Topic: Deluded, Misled

4:154.

Important Words:

سواء (right) is derived from سوی. They say سوی الرجل i.e. his affairs became straight and well. سواء means: (1) the central portion of a thing; (2) equal. سواء السبیل means, the straight or right portion of a way; or a straight or right way (Lisan & Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse mentions another artifice which the Jews employed to overthrow the mission of the Holy Prophet. They asked him absurd and silly questions as had no bearing on religion. This they did to inoculate Muslims with the same spirit of stupid questioning, so that their hearts might gradually become estranged from the dignity of faith and give way to doubt. In warning Muslims against such a course, the Quran points out that the Jews had ruined themselves by putting similar questions to Moses, and that the Muslims should, therefore, beware of following their evil example. In fact, unnecessary and irrelevant questions in religious matters eventually lead one to loss of faith, for they tend to degrade religion to a plaything or a piece of idle philosophy.

As to the nature of questions put to Moses by the Israelites, the Quran refers to one in 4:154. Says God: The People of the Book ask thee to cause a Book to descend on them from heaven. They asked Moses a greater thing than this; they said, 'Show us Allah openly.' then a destructive punishment overtook them because of their transgression. Then they took the calf for worship after clear Signs had come to them, but We pardoned even that. And We gave Moses manifest authority. This verse gives us an indication as to the nature of the questions that were put to Moses, and Muslims are forbidden to put such questions to their Prophet.

48:12.

Commentary:

Trials come to bring about a distinction between true believers and those weak of faith or insincere. In this way, the sufferings of the Muslims at Uhud proved a blessing in disguise. They served to distinguish the true believers from the hypocrites who had so far remained intermixed with the true believers. While professing to be true Muslims, they were, at heart, enemies of Islam; and their passing for Muslims was injurious to the Muslim community. The believers, taking them for true Muslims, remained unaware of the secret machinations by which they sought to injure the cause of Islam. So it was in the interests of Islam that their hypocrisy became unmasked and the Muslims became on their guard against them. On the other hand, just as the exposure of the hypocrites proved beneficial to the believers, similarly the coming to light of their own sincerity and devotion served a most useful purpose. It served not only to disappoint the enemies of Islam who came to realize that with such devoted followers they could make no headway against Islam, but it also opened their eyes to its truth; for it became clear to them that a religion which could inspire its votaries with such selfless zeal and steadfast devotion could not but be true.

The particle او rendered as "and" in the clause, fight in the cause of Allah and repel the attack of the enemy, literally means "or" and is equivalent to "in other words", or "what is the same thing," etc. It is used here: (1) to explain the meaning of the preceding clause, i.e. fight in the cause of Allah. So the whole sentence would read something like this: "It was said to them (the hypocrites): Come ye, fight in the cause of Allah, which was the same thing as repelling the attack of the enemy." This rendering would go to prove that the Companions of the Holy Prophet waged no aggressive war and all their fighting was undertaken in self-defence. (2) Or the word او (and) is used here in the sense of "at least". According to this rendering, the sentence would mean: "Fight in the cause of Allah; and if you cannot fight in the cause of Allah, at least fight in defence of your own homes and hearths," i.e. your own interests require that you should defend Medina against the attack of the enemy. (3) Or as rendered in the text the word is used in the sense of "and". With this meaning of او, the whole sentence would mean, "fight in the cause of Allah and repel the attack of the enemy."

The expression لو نعلم قتالا translated in the text as, If we knew how to fight, may have three meanings: (1) If we knew that there would be fighting, i.e. we thought there would be no fighting. By using this expression the hypocrites meant that seeing the strength of the enemy, the Muslims would at once run away and there will be no fighting. (2) If we knew it to be a fight, i.e. it was no fight in which the Muslims were going to be engaged, but certain destruction in view of the appalling difference between the numbers and equipment of the opposing forces. (3) Or, as rendered in the text, the expression may mean, if we knew how to fight. In this case, it must be taken to have been used ironically, signifying: "We are unaware of the art of war; if we had been acquainted with it, we would have fought along with you."

