Topic: Hadith

3:16, 134, 196, 199; 4:14, 58, 123; 5:13, 86; 7:44; 9:72, 89, 100; 10:10; 13:36; 22:15, 24; 25:11; 32:20; 47:16; 58:23; 61:13; 64:10.

3:16; 4:58.

Important Words:

بشر (give glad tidings) is derived from بشر (bashshara), i.e. he gave glad tidings, which again is derived from بشر(bashara). They say بشر i.e. he laid bare its skin. Thus البشرة means, the outer and visible part of the skin. So بشر(bashshara) means, he gave or imparted news which changed the colour of the listener. The word has generally come to be used in connection with good or happy news. But it is also sometimes used in connection with bad news (e.g. 3:22). بشیر means, one who announces good news to a people or a person. All Prophets are spoken of as بشیر and نذیر i.e. givers of good news to those who believe in them and givers of bad news to those who reject them (Aqrab & Mufradat).

الصالحات (good works) is the plural of الصالحة which is derived from the verb صلح (the opposite of فسد) meaning, he or it became good or suitable and proper. ھذا الشیء یصلح لك means, this thing is suitable to you or is fit or meet for you (Aqrab). So الصالحات would be used about all those deeds and actions which are not only good intrinsically but are also meet and suitable. See also under 2:12.

جنات (gardens) which is the plural of جنة (a garden) is derived from جن meaning, it veiled, concealed, or covered a thing. So جنة means, any garden having trees by which the ground is covered or concealed; an orchard or garden having luxuriousness and denseness of verdure (Aqrab & Lane). Heaven has been called جنة or garden, because: (1) the mercy of God will 'cover' its dwellers just as trees in an orchard cover the ground thereof; or (2) because the blessings of Heaven are 'hidden' from the eyes of man"; or again (3) because Heaven is like a garden in which the trees represent good faith and the streams good actions.

الانھار (streams) is the plural of نھر (nahr) or نھر (nahar). They say نھرالماء i.e. the water flowed on the earth and cut out a channel for itself. Thus نھر (nahr) or نھر (nahar) means, a channel through which a stream or a river flows; a stream or river itself. نھر (nahar) also means, abundance (Aqrab).

ازواج (mates) is the plural of زوج which signifies, anything that is one of a pair or couple; it does not mean a pair but only one of a pair, whether male or female (Aqrab). The word زوج also means, a comrade (Lane).

خالدون (shall abide) is derived fromخلد which means, he remained and lived on. خلدبمکان means, he stayed or abided in a place. خلود means, staying on, or living without change or deterioration for a long time but not necessarily forever (Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

This verse gives a brief description of the rewards which the believers will have in the next world.

Critics of Islam have raised all sorts of objections to this description. They say that: (1) The promise of such rewards is only an appeal to greed and a faith based upon greed is not worth the name. (2) The Quran promises material rewards to the believers and this is objectionable. (3) If the rewards of the next world are going to be material, then it must be supposed that the same body which one has in this life will be resurrected after death and this is against all reason, because this body perishes and the particles of one body are used in the making of several other bodies. To whom and to how many will then the same body be given in the next world? (4) Believers are promised wives in Heaven which shows that sex relations will continue in the next world. An appeal to sex is very objectionable for spiritual ends. Sex relations are necessary only for the continuation of the race in this world. Why should there be such a thing in the next? (5) The Quranic Paradise appears to be a place of luxury and sensual pleasures. There is thus nothing spiritual about the Islamic conception of the next life.

This criticism is based on a failure to understand the real Islamic teaching. The Quran has made it clear that in this life it is not possible for man to comprehend the nature of the rewards of the next. It says: No soul knows what joy of the eyes is kept hidden for them, as a reward for their actions (32:18). That is to say, whatever the Quran says about Heaven and Hell is only metaphorical. The descriptions are not to be taken in the sense in which they are ordinarily taken in this world. The Holy Prophet says of the blessings of the next world: "No eye has seen them, nor has any ear heard of them; nor can the mind of man form any conception of them" (Bukhari). If the blessings of the next life are to be like the joys of this life, we should be able to form some idea of them, no matter how remote they may be. The blessings of the next life, therefore, must be quite different from the blessings of this life.

At another place in the Quran we read: The similitude of the Heaven promised to the God-fearing is that through it flow streams; its fruit is everlasting, and so is its shade. That is the reward of those who are righteous, and the reward of the disbelievers is Fire (13:36). Now the fruit of this world is not everlasting, so in order to be everlasting the fruit of the next world as well as its streams will have to be taken as something other than material. Again we read: A similitude of the Paradise promised to the righteous: Therein are rivers of water which corrupts not; and rivers of milk of which the taste changes not; and rivers of wine, a delight to those who drink; and rivers of clarified honey (47:16). There is nothing material in this. About the wine of Heaven we read: Wherein there will be no intoxication, nor will they be exhausted thereby (37:48). Again, And their Lord will give them to drink a beverage that is pure (76:22). Thus, wine in Heaven will not only be pure itself but will purify the drinkers as well. Elsewhere the Quran says that the pure wine of Paradise will be tempered with Tasnim (83:28), which means 'abundance' and 'height '. In the cup of wine that will pass from hand to hand in Heaven God says there will be neither vanity nor sin (52:24). As against this, the wine of this world is described in the Quran as: Wine and the game of hazard and idols and divining arrows are only an abomination of Satan’s handiwork. So shun each one of them that you may prosper. Satan desires only to create enmity and hatred among you by means of wine and the game of hazard and to keep you back from the remembrance of Allah and from Prayer (5:91, 92). This proves that the wine of the next world is quite different; it is pure and purifying and nothing material.

The blessings of Heaven have indeed nothing in common with their counterparts of this world except the name. Ibn ‘Abbas, the Prophet’s cousin, also says the same thing (Jarir).

Now the question arises: Why have the blessings of Heaven been given the names used of material things in this world? This is so because Islam is meant for all kinds of people. It does not address only the intellectually advanced but also all others. Therefore it uses simple words which can be understood by all. The disbelievers used to say that the Prophet disallowed the good things of the world, and his followers were thus deprived of all blessings. Therefore, while describing the blessings in store for the Muslims, God used the names of things generally looked upon as good in this world and told the believers that they would get all these things in a better form. The water of this world spoils, but believers would have water in the next which will not spoil. Gardens are blessings but they decay; so believers will have gardens which will last forever. The unbelievers drank intoxicating wine which made them drunk and which dulled their senses; but the wine which the believers will get in Heaven will be pure and purifying. It is to bring out this important contrast that familiar words are used; otherwise there is nothing common between the delights of this world and the blessings of the next.

It may be added here that, according to Islam, the next life is not spiritual in the sense that it will just consist of a mental state and nothing else. Even in the next life the human soul will have a kind of body; only, it will not be material. One can glean some idea of this from the phenomenon of dreams. The Quran says: Allah takes the souls of human beings at the time of their death; and (He also takes the souls of), those that have not died, during their sleep. Then He retains those against which He has decreed death, and sends (back) the others till an appointed term. In that surely are signs for a people who reflect (39:43). Death and sleep resemble each other, the difference being that whereas in death the human soul is completely and permanently severed from the body, in sleep the severance is only temporary and partial. Now the scenes which a man witnesses in a dream cannot be called purely mental or spiritual, because he has a body also in his dreams and finds himself sometimes in gardens and streams, and eats fruits and drinks milk. It is hard to say that the contents of dreams are only mental states. The milk enjoyed in a dream is no doubt a real experience, but no one can say that it is the material milk found in this world. Dreams have a meaning of their own. For instance, eating mangoes in a dream symbolizes a righteous child or a righteous heart; eating grapes signifies love and fear of God; and eating bananas, a good and lawful subsistence which is also easy of attainment. In short, the spiritual blessings of the next life will not be a mere subjective realization of the gifts of God with which we become familiar in this world. As a matter of fact, what we enjoy here is just a representation of the real and true gifts of God which man will find in the next world.

