Topic: Arabs

2:195; 5:46.

Important Words:

قصاص (retaliation) is derived from قص. They say قصه i.e. (1) he cut it (hair, etc.), or be clipped it; (2) he followed him closely or followed in his footsteps; and (3) he described or narrated it. قاص الرجل means, he did with the man the like of that which he did to him; he retaliated on him for the wrong done to him. اقص الامیر زیدا من بکر means, the Amir retaliated upon Bakr for the wrong he had done to Zaid. قصاص therefore, means, retaliation, by slaying for slaying, and wounding for wounding, etc. (Aqrab) or the following up of a murder or an injury with a view to retaliating or punishing (Mufradat).

القتلی (the slain) is the plural of قتیل in the sense of مقتول i.e. a murdered person (Aqrab).

الحر (freeman) is derived from حر meaning: (1) he was free-born; (2) he was of good and noble origin. حرالارض means, the best portion of land. Thus الحر means; (1) a freeman, opposite of slave or captive; (2) a noble person; (3) the good and pure portion of a thing (Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse comprises a very important principle of civil law, i.e. equality of man and necessity of awarding proportionate punishment to all offenders without distinction, unless an offender is forgiven by the relatives of his victim under circumstances that are expected to lead to improvement and betterment of conditions.

The words کتب علیکم i.e. "is prescribed for you" show that retaliation for the slain is not simply permissible but is obligatory. Failure to inflict the punishment prescribed by Law on the offender would be tantamount to a violation of the commandment. The duty, however, of punishing the culprit does not devolve on the heirs of the murdered person but, as the plural number of the expression علیکم (for you) shows, on the authorities responsible for the maintenance of law and order. But, as the singular number of the expression اخیه (one’s brother) shows, the former have been given the option to forgive. The clause, therefore, means that on the one hand the concerned authorities are bound to punish the offender according to the requirements of law, having no right to pardon him of their own accord, and on the other hand the heirs of the murdered person are not entitled to take the law into their own hands and inflict the punishment on the guilty person themselves.

The verse under comment makes no distinction between different classes of persons in connection with the law of retaliation. The words used are of a general nature and apply to all offenders who might be guilty of murder, no matter of what rank or station in life or of what religion. Any person, irrespective of his caste or creed and irrespective of his station, must be put to death for the murder of any other person, unless pardoned by the relatives of the victim and unless the pardon has the sanction of the authorities. The sayings of the Holy Prophet are explicit on this point (Majah, ch. on Diyat).

There is indeed a saying of the Holy Prophet to the effect that a Muslim should not be put to death for killing a disbeliever. But this saying, read in conjunction with several others bearing on the same subject and interpreted in the light of the relevant Quranic verses, forces us to the conclusion that the word "disbeliever" in the tradition referred to above is not general but means only a حربی کافر i.e. such disbeliever as belongs to a people who are at war with the Muslims or, in other words, one who is a member of a belligerent community. In fact, the Companions of the Holy Prophet are all agreed that a Muslim may be put to death for murdering a non-belligerent unbeliever (Tabari, v. 44). The Holy Prophet himself ordered a Muslim murderer to be put to death for the murder of a non-belligerent non-Muslim (Qutni).

The expression, the freeman for the freeman and the slave for the slave and the female for the female, does not mean that a freeman should not be punished with death for the murder of a slave or that a woman should not be put to death for killing a member of the opposite sex, etc. The other verses of the Quran as well as the sayings and the practice of the Holy Prophet clearly establish the fact that the social position of a person or the sex of a party was never considered a bar to the application of this law. The peculiar construction, i.e. "the freeman for the freeman," etc. has been adopted here to refer to, and abolish, a custom of the Arabs whereby they used to take into consideration the sex and the social status of the murderer and the murdered person when determining punishment. If a man of high social position happened to kill a man of humble position, or if the slave of a great man killed that of a humble man, or if a lady of noble birth murdered a woman of humble origin, etc. the murderer was not punished with death, leniency being shown to him or her in sundry other ways as well. The commandment contained in this verse seeks to abolish that obnoxious custom of the Arabs and lays down in clear and unmistakable terms that no regard should be paid to the status of the murderer in the matter of retaliation.