The allusion in the verse is obviously to the defection at Uhud of a party of 300 hypocrites under their leader ‘Abdullah bin Ubayy, who, at a crucial moment, deserted the Muslims and went back to Medina, saying, "He (the Prophet) has disregarded my advice and has followed the advice of mere lads". Seeing this, ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr, father of Jabir, approached him and asked him not to desert the Prophet in that manner, upon which ‘Abdullah replied in the very words quoted by the Quran, i.e. لو نعلم قتالا لا تبعنا کم meaning, "If we knew there would be fighting, we would have surely followed you." At this ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr exclaimed, saying: "God’s curse be upon you. Surely, He Himself will help His Messenger" (Jarir, iii. 104).

2:17, 87; 14:29.

Commentary:

As in the preceding verse, the word Allah in the clause, cannot harm Allah, stands either for the cause of Allah or for the Holy Prophet and the believers, because God is evidently above being harmed. The expression has been used to show that those who try to do harm to Islam or to the Holy Prophet and his followers, really try to do harm to God Himself, for the obvious reason that the cause of the Holy Prophet or that of Islam is the cause of God Himself.

8:25.

6:109; 10:13; 27:5.

Commentary:

In the foregoing verses it was pointed out that man-made teachings are always defective. Now, the Quran proceeds to show that man-made teachings cannot stand against Divine teachings.

The verse purports to put the question: "If there is a teaching which is really from God, will it not be better than that devised by man?" Now, this is a question which every man, even a disbeliever, will have to reply in the affirmative. Indeed, human reason cannot have the boldness to deny it. The question has thus been put to make disbelievers conscious of a great truth.

The expression, he is in utter darkness whence he cannot come forth, refers to the man who devises laws with the aid of reason alone— reason that is fettered by numberless limitations to which man is subject. The laws made by men are always subject to change owing to their intrinsic defectiveness. A law is made today but it has to be changed tomorrow on account of the defects which by experience are found in it. Then the new law is again changed for the same reason, and this process goes on indefinitely and sometimes even a sort of a circle comes into being. Thus the case of such men as devise their laws with the aid of human reason alone is like one who is in darkness from which he will never come out.

The words, made to seem fair, imply that Satan and his associates adorn the evil doings of men. In the beginning it is Satan who misleads men by inciting them to evil. But when a man goes on doing evil deeds, his evil deeds gradually begin to appear good to him. This is the law of God meant as a punishment. It is to this later adornment of deeds under the law of God that the Quran refers in 6:109 above.

39:72; 40:51; 67:9-10.

7:38.

Commentary:

The words, Messengers from among yourselves, supply further evidence of the fact that the word jinn does not here refer to a separate creation but to only a section of human beings. We learn from the Quran that Moses and the Holy Prophet were sent as Messengers to jinn also (46:30-33; 72:2-16) and we find no trace of any separate Messengers having ever been raised from among jinn, which shows that the word jinn here refers only to a special class of men. It may also be noted here that this word when applied to the great and powerful persons from among men is generally used in a bad sense, being applied to the wicked among them.

3:29; 4:140,145; 9:16; 58:23.

Commentary:

This verse deals with that class of idolaters who were actively hostile to Islam and strove hard to exterminate it. They had declared war on innocent Muslims, and such was their hatred of Islam that they even disregarded the ties of relationship with a view to harming them. It was with such implacable enemies of Islam that Muslims were forbidden to make friends, for such an act on their part would have amounted to treachery to Islam and would certainly have done it incalculable harm. As for other disbelievers who were not at war with Muslims, the Quran exhorts Muslims to be benevolent and kind to them (see 60:9,10). As a matter of fact, Islam attaches greater importance to the spiritual welfare of man than to his material well-being, and it is evident that friendly relations with men who prefer disbelief to faith are bound to exercise a baneful influence on spiritual growth.

6:101; 10:67; 13:17.

17:98; 39:24, 37.