Again, gardens represent faith; and streams, good actions. Gardens cannot prosper without streams, nor faith without good actions. Therefore faith and actions are inseparable for the attainment of salvation. In the next world, gardens will remind the believers of their faith in this life and streams will remind them of their good works. They will know, then, that their faith and good works have not gone in vain.

The flowing of streams or rivers beneath the gardens also implies that every person in Heaven will have a free and unrestricted enjoyment of his portion. In this world, a single stream often serves several gardens and there is the possibility of a quarrel over it; but in Heaven each garden will have its own stream exclusively meant for itself. See also 10:10.

It is wrong to conclude from the words, This is what was given us before, that in Heaven the believers will be given such fruit as they will have enjoyed in this world, because, as already explained, the two are not the same. The fruit of the next world will, in fact, be the image of the quality of their own faith. When they will eat it, they will at once recognize and remember that it is the fruit of the faith they had in this world; and it will be out of gratitude for this that they will say: This is what was given us before.

The expression rendered as, was given us, may also mean, 'was promised us'; and in this sense it would mean, this is what was promised to us in the world.

The word متشابھا (mutually resembling) refers to the resemblance between the acts of worship performed by believers in this world and the fruits thereof in Heaven. The acts of worship performed in this life will appear to believers as fruit in the next. The more sincere and the more appropriate a man’s worship, the more will he enjoy his portion of the fruit in Paradise and the better in quality will it be. It, therefore, lies in one’s own power to improve the quality of one’s fruit as one likes.

The expression, mutually resembling, also implies that in Paradise one spiritual food will completely harmonize with the other, so that the possibility of spiritual disease will be eliminated altogether. It also means that the food in Heaven will be suited to each and every individual and to his stage of progress and degree of development.

The words, they will abide, signify that the believers will go on abiding in Heaven and will not be subject to any change or decay. Man dies only when he cannot assimilate food or when someone kills him. But since the food of Paradise will be perfectly suited to every individual and since man will have pure and peaceful companions, death and decay will automatically disappear.

The Faithful will also have pure mates in Heaven. A good wife is a joy and a comfort. The Faithful try to have good wives in this world, and they will have good and virtuous company in the next. Yet these joys of Heaven are not physical.

A typical Christian comment on this subject is made by Sir William Muir: "It is very remarkable that the notices in the Coran of this voluptuous paradise are almost entirely confined to a time when, whatever the tendency of his desires, Mohammad was living chaste and temperate with a single wife of three score years of age. It is noteworthy that in the Medina Surahs, that is, in all the voluminous revelations of the ten years following the Hegira women are only twice referred to as constituting one of the delights of paradise and on both occasions in these simple words: 'And to them (believers) there shall be therein pure wives'. Was it that the soul of Mohammad had at that period no longings after what he had then to satiety the enjoyment of? Or that a closer contact with Jewish principles and morality repressed the budding pruriency of the revelation, and covered with merited confusion the picture of his sensual paradise which had been drawn at Mecca?" (Muir, page 76).

It is amazing how these Christian critics with pretensions to culture and learning will draw on sheer speculation to attack the honour of a Teacher who is held in the deepest reverence and devotion by many millions of men and women all over the world. They seem emboldened to do so, because Christians today hold political sway over the Muslims. A few centuries of power have made them forget that Muslims ruled over Christendom for a full 1,000 years, and during this time they never said anything unbecoming about Jesus. They respected Christian susceptibilities when Christians were quite unprotected and were much weaker than Muslims are today. Would to God Christians did not feel so elated!

Sir William conveniently ignores the fact that there are other things besides women which are mentioned in the Meccan chapters and to which there is no reference in the Medinite chapters. We read in the Meccan chapters that there will be wine, honey and rivers of milk in Paradise. Was the Holy Prophet deprived even of these things at Mecca that he should have compensated himself by imagining them in Paradise? Nothing could be more absurd than this. Personally the Holy Prophet was much better off at Mecca than he was at Medina. His rich wife Khadijah was then alive and she had placed all her wealth at his disposal. By the time he reached Medina, most of this wealth had been spent in good works and the Holy Prophet was left a poor man with little to live on. If the picture of Paradise was an imaged compensation for his wants, it should have emerged at Medina instead of at Mecca.

Supposing Sir William is right, cannot critics of Christianity say justifiably that Jesus imagined himself the king of the Jews because he was persecuted everywhere? Could they not also say that as Jesus saw nothing of sex life in this world, he remained obsessed with the idea of a second advent and imagined himself a bridegroom taking no less than five virgins for wives? In the words of the New Testament, he is reported to have said: "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were foolish, and five were wise. For the foolish, when they took their lamps, took no oil with them: but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps…And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are going out. But the wise answered, saying, Peradventure there will not be enough for us and you: go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they went away to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage feast; and the door was shut" (Matt. 25:1-10). A bridegroom surrounded by a bevy of virgins—is not this the Heaven of Jesus’ imagination?

But to revert to the subject; the disbelievers at Mecca used to taunt the Muslims about their poverty, saying they had nothing of the good things which they had, so God took over their own phrases and said that the rewards which believers would have in Paradise would be even better. When Islam was established at Medina, the disbelievers gave up their taunts. So God also dropped the earlier descriptions of Paradise. The descriptions in their deep significance, however, hold for all time.

At Mecca, moreover, it was necessary to explain and emphasize the basic belief of Islam. Therefore, greater detail of doctrine is found in the Meccan chapters, and as Paradise, the abode of believers in the afterlife, is an important item of belief, it is dealt with in detail in them. At Medina, on the contrary, practical matters like personal ethics and social legislation became more important. Therefore, greater attention was given to them in the Medinite chapters. The Meccan Surahs also abound in descriptions of Hell. What are they a compensation for?

Sir William Muir also suggests that the Holy Prophet changed his views about Paradise under the influence of the Jews and the Christians of Medina. But he forgets that the stock criticism made by Christian writers is that some Christian slaves had taught the Holy Prophet the Christian scriptures, the substance of which was incorporated in the Quran. Sir William himself alleges that the Holy Prophetlearnt Christianity from Suhaib, a Roman slave at Mecca (The Life of Mahomet, p.67). If the Holy Prophet at Mecca already knew the Christian teachings, he need not have waited for their influence until his arrival at Medina. In point of fact, in the Jewish and the Christian scriptures, there are no descriptions of Paradise. The Jews and the Christians have remained so engrossed in the affairs of this life that their Books do not say much about the life to come. The promises made by their Prophets about the next life have always been taken by them to pertain only to this life. It cannot be imagined that anybody could be influenced by such a teaching.

7:161.

7:161; 20:81.

Important Words:

من (Manna). The infinitive من signifies bestowing favour on or doing good to. They say من علیه i.e. he bestowed a favour on him without his labouring for it. من means: (1) a favour; (2) anything obtained without trouble or difficulty; (3) honey-dew (Aqrab).

سلوی (Salwa) is derived from سلا. They say سلا عن الشیء i.e. he was satisfied with it سلاه عن الشیء means, he satisfied him with it; he removed his grief and worry through it. سلوی is (1) a whitish bird resembling a quail and found in some parts of Arabia and the neighbouring countries. It also means, (2) whatever renders a person contented and happy; (3) honey (Aqrab).