In fact, the law of retaliation, as stated in this verse, is confined to the clause, equitable retaliation in the matter of the slain is prescribed for you, which forms a complete sentence in itself, giving a full and complete meaning. The ensuing expression, the freeman for the freeman and the slave for the slave and the female for the female, is something extra, not forming part of the law. It only contains a repudiation of the Arab custom referred to above and illustrates, by giving three instances, how the law is to be administered. Such an expression is known as جملة استینا فیه or جملة مستانفه in Arabic grammar, and is technically introduced with a view to answering a question which is suggested by the preceding clause to which it is added without any intervening conjunction. The question answered in such an expression is often understood and not expressed (Mukhtasar).

The sayings of the Holy Prophet and his practice also support the above interpretation, for it is on record that he once ordered a woman to be put to death for murdering a man (Muslim), and on another occasion he commanded that a freeman be put to death for the murder of a slave. Says the Holy Prophet: "Whoever kills his slave shall be put to death" (Majah). At another place he says: "The blood of all Muslims is alike in respect of the law of retaliation" (Nasa’i).

The words, if one is granted any remission by one’s brother, show that the infliction of capital punishment is not obligatory in all cases; for in special circumstances the murderer can be exempted from the extreme punishment by the heirs of the murdered person. Such exemption, which may be termed partial as the word شیء (any) indicates, means that the heirs of the deceased may renounce their right to have the murderer put to death and may in place of that receive from him blood money. Or as the Holy Prophet has made it clear, the heirs may, in exceptional cases and with the sanction of the authorities, even grant full pardon, remitting blood-money as well (Musnad & Baihaqi).

It is worthy of note that where the Quran speaks of remission, it uses the word "brother" instead of "heir of the murdered person". This is to hint to the heir of the slain person that he should, as far as possible, take a lenient view of the offence. On the other band, the murderer is also enjoined to pay blood money with good grace and without undue delay.

The concluding clause, i.e. whoso transgresses thereafter, for him there shall be a grievous punishment, is meant to point to the fact that if, after the matter has been amicably settled and the murderer granted a remission by the heirs of the murdered person, the heirs should take it into their heads to wreak vengeance on the murderer by killing him, they will be shown no mercy and will get capital punishment. Says the Prophet: "I will allow no remission in case of one whokills the murderer after he has accepted blood money from him" (Jarir).

The Islamic law of قصاص (retaliation), as briefly stated above, provides a very effective and practical means to put a stop to murder and safeguard human life. A man who shows a callous disregard for the life of a fellow person, loses his title to live as a member of human society. The option to pardon allowed to the heirs of the slain person should not be regarded as likely to encourage murder, for such option is not synonymous with exemption from punishment, as in ordinary circumstances the murderer will have to pay the blood money. Moreover, the would-be murderer possesses no means to know that the heirs of the person whose murder he contemplates will actually be persuaded to pardon him; so the fear of capital punishment will always be there to deter him from the commission of the crime. Again, pardon or remission is permissible only where the circumstances are such that pardon or remission is likely to improve matters and bring about good results for all parties concerned (42:41). Thus, while on the one hand, Islam has made due provision for the suppression of crime, it has, on the other, kept open the door for the display of the noble qualities of benevolence and mercy.

The way in which the Quran has upheld the ultimate necessity of the death penalty is indeed most significant. At the time when the Quran was revealed, people exacted retaliation for an injury done to them with a vengeance. They were not satisfied even with inflicting capital punishment on the murderer, to say nothing of pardoning him. They needed no incentive to retaliation. They were already overdoing it. In fact, the Islamic law of retaliation, viewed in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time of its revelation, implied a prophecy that a time would come when people would go to the other extreme and a movement for the total abolition of capital punishment would be set on foot. So the Omniscient God laid down the law of retaliation in a form that is indispensable for the preservation and protection of human life, as well as the promotion of harmony and goodwill.

