Topic: Magicians

Important Words:

تتلوا (followed). See 2:114

شیاطین (rebellious men). See 2:15.

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:88; 2:254.

3:47.

3:49.

3:50.

5:12.

Commentary:

In the clause, thou didst speak to the people in the cradle and when of middle age, the act of speaking in the cradle signifies speaking words of wisdom and piety in childhood. This sort of speaking on the part of Jesus reflected great credit on his mother, who, herself being wise and pious, brought him up as a wise and pious child. And the speaking of good words in middle age shows that not only was Mary a pious woman, but Jesus, too, was a righteous man so that even when he was of middle age and was no longer under the direct influence of his mother, he spoke words of piety and wisdom to men. See also 3:47 & 3:49, 50, where similar works of Jesus, i.e. the creation of birds and the quickening of the dead, etc. have been discussed.

Protection similar to that alluded to in the latter part of this verse in the words, I restrained the Children of Israel from putting thee to death, was promised to the Holy Prophet as well (5:68). This promise met with a remarkable fulfilment. Though, even at Mecca, his life was in constant danger, at Medina that danger very much increased. The Holy Prophet led many expeditions in person and several attempts were made on his life. At Uhud, he was severely wounded and at Hunain he was left alone among a large host of bloodthirsty archers. Yet amidst all these dangers he remained safe, and after having triumphed over his enemies, passed away peacefully in his house at Medina. The reference in the present verse is to the attempts of the Jews to kill Jesus on the cross, from which—accursed death—God delivered him. The words, I restrained the Children of Israel, should not, however, be understood to mean that Jesus suffered even no persecution at the hands of his enemies. A similar expression has been used with regard to early Muslims in the Quran (5:12), but it is a well-known fact that they had to pass through grievous trials and tribulations. The expression thus only means that the enemy will fail to kill Jesus, whom God will protect from being destroyed.

Important Words:

قرطاس (parchment) means paper; a roll or scroll of paper; anything one writes upon; a writing or book; a butt or target (Lane).

Commentary:

The words, and they had felt it with their hands, mean, "and they had made sure that it was a heavenly thing and not an earthly one". The words also embody a beautiful allusion to the spiritual blindness of the people. Being blind, they cannot see; so they have to feel with their hands.

The verse signifies that when a man gives himself up to doubting, nothing, however clear and manifest, can convince him.

20:21; 26:33; 27:11; 28:32.

Important Words:

ثعبان (serpent) is derived from ثعب. They say ثعبه i.e. he gave vent to it; or he made it (water, etc.) to flow or run or stream. ثعبان means, a kind of long serpent; a great serpent, whether male or female, but particularly the male; or the serpent in general whether male or female, great or small; also applied to an enormous fabulous serpent (Lane).

Commentary:

The Quran has used three different words for describing the turning of the rod of Moses into a serpent; (1) ثعبان as in the verse under comment and in 26:33; (2) حیة as in 20:21, and (3) جان as in 28:32 and 27:11. The words ثعبان and حیة are applied both to a large or a small serpent, while the word جان signifies only a small serpent. Thus, there is no conflict or contradiction in using these three different words for the same thing, as all of them may be used to give the same meaning, i.e. a small serpent.

Moreover, on carefully pondering over the verses in which these words occur, we find that different words have been used to suit different occasions. The word جان has been used on the occasion when the rod is made to appear as a serpent to Moses alone (27:11) while the words ثعبان and حیة have been used in connection with the occasion when the miracle was wrought in public. This shows that to Moses the rod appeared as only a small serpent. While in the presence of Pharaoh and other men, it was made to appear like a big serpent. Thus the use of three different words for different occasions was not haphazard and casual, but deliberate and evidently intended to serve a definite purpose.

Moreover, in the verses in which the word جان is used, it is not said that the rod actually turned into a جان (small serpent) but that it moved as though it were a جان. This does not mean that the rod necessarily turned into a small serpent but that it only moved quickly like a small serpent, though it may have been a large serpent. So the different words used by the Quran do not conflict with each other, whether the rod be taken as turning into a small serpent or a large one.