Commentary:

As the Israelites were camping in hot and open country, God speaks of the clouds having been sent to give them shade. We learn from Exod. 40:34-38, that clouds spread and shaded the spot where the Israelites encamped, and that they dispersed on the day when it was time for them to resume their journey. But the verse under comment shows that the clouds meant not only shadow but also rainfall because, firstly, it is rain-clouds that are generally dark and dense; and, secondly, along with the "clouds," the Quran also mentions two eatables, Manna and Salwa, which served as complement to the favour mentioned in the shadowing clouds. In fact, there was scarcity of both water and food in that arid country, and God used to quench their thirst by sending clouds, and satisfy their hunger by providing Manna and Salwa. And, no wonder, for God shows special favours to His servants in order to remove their difficulties and promote their comfort.

The sending down of Manna and Salwa has been mentioned in Exod. 16:11-15, where we read: "And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God. And it came to pass that at even the quails came up, and covered the camp: and in the morning the dew lay round about the host. And when the dew that lay was gone up, behold, upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round thing, as small as the hoar frost on the ground. And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna: for they wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the Lord hath given you to eat."

When the children of Israel got no food in the wilderness and death stared them in the face, they began to murmur against Moses and Aaron. They said to them: "Would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger" (Exod. 16:3). These murmurings of the Israelites were answered in the passage quoted above.

The Holy Prophet refers to the Manna bestowed on the Israelites in the following, hadith. Says he: "The mushroom is one of the things included in the Manna, and the sap of it heals the eye" (Bukhari). He is also reported to have said: "The mushroom is among the things which God bestowed upon Moses, as a free gift" (Muhit). This shows that God provided the Israelites with a number of things in the wilderness, sometimes with one thing and sometimes with another.

The verse does not mention how the Israelites "wronged themselves". But as God speaks here of the favours bestowed upon them, it is evident that they wronged themselves by showing ingratitude and by murmuring and complaining of their lot in spite of God’s special favours. By doing so, however, they did no harm to God or His Messenger, but only harmed their own souls.

78:41.

Important Words:

حدیثا (anything) is derived from حدث meaning, it came into existence, not having been before. حدث (haddatha) means, he talked or related or narrated, etc.حدیث means, a piece of information; an announcement; news or tidings; an account; a narration or story; a tradition; a thing or matter that is talked of or narrated or transmitted; any talk or discourse that one hears. The word also means, new or recent or brought into existence newly (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The expression, will wish that the earth were made level with them, shows that the words 'earth and heaven' as mentioned in the Quran, do not always signify the physical earth and heaven but may represent one’s existing moral and spiritual condition. On the day when men will stand before God, the earth will have ceased to exist for them.

62:9.

Important Words:

مشیدة (strongly built) is derived from شاد meaning, he plastered (a wall, etc.) with the requisite material. شاد البناء means, he raised the building high. شادوا الدین means, they strengthened and exalted the religion. شیدہ means, he raised it high, namely, a place or a building; or he built it firmly and strongly and raised it high (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The words, Wheresoever you may be, death will overtake you, may either refer to the general physical law about the inevitability of death, meaning that when one must die sooner or later, there is no reason why one should be so afraid of death as to refuse to fight in a just cause; or they may be taken as particularly addressed to the hypocrites, who disobeyed the Divine command to fight, thinking that in this way they would be able to avoid death. The verse purports to say that God had decreed that they should suffer death and destruction, however well protected they might be.

It was customary with the hypocrites that when Muslims achieved a success, they attributed it to God, saying that since Islam was a divine religion, it was bound to prosper and succeed. But when a misfortune overtook Muslims, they declared that it was due to mistakes committed by the Prophet. The Quran says that from the viewpoint from which they ascribe success to God, failures are also ascribable to Him. By attributing success to God and failure to the Prophet, the hypocrites sought to discredit the Prophet and to lower him in the estimation of Muslims.

The words, Say, All is from Allah, point to the fact that both successes and misfortunes were foretold by the Holy Prophet (e.g. see 2:156-158). So even the failures which the hypocrites attributed to the Holy Prophet really constituted a proof of his truth. The expression, All is from Allah, is also true in this sense that God is the final controlling power in the universe and whatever good or evil befalls man is attributable either to the general law of nature ordained by God or to one or other of His special decrees.

Commentary:

Taking the particle الی (till) in the sense of فی (in or on for which see Lane), the clause لیجمعنکم الی یوم القیامة may also be rendered as, "He will certainly assemble you on the Day of Resurrection" but the more correct rendering is that given in the text, i.e. He will certainly (continue to) assemble you till the Day of Resurrection. The difference in meaning is obvious. People are born and die and will go on doing so till the Last Day. Thus the process of assembling is always going on and will continue till the Day of Resurrection, when God will call all to account.

6:69.

Commentary:

The reference in the words, has already revealed to you, is to 6:69 where we read, And when thou seest those who engage in vain discourse concerning Our Signs, then turn thou away from them until they enter into a discourse other than that; and if Satan cause thee to forget, then sit not, after recollection, with the unjust people.

The Surah in which the above-quoted verse occurs was revealed at Mecca, i.e. before the present Surah which is a Medinite one. This clearly shows that the present order of the verses and the Surahs of the Quran is not the same as that in which they were revealed. The reference in the words, He has already revealed to you in the Book, is, as stated above, to 6:69 which was revealed prior to the verse under comment; yet the former has been placed after the latter in the existing arrangement of the Quran.

It is also worthy of note here that while referring to a verse already revealed, the verse under comment uses the words نزل علیکم (has revealed to you) and not یتلی علیکم (is recited to you). The latter expression, i.e. "is recited to you" has been used in 4:128 with reference to 4:4 which had not only been already revealed but has also been placed before the former, i.e. 4:128, in the existing order of the Quran. Again 6:146 makes an allusion to 16:116 in the words اوحی الی (has been revealed to me). Thus, the fact that the Quran uses the words نزل and اوحی for alluding to verses that were revealed earlier but were to be placed later and the word یتلی for alluding to those verses that were not only revealed earlier but were also to be placed earlier, clearly shows that the present order was not devised by the Holy Prophet but was devised and revealed by God Himself.

Another noteworthy point that emerges from this verse is that when an address is made to the Holy Prophet, it is not always meant for him personally but is often meant for his followers, i.e. Muslims in general. In 6:69, the commandment appears to have been addressed to the Holy Prophet, because in that verse all the pronouns and verbs have been used in the second person singular number; but the verse under comment, while referring to the commandment contained in 6:69, clearly addresses Muslims generally, for the words used are, He has already revealed to you in the Book that, when you hear the Signs of God being denied and mocked at, sit not with them, which establishes the fact that the addressees in the commandment embodied in both these verses are the same, i.e. Muslims. If the pronoun "thou" in 6:69 was meant for the Holy Prophet himself, the present verse, while referring to the selfsame commandment, could not address Muslims generally by using the pronoun "you", particularly when besides 6:69 there is no verse in the Quran to which the verse under comment can possibly refer.

The substitution in the present verse of the words لا تقعدوا (sit not with them) for the words اعرض (turn away from them), occurring in 6:69, indicates that the latter expression as used at some places in the Quran is meant to convey the sense of "severing connection with".

The underlying principle in the injunction contained in the present verse is threefold: (1) to emphasize the seriousness and importance of religious matters; (2) to protect the Faithful against the demoralizing influences of disbelievers; and (3) to engender and promote feelings of pious jealousy for religion in the hearts of Muslims.

4:141.