To prevent crime, Islam really aims at eliminating the conditions that produce it. It seeks to remove the very root-cause of all crime by working a complete moral reformation in man. But it does not remain content with that. It also prescribes deterrent laws in conformity with the dictates of reason, justice and humanity. The fact that, despite efforts to the contrary, the death penalty is still found on the Statute Books of most countries in one form or another, constitutes a sufficient proof of the wisdom of the Islamic teaching. As a matter of fact, even the most enthusiastic protagonists of the abolition of capital punishment have not yet been able to suggest a suitable alternative to it. They have had to admit that a long term of imprisonment as an alternative is "horrible" and is "not an ideal substitute" (Capital Punishment in the Twentieth Century by E. Roy Calvert, G. P. Putnam, London, 1930). The law of retaliation still remains the most effective deterrent to crime and an essential method to satisfy the demands of justice; and the Islamic Law takes a further step to bring about reconciliation between the offender and the aggrieved party.

3:26; 14:52; 40:18.

Commentary:

The verse can be interpreted in two ways. The archers stationed by the Holy Prophet at the mount of Uhud to protect the rear of the Muslim army left their post when they saw the Meccan army in full flight. They thought that by leaving the mount at that stage they would not be contravening the spirit of the Prophet’s orders, which were to the effect that they were not to leave their post in any circumstances. They further thought that as, according to Arab custom, a soldier was entitled to the possession of the booty he laid his hand on during the fight, they might be deprived of their share of the spoils of war if they stuck to their post. This precipitate action of the archers implied an apprehension on their part that the Prophet might ignore their right to the booty and might thus prove faithless to them. It is this apprehension that the verse condemns in the words, And it is not possible for a Prophet to act dishonestly. But no imputation of actual faithlessness to the Holy Prophet is implied. The verse simply purports to say that it was far from the Prophet to ignore the rights to the booty of those whom he himself had stationed at a certain place.

The verse may also be taken as a rebuke to the hypocrites who deserted the Holy Prophet in the Battle of Uhud. In this case, the implication would be that while the hypocrites had proved faithless to the Prophet by leaving him in the lurch, the Prophet would not prove faithless to God by refusing to fight in His cause even when weak and deserted. This meaning is also supported by the context.

6:137.

Important Words:

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

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

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

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

Commentary:

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

16:57.

Commentary:

Note the point and the force in the words, He has produced. By using these words, the Quran exposes the folly of disbelievers who are presumptuous enough to divide the produce of the earth and cattle between their deities and God, as if they were the owners; while the fact is that God is the owner of all these things and it is He Who has brought them into existence. They are God’s things, and it is strange that disbelievers should presume to divide God’s things according to their own choice, setting apart only a portion for God, the True Owner, and allotting the rest to their false deities.

Disbelievers gave two kinds of alms; firstly, in the name of God, and secondly, in the name of their deities. If the portion which they set apart for their deities was spent for other purposes, then the portion which they had reserved for God was also given away as charity in the name of their deities, but if the portion set apart for God was spent for other ends, then the portion set aside for the deities was not transferred to God. That is what is meant by the words, that which is for their idols reaches not Allah, while that which is for Allah reaches their idols. This is another instance of how men blunder, making laws with the sole aid of reason.

The expression, as they imagine, signifies that God does not accept a charity which false gods are made to share with Him. Disbelievers suppose that they have set apart a portion for God, but that is not really the portion of God, for the jealous God disdainfully rejects such allotment.

Commentary:

The "associate-gods" here referred to are divines, soothsayers and others. The "killing of children" happened in three ways: (1) some of the Arabs killed their female children and preserved the male ones; (2) some took the vow that if they had a certain number of children, whether male or female, one of them would be slaughtered in the name of God or in the name of one of their deities; and (3) sometimes they sacrificed their children to avert a calamity.

The word کثیر (many) in the expression, to many of the idolaters, shows that all Arabs did not indulge in this practice, nor even most of them, but only a considerable number. But, whatever the number, the practice provides one more instance of how men go astray when they begin to make laws for themselves with the sole aid of reason.

The particle ل (that) in لیـردوھم (that they may ruin them) is here used to express عاقبة (the result) and not the cause or motive. Thus, the sentence would mean that the result of the action of the associate-gods was that men who followed them were spiritually ruined. When a man goes so far as even to sacrifice his son in obedience to another person’s bidding, then he is entirely under the latter’s control, and is thus completely ruined in respect of religion.