Commentary:

The words, Who stands over every soul to note what it earns, contain another reason why God delays punishment. The argument is that as God is keeping close watch over every soul and nothing, however remote and secret, is hidden from His knowledge and He is also All-Powerful, He needs no hurry to punish the disbelievers; for if only punishment were the object, He could bring the offenders to book whenever He liked. The postponement of punishment is not therefore a thing to be scoffed or wondered at. The wonder rather is that disbelievers do not ponder over the fact that they are offenders against God’s Kingdom and yet they do not fear His punishment and desire to hasten it.

The words, they ascribe partners to Allah, mean that if disbelievers pondered over their own beliefs and actions they would readily discover that they were sinning against God by ascribing co-partners to Him and have therefore rightly incurred His displeasure.

The simple words, Say, Name them, embody a mighty argument against shirk. Idolaters are called upon to describe what function their gods perform. The word "name" in the verse does not mean personal name but attributive name, for the personal names of some of the gods have been given in the Quran itself (71:24). The demand that idolaters should name the functions of their gods is such as cannot fail to bring home to them the absurdity of their beliefs. Suppose, for instance, the idolaters say about one of their gods that his function or attribute is that he can or does bestow children. Now the possession of such a power by a god would imply that he has control not only over the birth of children but over numberless other things which have direct or indirect bearing on geniture. Thus, in order to bestow children, the god to whom this attribute is ascribed must have control over diet and medicinal drugs and must have control over even the working of man’s physical system. He must also have knowledge of hidden things so that he may know the genital defects of the parents and also know what medicine will suit the special circumstances of the case. Besides, he must be able to impart the knowledge of hidden things to others. For instance, he must be able to inspire the physician or the patient as to what medicine and what food will remove the defect. In short, until a god possesses an all-comprehensive knowledge and unlimited powers, he will not be able to perform even one single function. On the other hand, if it be supposed that each and every god possesses all the powers required for his special function, then the existence of so many gods would become superfluous, besides being a potential source of discord and disorder; for in that case each one of these gods would be the Supreme Being, a position which is impossible to imagine.

The words, Name them, may also be an expression of contempt, meaning that the gods of the disbelievers are so worthless that even the mention of their names would put them to shame.

The words, Would you inform Him of what He does not know in the earth?, contain yet another powerful argument against shirk. If there had been any other gods, argues the verse, the fact ought to have been made known by God Himself through a Prophet or through angels, or the alleged co-partners of God should themselves have made that announcement, but no such communication or announcement has ever been known to exist. Hence, the verse takes idolaters to task by telling them that by ascribing co-partners to God they presume to inform Him of something of which He Himself has no knowledge.

The expression, or is it a mere empty saying?, means that idolaters say these things only with their tongues and have no real faith in them. The verse asks disbelievers whether they really believe in what they allege. In this way, an appeal has been made to human nature, which often proves a very successful way of bringing home the truth.

It often happens that when a man commits a fraud or imposture in order to procure worldly advantage, he himself gradually falls a prey to his own imposture which, by and by, begins to appear attractive to him. Thus man’s design is made to look fair to him not by God, but by man himself. Some men ascribe divine powers to certain creatures, not because they really believe them to be gods beside Allah, but to impose upon simple-minded people and to cheat them of their possessions. But, as time goes on, their own trick begins to appeal to them, and they become the dupes of their own fraud. This is the significance of the words, Nay, but the design of the disbelievers has been made to appear beautiful in their eyes.

The expression, and they have been kept back from the right way, signifies that when a man severs his connection with God, he becomes involved in shirk, whether hidden or visible. Man cannot remain without a companion. When he leaves God, the inevitable result is that he begins to seek the support of petty things, which gradually gives rise to shirk.

Here the Quran differs from the students of comparative religion. According to the latter, polytheism preceded the belief in one God. According to the Quran the reverse is true, and history supports the Quran. We see that Muslims and Jews were worshippers of one God in the beginning, but afterwards many of them virtually reverted to polytheism and idolatry. The case of Christians is still worse. They were first believers in the Unity of God but took to deifying Jesus afterwards and the whole community became stuck in the quagmire of shirk. Why should we not assume that the same was the case with the peoples of remote antiquity?