Important Words:

ذکری (recollection) is the noun-infinitive from ذکر i.e. "he remembered, etc." for which see 2:41, 153, 201. ذکری means, remembering or recollecting; remembrance; the presence of a thing in the mind; mentioning or relating a thing; accepting of an exhortation; reminding or causing to remember; admonition. Thus the word is used both intransitively and transitively (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

When the disbelievers, in reply to their demand for punishment, were told that there was a time fixed for every prophecy and that the punishment of God could not come before its time, they began to laugh at the prophecy. So the Quran calls upon the Holy Prophet and, through him, the believers to turn away from them, i.e. to quit their company and depart from the place, so that they might not provoke the further wrath of God by indulging in their vain and insolent discourse. Believers are told not to afford disbelievers an occasion to commit further excesses by sitting in their company but to leave them at once on such occasions, so that they may be induced to turn to other talk.

The words, turn thou away from them, may also be taken figuratively, signifying that you should overlook and treat as unnoticed their action of ridiculing and should not dispute with them about it, so that they might drop the subject and turn to some other topic.

"Satan", for which see 2:15, does not always mean the Evil Spirit; the word is also applied to other harmful things.

It has even been applied to "anger" and "jealousy" in some of the sayings of the Holy Prophet. Here, also, it is used in the sense of "anger" and the sentence would thus mean, "if anger or wrath should cause you to forget the injunction to leave the company of such persons and to quit the place…" This interpretation, however, will hold good only in the case of men who stand on a high level of righteousness. In the case of ordinary men, the word would be taken to mean "evil suggestion" or "negligence".

The word ذکری (recollection), as shown under Important Words, means both "recollection", i.e. remembering, and "reminding." Taking it in the intransitive sense, the sentence would mean that when you recollect the injunction to quit the place, you should do so forthwith. Taking the word ذکری in the sense of "reminding," the sentence would mean that before quitting the place, you should remind the scoffers of their mischievous conduct and tell them that it is an evil and dishonourable course which they follow and that it is calculated to excite against them the wrath of God.

It should also be remembered that really it is not the Holy Prophet but every believer that is addressed in this verse.

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.

6:76; 10:102.

45:7; 77:51.

Commentary:

The verse draws the attention of the Meccans to the great and numerous changes that were taking place around them, which pointed to the approach of a new era. All signs pointed to the fact that idolatry was going to disappear from the country, giving place to Islam. The word ملکوت (kingdom) refers to the control which God exercises over heaven and earth. See also 6:76.

The words بای حدیث (in what thing) may also be rendered as "by means of what thing". In this case, the last sentence of the verse would mean that when disbelievers had reached their term, they would have no time left to believe and repent. The sentence thus constitutes a sort of exhortation to them to make haste and avail themselves of the present opportunity before it is too late.

In the former sense of the words, (i.e. as rendered in the text), the sentence would mean, "When the disbelievers are rejecting the Quran,which is such a perfect and complete Law, what else is left for them to believe in?"

15:49.

Important Words:

غیر مجذوذ (that shall not be cut off). مجذوذ is derived from جذ. They say جذہ i.e. he cut it off; or he cut it off utterly; or he cut it off utterly and quickly; or he cut it repeatedly or in many pieces; he broke it. غیر مجذوذ means, (a gift, etc.) not cut short or not interrupted i.e. continuous and everlasting (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The present verse and that which precedes it throw light on an important question in which Islam differs from other religions, viz. the question of salvation.

According to the Hindu religion, both Heaven and Hell (i.e. reward and punishment) possess a limited duration; and man, after undergoing the punishment, or reaping the reward, of his deeds, is sent back to this world. Although some Hindu sects disagree among themselves regarding certain details, they are all agreed on the fundamental principle that both the punishments and rewards of the next world are temporary. Of the Semitic religions, Judaism denies Paradise to all non-Jews while Jews are regarded as almost free from the torture of Hell, for, according to Judaism, no Jew will remain in Hell for more than 11 months, whereas non-Jews will abide in it forever. According to Christians, both Heaven and Hell are eternal, although some of their sects hold the belief that Heaven will at last come to an end (Tafsir-e-Kabir). Islam, however, fundamentally differs from all these religions. The great leaders of Muslim religious thought in the past have generally believed and Hadrat Ahmad, the Promised Messiah, in our own age has particularly insisted that Heaven is eternal and everlasting, while Hell is temporary and of limited duration. The sayings of the Holy Prophet support this view. For instance, Ahmad bin Hanbal quotes a saying of the Holy Prophet, as reported by ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin al-‘As to the effect:

لیاتین علی جھنم یوم تصفق فیه ابوابھا لیس فیه احد و ذلك بعد ما یلبثون فیھا احقابا

i.e. "There will come on Hell a day when its shutters will strike against each other and there will be none in it. That will happen after the inmates of Hell will have lived in it for centuries" (Musnad). Thus, according to this tradition, the word خالدین (abiding) used with regard to Hell only means "remaining for long centuries". The same view was held by Ibn Mas‘ud and Abu Hurairah. According to Ibn Taimiyyah, ‘Umar, Ibn ‘Abbas, Anas and many commentators are of the same opinion.

With reference to the word خالدین (abiding) used in the Quran in connection with Hell some eminent religious authorities think that it does mean "abiding forever". They however, hold that though wicked disbelievers will deserve to be kept in Hell forever, Hell itself will one day cease to exist through God’s mercy, and when there is no Hell, there will naturally be no dwellers in it. Among the supporters of this view are Ibn Taimiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim (Fath).

The saying of the Holy Prophet quoted above on the authority of ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr, is also reported by AbuHurairah, which fact adds to its weight and authenticity. In another tradition Ibn Mas‘ud says: لیاتین علیھا زمان تخفق ابوابھا i.e. "There will certainly come upon Hell a time when its shutters will strike against each other," meaning that it will be untenanted. Jabir, Abu Sa‘id Khudri and ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar are also reported to have made a similar statement (Fath).

Abu Sa‘id Khudri quotes a long hadith of the Holy Prophet which clearly shows that Hell is not eternal. According to this tradition the Holy Prophet is reported to have said that on the Day of Judgement God would give permission to different high-placed persons to intercede for sinners. At last common believers also will be given permission to intercede on their behalf. At first, they will intercede for those whom they know. Then, with God’s permission, they will also intercede for other sinners who have some faith left in their hearts, until at last they will intercede even for those who have only a grain of faith in their hearts. Then only those will be left behind in Hell who had never done anything good. Then will God say: "The angels have interceded, and the Prophets and the Faithful have interceded and now it is My turn, the Most Merciful of the merciful ones." Then will God take a handful from the Fire and take out of it even those who never had done any good deed (Bukhari & Muslim).

This hadith hints that finally a time will come when everyone will be taken out of Hell, for when even those who never did any good deed are removed from the Fire, who else will remain behind? Moreover, God’s handful is not a physical thing. The word implies indefinite comprehensiveness and nothing can be considered to have been left out of it. It also appears from this saying that sinners will be punished first for their sins and, when they have been washed of their sins, they will be rewarded for their good deeds which, till then, will have been kept in reserve. The verse, whoso does good an atom’s weight will see it (99:8), also points to the same conclusion.

The different traditions quoted above show that many Companions of the Holy Prophet and their immediate successors held the view that Hell is not eternal and the Quran also supports this view. The following are some of the Quranic proofs in support of it:

(1) Though the words, excepting what thy Lord may will, have been used with regard to both Heaven and Hell (vv. 108 & 109), in the case of Heaven the words, a gift that shall not be cut off, have been specifically added in v.109 in order to show that there is no limitation upon the eternity of Heaven. In the case of Hell, on the other hand, they are followed by the clause, Surely thy Lord does bring about what He pleases (v. 108). These words are very emphatic and imply that the inmates of Hell must necessarily be taken out of Hell one day. If they were not to be taken out of Hell at all it was unnecessary to make the declaration so emphatic by using three words of emphasis, viz. ان (surely) ربك (thy Lord) and فعال (does bring about), the last word being the intensive form of فاعل and meaning the Great Doer of things that others cannot do.