Important Words:

حجر (forbidden). حجرہ (hajara-hu) means, he prevented or prohibited or forbade or interdicted him; or tie deprived him. حجر (hijr) means, forbidden or prohibited or unlawful; the faculty of reason or understanding because it prevents one from doing improper acts. The word also means custody or guardianship (Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse gives another instance of the absurdity of man-made laws.

By "forbidden crops" are meant such cultivated fields as were dedicated to idols. These could be used only by the priests that attended upon the idols. The cattle might eat of all crops except those that were dedicated to idols.

The cattle whose backs were forbidden are those mentioned in 5:104. Nobody was allowed to ride them or use them as beasts of burden.

The cattle over which they pronounce not the name of Allah are the cattle which they dedicated to their associate-gods. There is no reference here to the mentioning of God’s name at the time of slaughtering.

Commentary:

The verse refers to another absurd custom of the Arabs. The Divine attributes "Wise" and "All-Knowing" have been mentioned here to point out that the people got entangled in these foolish beliefs and practices because they turned away from the Wise and Knowing God and followed false deities and their foolish devotees.

Commentary:

This verse recapitulates what has been said above about man-made laws. For the killing of children, see 6:138 above. The words, for lack of knowledge, signify that they do so because they do not possess revealed knowledge, which is the only source of true guidance.

6:100; 13:5; 16:12; 35:28; 36:35-36.

Important Words:

معروشات (trellised) is the plural of معروشة and is derived from عرش which means, he built or constructed a frame work or a trellis for supporting grapevines; or he built a shed or an enclosure, etc. So معروشة means, furnished with or trained on trellises. They say کروم معروشات i.e. grapevines furnished with or trained on trellises which are a framework for supporting the vines. عریش means, structure or trellis made for supporting grapevines; an enclosure made for beasts to protect them from cold. عرش means, a shed or booth, etc. constructed for shade; a hut; a house or a dwelling; the roof of a house; a throne (Lane).

حصاد (harvest) is derived from حصد i.e. he reaped or cut a seed-produce or herbage, etc. حصید means, reaped produce; حصادmeans time or season of reaping; also fruit or produce (Lane).

Commentary:

In the foregoing verses the Quran referred to some of the laws which pagan Arabs, unaided by Divine revelation, haddevised for themselves. Now, the Quran proceeds to give some of its own laws, so that the reader may contrast them with the man-made laws alluded to above. One of the man-made laws pertained to the fruits of the earth (6:141 above). Therefore, the Quran gives here its laws about these. It declares them to be lawful and pure, subject only to the condition that in eating them we should "not exceed the bounds", i.e. we should only eat as much of them as is not injurious to our health and morals.

The pronoun in the words حقه (His due) may either refer to God, or to ثـمر (fruit). In the former case, the sentence would mean that on the day of reaping we should give what is due to God as alms. In the latter case, it would mean that on the day of reaping we should give as charity a portion of the fruit which is in the nature of something due against it in order to make it pure.

It may be noted here that there are two kinds of charity in Islam–– obligatory and optional. But as, according to the practice and sayings of the Holy Prophet, زکاة i.e. obligatory charity or legal alms, is not due from all the fruits named in the verse but only from the fruit of the palm tree, so if it is the obligatory charity that is meant here, then the commandment to "pay His due" will apply only to the fruit of palm trees. It is, however, better to take the verse as referring to optional charity which may be given from all kinds of fruits. The use of the imperative mood in the words "pay His due" does not necessarily make it an obligatory command, for this form of the verb is also freely used in the Quran for the purpose of exhortation. This interpretation is in keeping with the practice of the Holy Prophet’s Companions who were in the habit of setting apart a portion of their produce for the poor, and such is also the practice of pious Muslims today.

11:62; 27:46.

7:78; 11:65; 17:60; 26:156; 54:28; 91:14.