It should also be noted here that this miracle did not really contradict any law of nature. If the existence of a thing is proved beyond doubt, it must be admitted, even if we are unable to explain it in the light of the laws of nature, as we know them. Our knowledge of the laws of nature is evidently very limited and so we cannot deny a fact on the basis of our limited and imperfect knowledge. Moreover, the said miracle did not take place in the manner in which it is popularly understood to have occurred. Indeed, miracles shown by God’s Prophets are not like the performance of jugglers. They are meant to serve some great moral or spiritual purpose. One of their primary objects is to bring about certainty of faith and engender feelings of piety and fear of God in the minds of those who witness them. If the rod had actually turned into a serpent, the whole performance must have looked more like the hand-tricks of a juggler than the miracle of a Prophet. In spite of what the Bible might say about this miracle, the Quran lends no support whatever to the view that the rod actually turned into a real and living serpent. No such thing ever took place. The rod only appeared like a moving serpent. It was a sort of a vision in which God either exercised special control over the sight of the onlookers in order to make them see the rod in the form of a serpent or the rod itself was made to appear like a serpent; and this vision was shared by Pharaoh and his courtiers and the enchanters along with Moses. The rod remained a rod, only it appeared to Moses and others as a serpent. It is a spiritual phenomenon of common occurrence that in a vision when man rises above the encumbrances of the flesh and becomes temporarily transported to a spiritual sphere, he can see things taking place which are beyond his ken and are quite invisible to his physical eyes. The miracle of the rod turning into a serpent was one such spiritual experience.

A similar spiritual phenomenon took place when in the time of the Holy Prophet the moon was seen as rent asunder not only by the Holy Prophet but by some of his followers and opponents as well (Bukhari, ch. on Tafsir). Such visions, which constitute a peculiar state between sleep and wakefulness, are a common spiritual experience of God’s Prophets and His Elect, but sometimes they are shared by ordinary men and by even disbelievers. Tradition tells us that Gabriel whom the Holy Prophet often saw in his visions, was also once seen by his Companions, who were sitting with him (Bukhari, ch. on Iman). Similarly, some angels were seen even by some of the disbelievers at the Battle of Badr (Jarir, vi.47). Another instance of this kind occurred when a Muslim army under the well-known Muslim general, Sariyah, was fighting the enemy in Iraq at a distance of hundreds of miles from Medina. ‘Umar, the Second Khalifah, while delivering his Friday sermon at Medina, saw in a vision that the Muslim army was being over-whelmed by the superior numbers of the enemy and that a disastrous defeat was imminent. Thereupon, ‘Umar suddenly discontinued his sermon and cried out from the pulpit, saying, "O Sariyah, take to the mountain, take to the mountain." Sariyah, hundreds of miles away and surrounded by the deafening noise of the battlefield, heard the voice of ‘Umar and obeyed it; and the Muslim army was saved from destruction (Khamis, ii. 270).

The miracle of Moses mentioned in the verse under comment possessed a special significance. It may be interpreted something like this. God told Moses to throw down his rod which then appeared to him like a serpent; and when subsequently on God’s bidding he took it up, lo! the rod was a mere piece of wood. Now a serpent, in the language of visions and dreams, is a symbol of the enemy, while a rod is emblematic of one’s community (Ta‘tirul-Anam). Thus, by means of this vision, God made Moses understand that if He cast away his people from him, they would become veritable serpents. But if he kept them under his care, they would grow into a strong and well-knit community of righteous and God-fearing men. Moses had in the beginning begged to be excused from being entrusted with the onerous task of reclaiming a morally depraved people, but God told him by means of this vision that the well-being of his people depended upon his taking them in his charge, failing which they would turn into veritable serpents.

Abu Jahl, the arch-enemy of Islam, was also once made to see a similar vision. It is reported that the Holy Prophetone day went to him and asked him to pay a certain sum of money which he owed to a poor man, a stranger in Mecca, but which he had so far declined to pay. On the Holy Prophet’s demand, Abu Jahl, in spite of his great enmity to the Prophet, made the payment at once, and when asked by his friends the reason for his doing so, he said he saw two enraged camels on both sides of Muhammad about to tear him to pieces if he refused to comply with his demand (Hisham). Arabia is a land of camels, so Abu Jahl was made to see camels, while Egypt being a land of magic serpents, Pharaoh was made to see a serpent.

20:64; 26:35.

Important Words:

The word ساحر (magician) does not necessarily mean a magician. It also means, an enchanter; fascinator; one knowing, or one skilful and intelligent; one able to make a thing look other than what it is; a deceiver, deluder or beguiler, etc. (Lane). See also 2:103.

26:38.

26:43.

Commentary:

When Pharaoh heard, or rather overheard, the magicians saying to one another the words contained in the previous verse, he told them that they would not only get the reward they rightly expected, but that they would also become his favourite courtiers.

20:66.

Commentary:

Mark the intensity of the scene—both parties arrayed before one another ready to come to grips in a decisive struggle.

20:67; 26:45.

Important Words:

سحر عظیم (a great magic). For the meaning of the word سحر see 2:103 & 7:110.

Commentary:

Moses was not slow in availing himself of the opportunity offered and at once replied that they should throw first. The Prophets of God generally wait for an attack on the part of their opponents, for they prefer to defend and then look to God for succour.

20:70; 26:46.

Important Words:

تلقف (it swallowed up) is derived from لقف. They say لقف الشیء i.e. he took or seized the thing quickly; or he took or seized the thing quickly when it was thrown to him. لقف الطعام or تلقف الطعام means, he swallowed up the food (Aqrab).