Again, if Hell, like Heaven, was to be eternal, then its mention should also have been followed by some such words as "a punishment that shall not be cut off". It is true that as about Hell, so with regard to Heaven, it has been said that its inmates will abide in it as long as God wills, but in the case of the dwellers of Heaven it has been clearly added that God’s eternal will is that they should never be deprived of this favour and that their stay in Heaven should know no end. But no such declaration has been made with regard to Hell. This differentiation is so clear that even Ibn Hajr, whose view is opposed to Ibn Taimiyyah’s with regard to Hell being not eternal, has been compelled to admit that whereas with regard to the inmates of Heaven God has made known His will which is that they shall abide therein forever, with respect to the dwellers of Hell He has remained silent. But even the statement that God has remained silent with regard to the inmates of Hell is not correct, for by saying, Surely thy Lord does bring about what He wills, the Quran declares that in the case of the inmates of Hell God will carry out His wish which is implied in the words, excepting what thy Lord may will.

(2) The second evidence of the limited duration of Hell is furnished by the words الا من رحم ربك و لذالک خلقھم i.e. except those to whom thy Lord shall show mercy and for this has He created them (11:120). It has been admitted by eminent authorities such as Ibn ‘Abbas, Ta’us, Mujahid, Dahhak, Qatadah, and ‘Ikrimah that the pronoun ذالك (this) in the above words refers to رحمة (mercy) meaning that God has created men in order to show mercy to them (Kathir, Manthur and Tahavi). Now, if it be supposed that some men will remain in Hell forever and will never be taken out of it, then these wretched people cannot be said to have been shown any mercy.

(3) Whereas elsewhere in the Quran one meets with such expressions about Heaven as, they will surely have a reward that will never end (41:9; 84:26; 95:7), no such expression has been used with regard to Hell, which points to a clear distinction between the duration of the rewards of Heaven and the punishment of Hell.

(4) The Quranic expression رحمتی وسعت کل شیء i.e. My mercy encompasses all things (7:157), also shows that the punishment of Hell is only an intermediate condition and a transitory state and that even those whom God punishes will in the end become covered by His mercy and will be forgiven. The above expression represents God’s mercy as comprehending not only all human beings, but also all other things. The same idea is expressed in 40:8, where it is said that God comprehends all things in His mercy and knowledge. If it be supposed that certain persons can remain out of the mercy of God by being subjected to everlasting punishment, it will have to be admitted that certain things can also escape the knowledge of God, for knowledge and mercy have been mentioned in the verse side by side. But it is absurd to suppose that anything can escape the knowledge of God; therefore it is equally absurd to believe that any thing will remain permanently deprived of God’s mercy.

It should, however, be remembered that temporary punishment is not inconsistent with Divine mercy. The very fact that punishment is to last for a limited period shows that it will be reformatory; and it is clear that punishment which is meant to be reformatory is only a manifestation of Divine mercy, from which no human being can remain deprived even for a single moment. This is contradictory to the belief in the eternity of Hell.

(5) The following verses of the Quran also support this view: I have created the jinn and men only that they may serve Me (51:57), and Enter then among My servants and enter then My garden (89:30, 31). Now if all men in the end are to become God’s servants, for man cannot permanently be kept away from the object for which he has been created, and if all God’s servants will eventually enter Heaven the falsity of the view that Hell is eternal becomes quite clear.

(6) The sixth evidence of the limited character of Hell is to be found in the verse, Whoso does an atom’s weight of good will see it (99:8). Now a mere alleviation of punishment cannot be truly called the "seeing" of one’s good works. Hence, in order that men should see their works in completion i.e. should meet with the reward of their good actions, it is necessary that they should first be punished for their evil deeds by way of reformation and should afterwards receive the reward of their good actions.

(7) The verse, As for him whose scales are light, Hell will be his mother (101:9,10), constitutes further strong evidence in support of the view that Hell is not eternal. In this verse Hell is compared to a mother and it is well known that the child does not remain in the mother’s womb forever. It only remains there until the formation of its body and organs become complete. Similarly, those unfortunate persons who are cast into Hell will remain there until the time when the faculties which fit them for seeing the beautiful face of the Lord have become fully developed. This verse thus makes it clear that Hell is not eternal and that the word خالدین (abiding) in the verse under comment does not denote an unending time but only a long time as is also clear from the verse, who will tarry therein for ages (78:24).

The words, So long as the heavens and the earth endure, only mean "so long as the heaven and the earth of Paradise and Hell last"; so when Hell came to an end, heaven and earth will also naturally cease to exist.

13:28; 74:32.

Commentary:

The verse does not mean that a Divine Messenger should receive his revelation only in the language of his people. What it means is that the major and fundamental part of his revelation must be in the tongue of his people, otherwise the conveying of his Message to those who are its first recipients would become difficult. Occasionally, however, a Prophet may receive a revelation in a foreign tongue. In fact, such exceptional revelation would serve as a divine sign or miracle.

It is wrong to infer from this verse, as the Rev. Mr. Wherry and other Christian writers have done, that the Message of the Holy Prophet was confined to the Arabs. Such an assumption is forcefully belied by other verses of the Quran in which the Prophet is clearly and unequivocally declared to be a Prophet sent for the whole world (7:159; 34:29). Not only does the Quran claim a universal mission for the Holy Prophet, but the Prophet himself also claimed to be a Messenger for all mankind. For instance, he is reported to have said, بعثت الی الاسود و الاحمر i.e. I have been sent to the black and the red, meaning the whole of mankind (Bihar). Similarly, he said, بعثت الی الناس عامة i.e. I have been raised for all mankind (Bukhari). According to yet another hadith he is reported to have said, ارسلت الی الخلق کافة i.e. I have been sent to the whole creation (Mishkat).

Incidentally, this verse proves that Arabic is the mother of all tongues, because the fact that the Holy Prophet was sent to the whole of mankind shows that the language which the Wise God made the vehicle of His Message, must, in one way or another, be the mother of all languages. This was actually proved to be the truth by Ahmad, the Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam (see "Minan-ur-Rahman").

The fact that the words, Then Allah lets go astray whom He wills, have been placed after the words, that he might make things clear to them, shows that it is only after the truth is brought home to men that they become deserving of punishment for rejecting it. Thus, although all non-Muslims are technically called disbelievers or Kafirs, yet all of them will not go to Hell; for, as the verse shows, only those disbelievers become deserving of punishment who reject the truth after it has been made clear to them. Mere technical disbelief does not render one liable to punishment.

39:24.

Important Words:

المثانی (the oft-repeated) is the plural of مثنی (mathnan) or مثناة (mathnatun) which is derived from ثنی. They say ثناہ i.e. he doubled it or folded it or bent it. اثنی علیه means, he praised, eulogized or spoke well of him. ثنی (thinan) means, the repetition of a thing; doing it one time after another. The Holy Prophet is reported to have said لا ثنی فی الصدقة i.e. There shall be no repetition in the taking of poor-rate, viz. it shall not be taken twice in the same year. مثنی (mathna) means, two and two or two and two together. مثنی الایادی means, the repeating of a benefit or benefaction; or conferring it twice or thrice. المثانیsignifies the first chapter of the Quran called the فاتحة because it is repeated in every rak‘at of Prayer or because it contains praise of God. It also signifies the Quran altogether. المثانی also means, the verses of the Quran. مثانی الوادی means, the bends of the valley. مثانی الشیء means, the powers and capacities of a thing (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

According to many eminent authorities such as ‘Umar, ‘Ali, Ibn ‘Abbas and Ibn Mas‘ud, the words سبع من المثانی signify the opening chapter of the Quran, the فاتحة, because it is repeated and recited in every rak‘at of Prayer. The Holy Prophet is reported to have said that السبع المثانی is the opening chapter of the Quran. This chapter is also called ام القرآن (Mother of the Quran) and فاتحة الکتاب (the Opening of the Book). According to Zajjaj and Abu Hayyan, the opening chapter is called السبع المثانی because it contains the praises of God.

