become later the Centre of all Faiths and Dispensations and the Holy Prophet’s seeing himself in the Vision leading other Prophets of God in Prayers signified that the new Faith Islam was not to remain confined to the place of its birth but was to spread all over the world and the followers of all religions were to join its fold. His going to Jerusalem in the Vision may also be understood to mean that he was to be given dominion over the territory in which Jerusalem was situated. This prophecy was fulfilled in the Caliphate of Umar.

The words of the verse also lend support to the view that the Vision constituted a prophecy about the great future of Islam. The Distant Mosque (المسجد الاقصی) that the Prophet saw in the Vision represented his own Mosque at Medina, Jerusalem stood for Medina and his going to Jerusalem signified his Migration to Medina. The Vision begins with the words سبحان الذی (Glory be to Him) which indicated that the Migration of the Prophet would redound to the Glory of God. The word سبحان itself shows that the Vision embodied a prophecy; for a physical journey to the Temple at Jerusalem could not be regarded as evidence of the Glory of God. But as establishment of the Islamic State at Medina was to fulfil a prophecy, that event did serve as evidence of Divine glory. Thus the words, Glory be to Him Who carried His servant by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Distant Mosque, signified that God would take the Holy Prophet to a Mosque resembling المسجد الاقصی (the Distant Mosque) at Jerusalem so that His word might be fulfilled.

The words, We might show him some of Our Signs, pointed to the great possibilities of the Prophet’s journey to Medina. The Prophet’s Migration to Medina served as a prelude to the glorious future of Islam which was then hidden from the eyes of the world and thus God’s great signs were manifested. The reason why the Holy Prophet’s Mosque was called المسجد الاقصی (the Distant Mosque), and why Medina was shown to him in the Vision in the form of Jerusalem was that the blessings which God had conferred on the Mosque at Jerusalem were also in store in a greater measure for the Prophet’s Mosque at Medina.

The Prophecy implied in the words, Who carried His servant by night, was fulfilled when the Prophet left Mecca at dead of night. He did not undertake this journey of his own accord but in pursuance of God’s express command. And as in his Night Journey to Jerusalem in the Vision he was accompanied by the Archangel Gabriel, so in his Flight to Medina he was accompanied by his most faithful companion, Abu Bakr. The word "Gabriel", which means "Man of God", fitly applies to Abu Bakr and portrays his spiritual eminence.

The Vision may also be taken as referring to a spiritual journey of the Holy Prophet to a distant land in some future time. It meant that when spiritual darkness enveloped the entire world, the Prophet would appear in spirit a second time in the person of one of his followers, in a land far away from the scene of his first advent—in the Punjab. A pointed reference to this second advent of the Holy Prophet is to be found in 62:3-5.

6:101; 39:68.

Commentary:

It is inconsistent with the dignity and greatness of God to grant nearness to His creatures through the medium of others and thus make difficult the path of those who seek His nearness. The Prophets of God come to make that path easy. They do not stand between God and His creatures.

Commentary:

The contemptuous tone of the disbelievers’ discourse is continued in this verse. They are represented as saying to the Prophet that if he could not accomplish any of the things they demanded of him, he might at least have some good things for himself. Pharaoh had challenged Moses that he could not be a true Prophet because he possessed no bracelets of gold (43:54); but the Meccan disbelievers went a step further and declared that the Prophet’s claims could only be regarded true if he possessed a house made of gold.

The words, Or thou ascend up into heaven…that we can read, contain a derisive reference to the Mi‘raj or the Ascension of the Prophet. The disbelievers meant to say that they would not believe in his ascension unless he stayed in the heavens and let fall to them a book that they might read. To these foolish demands of the disbelievers the words, Say, Holy is my Lord! I am not but a man sent as a Messenger, embody a crushing reply. They are told that their demands fall under two heads: (a) those that pertain to God; (b) those that pertain to the Prophet. The demands of the first category are frivolous in character and God is above such frivolities. These demands have nothing to do with the spiritual development of man for which Divine Messengers are raised. As for their demands pertaining to the Prophet, they are incompatible with his humanity and his mission as a Prophet of God. A human being, even one invested with prophethood, could not and would not indulge in such acrobatic feats.

18:99; 19:62; 46:17; 73:19.

Commentary:

The words سبحان ربنا (Holy is our Lord) show that it was inevitable that the cause of Islam should prosper and its opponents should be completely discomfited and overthrown. For if it had not been so, it would have constituted a reflection on the glory and Holiness of God Who had promised success and victory to Muslims and defeat and discomfiture to disbelievers.