Important Words:

ثمود (Thamud) was the name of a tribe that lived after ‘Ad. The name may have been derived from the Arabic root ثمد. They say ثمدہ i.e. he dug out a hole in the earth so that water might collect in it (Aqrab). The tribe Thamud lived in the western part of Arabia, having spread from Aden northward to Syria. They lived shortly before the time of Ishmael. Their territory was adjacent to that of ‘Ad, but they lived mostly in the hills. For a fuller note on the subject see 11:62.

صالح (Salih) is an Arabic word being derived from صلح i.e. he was or became good or righteous. صالح means, a righteous person. See 2:12, 161. The Prophet Salih lived after Hud and was probably a contemporary of Abraham.

Commentary:

The camel formed the chief means of conveyance in Arabia, and it was on his she-camel that the Prophet Salih used to travel from place to place to preach his message. So he told his people that placing obstruction in the way of the free movements of the she-camel or doing harm to it would be tantamount to obstructing the work with which God had entrusted him, and that if they did not stand out of her way, God’s punishment would surely descend upon them. Thus it was that the she-camel was meant as a sign for the tribe of Thamud. There was nothing unusual about the camel itself. It was an ordinary animal. The sanctity that attached to it was that God had declared it to be a sign and a symbol of the sanctity and inviolability of the person of the Prophet Salih and doing an injury to it was declared to be tantamount to doing an injury to Salih himself and to hampering his work.

The words, leave her that she may feed in Allah’s earth, do not mean that she was to be allowed to graze in any field she pleased. What is meant is only that no obstruction was to be put in her way, and that she was to be permitted to proceed to any place to which Salih might choose to go. The declaration by Salih about the free movement of his she-camel was also in harmony with a time-honoured Arab custom.

6:44; 13:34; 16:64; 27:25; 29:49; 35:9.

Important Words:

النسیء (the postponement) is the noun-substantive from نسأ meaning, he postponed or delayed a thing. They say انسأ اللّٰه اجلهi.e. God postponed the end of his life, viz. He prolonged his life. An Arab would say بایعه بنسیئة i.e. he sold it on credit, i.e. the payment was to be made at a future period. نسی therefore means, postponement; or the postponement of a month, i.e. the transfer of the sanctity of one month to a later month, a custom of the Arabs in their days of ignorance; the month which the Arabs so postponed; the postponement of the time of Pilgrimage, another custom of the Arabs; a postponement of the time of payment of a debt or of the price of a thing sold (Lane & Aqrab).

لیواطئوا (that they may agree in) is derived from واطا which is again derived from وطئی meaning, he trod upon it; he trampledupon it. They say, واطاہ علی الامر i.e. he agreed with him respecting the matter. تواطا القوم علی الامر means the people agreed with each other respecting the affair (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The reference in this verse, as shown under Important Words, is to a long-standing Arab custom. The three successive sacred months of Dhul-Qa‘dah, Dhul-Hijjah, and Muharram sometimes seemed to them too long a time to refrain from their predatory expeditions. In order, therefore, to free themselves from the restrictions of the sacred months, they sometimes treated a sacred month as an ordinary month and an ordinary month as sacred. This practice is denounced here because it involved fraud and interfered with the security of life guaranteed in these months. The procedure adopted for postponing the observance of a sacred month was generally something like this. When in the month of Dhul-Hijjah, the pilgrims returned from Mina, after having performed the ceremonies of Hajj, an influential man would arise from among the assembly and, according to Arab custom, would say, "I am he whose decree is not to be rejected." Thereupon, the assembly would request him to transfer the sanctity of the next month of Muharram to the following month (Safar). Thus, the sanctity of a month which God had made inviolable was violated with impunity. This artifice, however, was not resorted to every year, but only when it suited their interests or convenience, The Quran has condemned it as an impious innovation, and as evidence of the untrustworthiness of the pagan Arabs, implying that as they could not keep the ordinances of God, they could not be expected to remain true to their engagements with Muslims.

11:7.

Important Words:

بناصیتھا (by its forelock). ناصیة is derived from نصا. They say نصا الرجل i.e. he caught hold of the man by his forelock. انتصی الشعرmeans, the hair grew long. ناصیة means, the fore part of the head; the long hair over the fore part of the head; forelock. نواصی الناس means, the chiefs or nobles among men. The Arabs say اذل فلان ناصیة فلان i.e. such a one has humbled and disgraced the other. The Quranic expression ما من دابة الاھو آخذ بناصیتھا signifies that God holds all creatures in absolute power (Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

By the words, my Lord and your Lord, Hud means that when God, Who is your Lord and Master is also my Friend and Helper, then how can I fear you who are only His servants, for servants can do no harm to the friend of their master.