The remaining portion of the Quran which follows the opening chapter has been called القرآن العظیم i.e. the Great Quran. The name however, equally applies to the first chapter itself inasmuch as a portion of the Book may rightly be called the Book itself. In fact, there is a saying of the Holy Prophet to the effect that the opening chapter of the Quran is also القرآن العظیم i.e. the Great Quran (Musnad v. 2, p. 448). The first chapter, in fact, constitutes an abridgment of the whole Quran. It may be called the Quran in miniature, all the contents of the Holy Book having been summarized and epitomized in it, while the remainder deals with the same subjects in detail. That the first chapter of the Quran comprises in itself vast subjects was, for the first time, explained and demonstrated by Ahmad, the Promised Messiah. Never had any commentator laid such stress on this subject as did Ahmad, and never before did any theologian elucidate this subject with such clarity.

In the preceding verses it was said that as the truth had been brought home to the Meccans, the Prophet should now turn his attention away from them and leave them to the judgement of God. In the present verse he is told that after having withdrawn himself from them he should now apply himself more and more to the exposition of the teachings of the Quran to the Muslims so that when the hour of their success arrived they might be ready to introduce in the world the new order promulgated by the Holy Book.

26:4.

Important Words:

باخع نفسک (grieve thyself to death). باخع is active participle from بخع . They say بخع الشاة i.e. he slaughtered the lamb with extraordinary effectiveness so that the knife reached the back of the neck; the verb بخع is used to denote the doing of anything to a great extent or with extraordinary effectiveness or energy. بخع له نصحه means, he gave him his advice most sincerely. بخع نفسه means, he killed himself with wrath or grief. The Quranic expression فلعلک باخع نفسک means, And maybe thou wilt kill thyself with grief being beyond measure eager for their becoming Muslims (Lane).

Commentary:

It is clear from the context that the people spoken of in these verses are the western Christian nations. God had blessed them with material comforts and wealth and had bestowed upon them power, prestige and dominion. But they fell into the grievous error of taking a frail human being as the son of God. The Holy Prophet’s solicitude and concern for the spiritual well-being of these people and his deep grief over their opposition to truth had almost killed him. But such is human ingratitude that from the very people for whom he felt and grieved so much he received nothing but abuse, invective and ridicule. Never, indeed, were selfless love and kindness so ill requited!

The words, if they believe not in this discourse, allude to the reason of the Prophet’s grief. They mean to say that the Quran contains the solution of all those difficult problems that Christian nations had to face in this life, yet these people who have made so much progress in material sciences are so backward in the spiritual science that they are inviting death and destruction by refusing to accept true guidance.

68:33

Important Words:

حسبانا (thunderbolt) is derived from حسب. They say حسبه i.e. be counted, reckoned or computed it. حسبه (hassabahu) means, he placed a pillar for him; he buried him or buried him in stones. حسباناmeans, punishment; a calamity; an affliction with which a man is tried; locusts; dust or smoke; fire; small arrows; a thunderbolt (Lane & Aqrab).

زلقا (bare slippery) is derived from زلق i.e. he slipped. زلق راسه means, he shaved his head. مکان زلق means, a slippery place; a place where the foot does not remain firm. The Quranic expression فتصبح صعیدا زلقا means, so that it shall become smooth ground, with nothing in it or such that the feet shall not stand firmly upon it (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The word used here is جنة (garden) which is singular and so are the pronouns that follow it (as also in vv. 36 and 40). Thus the present verse and vv. 36 and 40 speak of one garden only because of the two gardens one had practically perished before Islam and was not worth much compared with the other. If Christians had boasted of their two gardens it would have been an empty boast. The garden which is the source of pride for Christians is the one which flourished after Islam—their present material progress and power. Hence the use of the word جنة in the singular.

The words "from heaven" show that no earthly power will be able effectively to combat and resist the military might of Christian nations. God Himself will create circumstances which will lead to their destruction. It is to this irresistible might of Gog and Magog who represent the material glory of Christianity that the Holy Prophet referred when he said, لا یدان لاحد لقتا لھم i.e. none will have the power to fight them (Muslim, Chap. on Dajjal).

The words صعیدا زلقا (bare slippery ground) which have been used here are analogous to the words صعیدا جرزا (barren soil) which have been used in v. 9 above about Christians who attribute a son to God. This shows that the present verse also speaks of Christians.

Commentary:

Who is this عبد (servant of God) in search of whom Moses, in pursuance of Divine command, had undertaken such a long and difficult journey and who is the central figure and hero of the whole story? He is none other than the Holy Prophet Muhammad –his soul having taken an embodied form in Moses’ vision. The following arguments conclusively show that he was indeed the عبد (god’s servant) mentioned in this story:

(a) The Holy Prophet has been called عبد in the Quran at several places (2:24; 8:42; 17:2; 18:2; 25:2; 39:37; 53:11 & 72:20). In fact he is عبد الله (God’s servant) par excellence, because truly speaking the stage of عبد (servant of God) is the highest stage in the spiritual development of man and the Holy Prophet had attained that stage.

(b) The words, upon whom We had bestowed Our Mercy, also clearly refer to the Holy Prophet. He has been particularly spoken of as "a mercy to the whole world" (21:108), an epithet applied in the Quran to none other than the Holy Prophet.

(c) The words, whom We had taught knowledge from Ourselves, also refer to the Holy Prophet. At several places in the Quran it is stated that he was vouchsafed divine knowledge in a very large measure (4:114; 6:92; 20:115 & 27:7).

(d) The "servant of God" had told Moses that he (Moses) would not keep silent (v. 68 below), and the Holy Prophet is reported to have said, "Would that Moses had kept silent! If he had done so, we would have been vouchsafed more knowledge about the unseen" (Bukhari, Kitabut-Tafsir). This shows that the "servant of God" of Moses’ vision and the Holy Prophet were one and the same person.

As a matter of fact, Moses had seen a manifestation of God "in the fire" when travelling from Midian to Egypt (28:30). Later on, however, he was told that a Prophet would appear from among the brethren of the Israelites in whose mouth God would put His own word (Deut. 18:18-22). The words of the prophecy signified that the Promised Prophet would be the object of a greater manifestation of God than Moses. Moses therefore naturally wished to see who "that Prophet" could be. To satisfy his curiosity God made him see in his vision "that Prophet" of much higher spiritual powers. This learned "servant of God" of Moses’ vision who has been popularly known by the name of Khizr was the spirit of our Noble Master, the Holy Prophet Muhammad, which had assumed a physical tabernacle. See also 7:144.

21:99.

Commentary:

The word کم (you) in منکم is not of general application. It applies, as the context shows, only to the disbelievers and to those who doubt the existence of the life after death. All these categories of men have been mentioned in the preceding verses. According to Ibn ‘Abbas and ‘Ikrimah, another reading of منکم (of you) is منھم (of them) and the former used to say that the expression منکم is addressed to disbelievers (Qurtubi). So it is to these people i.e. disbelievers mentioned in vv. 67-69 above that the pronoun کم (you) clearly refers. On the other hand the Quran quite clearly and emphatically supports the view that the righteous believers will not go to Hell; they will bask in the sunshine of God’s love and mercy (27:90; 39:62; 43:69; etc.) and will be far removed from the fire of Hell and will not hear even its faintest sound (21:102-103). But if the pronoun (you) be taken to include both the believers and the disbelievers, then in the case of disbelievers the verse would mean that all of them will go to Hell and in the case of believers the fire of Hell referred to in the verse would mean the fire of trials and tribulations through which they have to pass in the present life and which they endure with patience and fortitude and out of which eventually they are taken to be brought into the haven of divine bliss and peace as the next verse shows. This reference is supported by several sayings of the Holy Prophet in which he has likened fever to the fire of Hell. He is reported to have said: The fever is a believer’s share of the Hellfire (Qurtubi as quoted by Tabari).

The Holy Prophet himself has explained the meaning of this verse. His wife Hafsah is reported to have said: "On one occasion when the Prophet said that none of those of his Companions who had taken part in the battle of Badr or Uhud will go to Hell, I drew his attention to the present verse, upon which he slightly reprimanded me for having misunderstood its meaning and directed me to read the next verse" (Muslim as quoted by Jami‘ul-Bayan). The fact that the Holy Prophet referred Hafsah to the next verse (v. 73) shows that he also understood the word ثم occurring in that verse to mean "and", and had taken the next verse as an independent and separate clause, otherwise he could not have reprimanded Hafsah for having misunderstood the meaning of the verse under comment.

19:52; 79:16.

Commentary:

موسی (Moses), the founder of Judaism, lived about 1400 years before Jesus. He was a Law-giving Prophet and the founder of a great religious system. As for the name Moses, it may be briefly stated that موسی (Moses) is really a Hebrew name having definite derivation in both Hebrew and Arabic. In Hebrew it is pronounced and written as موشی (Moshe) and means, "a thing drawn out of water" or "saved from water" (Enc. Bib.). See also 2:54.

Against all accepted canons of history Freud in his "Moses and Monotheism" has adumbrated quite a novel theory that Moses was not an Israelite and did not belong to the Hebrew stock and also that the Israelites never settled in Egypt. He has advanced the following arguments in support of this strange and baseless claim:

1. That Moses is an Egyptian name.

2. That the idea of the Oneness of God is originally Egyptian, having been first conceived and adopted by an ancient Egyptian king, named Ikhnaten (or Akhenaten). Moses himself being an Egyptian borrowed it from the Egyptians and preached it among the Israelites.

3. That, being an Egyptian, Moses popularized the Egyptian custom of circumcision as a religious rite among the Israelites.

4. That like the teaching of the Egyptian king, Akhenaten, there is no mention of the life after death in the teachings of Moses which also shows that he was an Egyptian.

5. That the Egyptians had a very strong dislike for swine and its flesh and that the Israelites developed this dislike as a result of the teaching of Moses.

6. That because Moses was an Egyptian he could not properly express himself in Hebrew.

1. Firstly, all these arguments in fact possess no basis. As stated above and also in 2:54, Moses is certainly a Hebrew word, having derivation both in Hebrew and Arabic. But even if we admit that the name Moses was of Egyptian origin, it does not follow that the man Moses also was an Egyptian. As the Israelites were a subject race in Egypt, living under the rule of the Pharaohs, it seems quite plausible that they should have adopted Egyptian names. The members of a subject race generally feel a particular delight in adopting the names and imitating the customs, modes of living and dress etc., of their rulers. But the actual fact is that موسی (Moses) is a Hebrew name and Pharaoh’s daughter, who very probably gave him that name, must have certainly been influenced to give the child a Hebrew name, as having taken him out of water she thought that he belonged to the Israelite people. It is also possible that the name might have been suggested by Moses’ mother or sister.

2. The second argument that the idea of the Oneness of God was originally Egyptian, having been first conceived and adopted by Akhenaten, an ancient Egyptian king, and preached by him among the Israelites, is equally wrong. In the first place it is manifestly unreasonable to suppose that a certain concept is the monopoly of one people. Different peoples may independently form similar ideas without having borrowed them from one another. Secondly, even supposing that the idea of God’s Unity is of Egyptian origin, the inference cannot be justified that Moses was an Egyptian. If an American or a German can borrow an idea from an Englishman and vice versa why cannot an Israelite borrow an idea from an Egyptian? The truth is that the idea of God’s Oneness was neither conceived by Egyptians nor by Syrians or any other people. It has its origin in Divine revelation.

3. The contention that circumcision was an old Egyptian practice and Moses being an Egyptian borrowed it from his people and popularized it among the Israelites also possesses no substance. Supposing that the practice of circumcision was Egyptian, how does this fact show that Moses was an Egyptian? Do not one people adopt the customs of another people? Could not the Israelites, during their stay in Egypt, have borrowed this practice from the Egyptians, particularly in view of the fact that the Israelites were a subject race and the subject race have a special liking for the ideas and practices of their rulers. In any case it is not a fact that the practice of circumcision was in vogue among the Egyptians alone. According to the Bible, in pursuance of God’s command, Abraham had himself and his two sons Ishmael and Isaac circumcised and had made the observance of the rite of circumcision incumbent upon his posterity long before Moses was born (Gen. 17:11). This practice was also in vogue among the Arabs who never had good social relations with the Israelites and never had gone to Egypt. Even among the wild tribes of Africa and the aborigines of Australia circumcision is not unknown (Jew. Enc. vol. 4, p. 97 and "Tribes of Central Australia" by Spencer and Gillen, p.323). The earliest traces of this practice among Egyptians are to be found in the 16th century B.C. (Jew. Enc. vol.4, p.97), when the Israelites had already been living there. It can, therefore, be safely inferred that, if at all, the practice was borrowed by the Egyptians from the Israelites and not by the Israelites from the Egyptians. The practice seems to have been introduced into Egypt by the Prophet Joseph who commanded great respect and prestige with Egyptian monarchs. Under his influence it must have become popular among the upper strata of Egyptian society as research scholars are of the view that this practice was much more in vogue among the upper sections of the Egyptian people to which Joseph himself belonged than among the poor classes.

4. Another argument that has been advanced in favour of Moses being an Egyptian is that like the teaching of Akhenaten no reference is to be found in the teachings of Moses about life after death. That this argument is quite weak and flimsy is clear from the fact that Akhenaten has left no book, no teaching and no community of followers from whom his views about life after death might be ascertained. Moreover, there are references to life after death in the teaching of Moses. The Bible says: "And die in the mount whither thou goest up, and be gathered unto thy people; as Aaron thy brother died in mount Hor, and was gathered unto his people" (Deut. 32:50) and "I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness" (Psalms 17: 15). The misconception may have arisen from the absence of any marked emphasis on life after death in the Old Testament. This lack of stress might have been due to the fact that in the course of time the Old Testament had become subject to much interpolation and had been tampered with and many parts of it had been lost during the miseries and misfortunes that overtook the Israelites in the period of their dispersion and captivity. When, however, the Jewish scholars and savants re-edited the Bible, they left out from it those passages which did not quite suit the Jewish temper and genius. The passages dealing with the subject of life after death seem to have been among the parts left out as the Jews, being a particularly worldly-minded people, did not relish its repeated mention.

5. The fifth argument given in support of this thesis is that the Israelites, like the Egyptians, had an extreme dislike for pork. This argument, too, seems to stand on a flimsy ground. Though Egyptians did not like pork, pigs were kept and reared in Egypt and were even offered as sacrifice at the altars of the Egyptian gods (Enc. Bib. cols. 4825, 4826). Thus the reason for the Egyptians to refrain from slaughtering pigs seems to have been that they considered it a sacred animal unlike the Israelites to whom its eating was forbidden on account of its being filthy and abominable.