The words, but He holds it by the forelock, refer to an ancient custom of the Arabs. When vanquished people were brought as captives before their victor, he often caught hold of their forelock and shook it in token of victory. Another custom among them was that when the victor desired to show mercy to the vanquished, he sometimes shaved their forelocks and then set them free. So the clause may mean both these things. It may mean that every human being is in the power and under the control of God; or it may mean that as an act of grace God has created man free. Thus the Quran reminds him that he is completely in the power of God and that it is only through His bounty and favour that he is permitted a free life; otherwise by his sinful deeds he forfeits his title to it.

Commentary:

When Lot told his townsmen that they had his daughters in their custody and that, if he did anything which was injurious to their interests they might avenge themselves on him through his daughters, he was in fact offering his daughters as hostages. Now, the rule with regard to hostages was that only males were accepted as such (Enc. Bri.) so the people told Lot that they could not take his daughters as hostages for that was against their custom and law. The words, we have no claim on thy daughters, clearly show that they had not come with the motives which most commentators ascribe to them, for a people who had become so depraved and corrupt in their morals as the people of Lot were, could raise no question of claim or no claim, right or no right about the satisfaction of their carnal passions.

The words, thou surely knowest what we desire, mean, "You know that what we at present want is to prevent the coming of strangers, so to say that we should accept hostages and leave the strangers alone is an offer which we cannot accept."

Important Words:

ھون (disgrace) is the infinitive noun from ھان . They say ھان الرجل i.e. the man was or became low, base, vile, contemptible, despicable; he became weak and at rest. ھان علیه الامر means, the matter was easy and light to him. ھون (haun) means, ease and dignity and ھون (hun) means, disgrace (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

In this and the previous verse the Quran has strongly condemned the low conception of the Arabs of their womenfolk and the degraded position they accorded them in their society. The Quran has throughout upheld the honour of woman and has recognized her rights, and in this respect it stands unique among all the Scriptures of the world. It may incidentally be stated here that it is generally believed that the practice of burying daughters alive was common among all Arab tribes. History lends no support to this popular misconception. Had it been so the number of men over women would have greatly predominated in Arabia. But that was never the case. Nevertheless, the birth of a daughter was looked upon as a source of humiliation and embarrassment to the parents. But the foul practice of burying daughters alive was confined to a few tribes outside Mecca who had an exaggerated notion of their greatness, and even among those tribes only the wealthy few resorted to this barbarous practice.

Important Words:

تظاھرون (keep away by calling them mothers). ظاھر من امرأته means, he separated from his wife, calling her his mother. ظھارand مظاھرة are infinitive nouns from this root (Lane & Aqrab).

ادعیاء کم (your adopted sons). ادعیاء is the plural of دعی (da‘iyyun) which is derived from دعا which means, he called. ادعاہmeans, he made him to assert his relationship as a son. ادعی الی غیر ابیه means, he claimed as his father one who was not his father. دعی means one invited to a repast; one who is claimed as a son by a person who is not his father; adopted son; one whose origin or lineage or parentage is doubted; a bastard (one who attributes his descent to other than his father) (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

The verse seeks to abolish two very deep-seated and wide-spread customs of the Arabs in the Holy Prophet’s time. The more obnoxious of these two was that of Zihar. A husband, in a fit of anger, would call his wife his mother. The poor woman was deprived of her conjugal rights and yet remained tied to him without the right of marrying another man. Islam, a great champion of women’s rights, could not tolerate such a savage custom. The other custom was that of adopting the son of another man as one’s own. This custom, apart from being calculated to cause complications in blood relationships was also puerile and foolish. The reason for the abolition of both these customs is implied in the words, "Allah has not made for any man two hearts in his breast." Human heart is understood to be the seat of emotions and feelings. It can entertain only one kind of emotion at one time. Contradictory emotions cannot possibly be entertained by it at the same time. Moreover, different human relations evoke different emotions. Hence merely calling one’s wife one’s mother or calling a stranger one’s son cannot evoke the corresponding emotions in one’s heart. A wife can never become a mother nor a stranger a real son. Mere words of mouth cannot change the state of mind of the one who utters those words, nor can they alter hard facts of physical relationship. So it is foolish on the part of a person to call one’s wife one’s mother or to call another a son who is not one’s real son.