6. The sixth argument given in favour of Moses being an Egyptian is that he could not properly speak Hebrew, the language of the Israelites. This argument is based on Exod. 4:10 where it is stated that Moses was not eloquent and was slow of speech and of a slow tongue. It is true that Moses suffered from an impediment in his speech and could not freely express himself. But how could the fact that Moses was not fluent and was slow of speech prove that he was slow of speech in Hebrew and therefore was not an Israelite. On the contrary, as it appears from the Bible and the Quran, when commanded by God to go to Pharaoh to preach his mission to him, Moses requested to be excused on the plea of his inability to express himself adequately. This fact, if anything, shows that Moses could not freely talk in the tongue which Pharaoh spoke and understood i.e. the Egyptian tongue, and therefore he was not an Egyptian.

In short, there is no reason or justification for supposing that the name Moses is of Egyptian origin or that the man Moses was not an Israelite. The linguistic evidence of Hebrew and Arabic, combined with reason and the evidence of Jewish history and tradition, added to the account of Moses as given in the Bible and the Quran, all go to substantiate and support the fact that Moses was not an Egyptian nor was his name of Egyptian origin.

Important Words:

الزانی is act. part. from زنی (aor. یزنی inf. n. زنی & زناء). They say زنی بھا i.e. he committed fornication or adultery with her. Thus الزنا means both fornication and adultery. ابن زنی، ولد زنیة and ولد الزنا all mean the same thing, i.e. the offspring of fornication or adultery. الزانی means, fornicator or adulterer, and الزانیة means, fornicatress or adulteress; and applied to a man it has an intensive meaning, i.e. one much addicted to fornication or adultery. The plural of زان is زناة like قضاة which is plural of قاض and the plural of زانیة is زوان (Lane & Aqrab).

جلدة (stripes) is derived from جلد. They say جلدہ i.e. he hit or hurt his skin; he beat his skin; he beat him; he struck him with a whip; he flogged him with a whip. جلدة means, flogging, scourging, whipping; stripe. The word is used both as plural and singular (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

Chastity as a moral virtue holds a very high place in the code of Islamic laws that govern relations between the sexes. The present Surah has laid down comprehensive commandments to safeguard and protect it. Islam views with extreme disapprobation the slightest breach of these laws. It is Islam’s very great sensitiveness about chastity that is reflected in the punishment prescribed for adultery or fornication in the verse under comment. The punishment prescribed is hundred stripes, no distinction having been made whether the guilty persons are married or unmarried or one of the party is married and the other unmarried. Thus flogging and not stoning to death according to this verse is the punishment prescribed by Islam for adultery or fornication. Nowhere in the Quran has stoning to death been laid down as punishment for adultery and for that matter for any other crime however serious. Islam has not prescribed killing as a necessary and unqualified punishment even for crimes much more heinous than adultery such as unprovoked murder, dacoity, treason against the state and disturbing the peace of the land. Though extreme penalty for these crimes is death, yet the payment of blood money in the case of the first offence (2:129) and imprisonment or banishment for the other crimes (5:33-34) have been laid down as alternative punishments. Elsewhere in the Quran where punishment for adultery for a married slave-girl is mentioned (4:26), it is clearly stated that she will get half the punishment prescribed for that of a free, married woman; and evidently the punishment of stoning to death cannot be halved.

So in spite of the fact that the Quran has quite clearly and unequivocally laid down (as in the verse under comment) flogging as the punishment for adultery and has made no discrimination whatever between a married or an unmarried culprit in the matter of awarding punishment (because زانی means both a fornicator and adulterer), and in spite of the fact that the present and other relevant verses were revealed in connection with slander-mongering about ‘A’ishah, the Holy Prophet’s noble consort, who herself was a married lady, it is curious that the misconception has persisted without any justification or linguistic authority among certain schools of Muslim religious thought that the verse under comment deals with punishment for unmarried persons only and that the punishment for a married adulterer and adulteress is stoning to death. The misconception seems to be due to a few cases recorded in Hadith whereby married persons guilty of adultery were stoned to death by the order of the Holy Prophet. One of these few cases was that of a Jew and a Jewess who were stoned to death in accordance with the Mosaic Law (Bukhari). It was invariably the Holy Prophet’s practice that he abided by the Law of the Torah in deciding cases till a new commandment was revealed to him. In one or two other cases on record in which the punishment accorded was stoning to death, it has not been established whether the crime was committed before or after the verse under comment was revealed. It seems that in cases in which the guilty person was stoned to death, the crime was committed before the revelation of this verse, but by some miscalculation on the part of some chronicler it was believed to have taken place after it. There is no dearth of such historical anachronisms in the books of Hadith. Or there might have been some other aggravating circumstances besides the crime of adultery which made the Holy Prophet award the guilty person or persons the extreme punishment of death and which the chronicler of the incident failed to take into account. Otherwise it is simply inconceivable that the Holy Prophet should have contravened the quite clear and unequivocal Divine commandment in this respect.

Another possible cause for misunderstanding about the form of punishment for adultery may be a saying attributed to Caliph ‘Umar. He is reported to have said: "There was a verse in the Book of God about rajm (stoning). We read it, we understood it and we remembered it. The Holy Prophet stoned adulterers to death and we also stoned after him. Were it not that people might say that ‘Umar had added in the Book of God what was not in it, I would have written it down" (Kashful-Ghummah vol.2, p.111). The whole hadith seems to be a pure fabrication or at best the result of misunderstanding or distortion of what ‘Umar might actually have said. How by writing down in the Quran what was a part of it could be called an addition to it and how, of all men, ‘Umar could have been afraid of anybody for doing the right thing, least of all for restoring to the Quran a lost text! It is impossible to attribute such confused thinking and irresponsible talk to a man of ‘Umar’s intellectual and moral calibre and stature. If the saying were to be taken at its face value, the whole claim of the Quran that it enjoys perpetual Divine protection and therefore is quite free from human interference falls to the ground.

‘Ali seems to hold quite a different view from that of ‘Umar regarding this very important religious question. After flogging a woman who had committed adultery and then stoning her to death, he is reported to have said: "I have flogged her in obedience to the commandment of the Book of God and have stoned her to death in accordance with the practice of the Holy Prophet" (Bukhari). From this hadith, two inferences clearly emerge:

(1) In the matter of punishing an adulterer or adulteress the practice of the Holy Prophet was at variance with the commandment of God as laid down in the Quran, which is impossible. (2) Whereas according to ‘Umar there was a commandment in the Book of God about stoning to death of an adulterer, according to ‘Ali there was no such commandment, it was only the practice of the Holy Prophet according to which he stoned to death persons guilty of adultery. It is impossible to reconcile the views of these two great leaders of Islam and equally impossible to believe that they held diametrically opposed views regarding a most important question of religion. And it is indeed very surprising that in the face of quite clear, unambiguous and unequivocal Divine commandments the view should have been held, of all men by ‘Umar and ‘Ali, or by any school of Muslim religious thought that Islam has prescribed stoning to death as punishment for an adulterer. The Quran rejects this view as wholly untenable. Somewhere some misunderstanding must have occurred on the part of a chronicler or narrator of the sayings of the Holy Prophet which has caused all this confusion.

It may be of interest to note that the verse has used the words الزانی and الزانیة (and not زانی and زانیة) which suggest a particular class of adulterers and fornicators such as hardened or habitual culprits or those who are lost to all sense of shame and remorse and having thrown all restraint and constraint to the winds indulge in this hideous crime openly.

The verse further lays down that the beating of the culprit should not be so severe as to cause his death or break his bone but should hurt only the skin as the word اجلدوا used in the verse signifies and as is implied in 4:26.