Important Words:

قاب (chord) substantive noun from قاب (qaba) which means, he was or became near or he approached. قاب means, the portion of a bow that is between the part that is grasped by the hand and the curved extremity; or from one extremity of the bow to the other; measure or space. The Arabs say بینھما قاب قوسین i.e. between them two is the measure of a bow, which means that there is a very close relationship between them. The Arabic proverb رمونا عن قوس واحد i.e. they shot at us from one bow, means, they were unanimous against us. The word thus denotes complete agreement (Lane, Lisan & Zamakhshari).

Commentary:

Whatever may be the significance of the word قاب, the expression قاب قوسین indicates very close union between two persons. In this sense of the expression the verse purports to say that the Holy Prophet continued to scale the heights of spiritual ascension and to approach near God till all distance between them disappeared and the Prophet became, as it were, "one chord to two bows." The verse reminds of an ancient Arab custom according to which when two persons pledged themselves to firm friendship they would join their bows in such a way that they appeared as one and then they would shoot an arrow from that combined bow; thus indicating that they had become, as it were, one person, and that an attack on one was an attack on the other. If the word تدلی be taken to apply to God, the verse would mean that the Holy Prophet went up to God and God came down to him till they both became, as it were, united into one person.

The expression فکان قاب قوسین possesses yet another very beautiful and subtle significance, viz. that while on the one hand the Holy Prophet became so completely merged in his Lord and Creator that he became, as it were, His image (پیکر او شد سراسر صورت رب رحیم), on the other he came down to mankind and became so full of love, sympathy and solicitude that Divinity and humanity became united in him, and in the Quranic words he became the central point of the chord of the two bows of Divinity and humanity.

The words أو أدنی signify that the relationship between the Holy Prophet and God became closer and more intimate than could be conceived.

Verses 8-18 describe the Spiritual Ascension (معراج) of the Holy Prophet, when he was spiritually transported to heavens and was vouchsafed the view of a spiritual manifestation of God, and ascended spiritually very close to his Maker. The Mi‘raj was, in fact, a double spiritual experience, comprising the spiritual ascent of the Holy Prophet, and the descent towards him of God’s manifestation. The Mi‘raj (Spiritual Ascension) has become confused in popular mind with Isra’ اسرا (or Spiritual Night Journey of the Prophet to Jerusalem), from which it is quite distinct and separate. The Isra’ took place in the eleventh or twelfth year of the Call (Zurqani) while the Holy Prophet had the experience of the Mi‘raj or Spiritual Ascension to heavens in its 5th year, shortly after the first migration to Abyssinia, six or seven years earlier. A careful and minute study of the details of these two incidents mentioned in the Hadith also supports this view. For a detailed exposition of the two incidents,—the Mi‘raj and the Isra’,—being separate and distinct from each other, see 17:2.

Commentary:

The reference in the verse seems to be to Khaulah, wife of Aus bin Samit and daughter of Tha‘labah. She had become separated from her husband because the latter had called her "mother," the exact words used by him being, "thou art to me as the back of my mother." According to an old Arab custom all conjugal relations ceased between a man and his wife when he used these words about her. The unfortunate woman could neither demand divorce in order to contract a second marriage, nor could she enjoy conjugal rights. She remained uncared for. Khaulah came to the Holy Prophet and complained to him of the awkward situation in which she was placed, and sought his advice and help in the matter. The Holy Prophetpleaded his inability to do anything for her, as it was his wont not to give a decision in matters of this nature, unless he was guided by revelation. The revelation came, and the custom of Zihar was declared unlawful.

Incidentally, the verse shows that God hears the prayers and plaints of even the weakest of His servants.