Commentary:

It was certainly not the "serpent" made out of the rod, but the rod itself which undid the magic of the magicians. The rod of Moses, wielded with the spiritual force of a great Prophet and thrown at the command of God, exposed the deception they had wrought on the spectators by breaking to pieces the things which, by their magic, they had made the people take for real serpents. The words تلقف مایافکون literally meaning "it swallowed up whatever they feigned" really signify that the rod quickly exposed the deception wrought by the magicians.

Commentary:

This verse refers to Pharaoh’s party and not to the magicians. The latter have been spoken of in the next verse. So the words, and they returned humiliated, do not evidently apply to them. Moreover, the word (humiliated) could not have been used about men who had evinced such regard for truth as to have accepted it without even waiting to see what Pharaoh had to say about it. The word, "humiliated" has also been elsewhere used in the Quran about the disbelievers (9:29).

The word انقلبوا (they returned) does not simply mean, "they became". The expression becomes much more powerful if taken in its literal sense, the meaning being that those who, a few moments before, had come to the scene of combat with a most proud and arrogant attitude and confident of success, now returned to their places humbled and crest-fallen.

20:71; 26:48.

Commentary:

Their discomfiture proved to the magicians that the Lord of the worlds was on the side of Moses; so they hastened to believe in Him.

20:71; 26:49.

7:64, 70; 50:3

Important Words:

قدم (rank) is the substantive noun from قدم. They say قدم القوم (qadama) i.e. he went before the people or he preceded them; or he took precedence of them; or he led them so as to set an example; قدم البلد (qadima) means, he came to or arrived at the town. قدمه علی غیرہ (qaddama-hu) means, he gave him precedence over another in time, place or rank; he preferred him to another or honoured or esteemed him above another. The expression لزید عند بکر قدم means, there is strength or rank or good footing for Zaid, with Bakr. They say فلان علی قدم عظیم i.e. such a one is on an excellent footing or foundation. فلان علی قدم فلان means, such a one is the successor of such a one (literally, such a one treads in the footsteps of such a one). قدم means, the human foot; precedence, or preference; rank, footing or foundation (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

It is generally believed that the occasion for the revelation of this verse was when disbelievers taunted that God could find no one better to act as His Messenger than the orphan boy of Abu Talib. Though no great value can be attached to this or that incident as being the cause of the revelation of a particular verse, the incident referred to above at least throws some light on the treatment which the Meccans meted out to the Holy Prophet and the contempt in which he was held by them after he had laid claim to prophethood. To call the Holy Prophet the orphan boy of Abu Talib, who was his uncle and guardian, and not to call him after his own father, was intended to insinuate that a man who was the son of an unnamable person and who had been brought up by another could not be worthy of a Messenger of God.

The verse also brings to light the important fact that those who become morally depraved lose all sense of self-respect as well as all confidence in themselves, for here the disbelievers are represented as looking upon themselves as being so degenerate that they could not think that anyone from among them could come and rescue them from the morass of degradation into which they had fallen and that only someone from outside could reform them. This tragic fact also holds good in the case of present-day Muslims. They, too, are anxiously waiting for Jesus to come down from the heaven to take them out of the slough of despair and degradation and are refusing to accept the heavenly Reformer whom God raised from among themselves to lead them to moral perfection and spiritual glory.

The words, give glad tidings to those who believe that they have a true rank of honour with their Lord, embody a promise that whoever acts upon the teachings of the Holy Prophet will achieve all kinds of prosperity and glory. This was another cause of surprise for disbelievers. According to them, the followers of the Holy Prophet lacked those qualities that go to make a people great and prosperous. They, therefore, wondered how Muslims dared hope to succeed in their great aim of destroying the old order of things and building on its ashes a new and better order. The words, with their Lord, signify that Muslims would make not only moral and spiritual but also material progress. By referring to their connection with a Being Who has the power to bestow all forms of advancement, the Quran alludes to the complete glory and many-sided success of Muslims.

The words, Surely, this is a manifest enchanter, signify that when disbelievers heard the above announcement, they said that Muhammad had succeeded in representing falsehood as truth, because he knew how to take advantage of the weakness of man. He had inspired the cowardly with fear and had held out false hopes to the greedy, and had thus managed to bring people over to his side. This is the very criticism which is levelled at the Holy Prophet by modern Christian writers. They also allege that Muhammad converted the ignorant Arabs to his faith by threatening with punishment those of them who disbelieved and tempting those who were credulous and greedy with promises of bliss and happiness. If that was indeed a stratagem, where is the religion which does not promise Heaven to its believers

and Hell to disbelievers? If speaking of blessings—which are the inevitable result of accepting truth—be called tempting a people with false promises, then no religion is safe from the charge of holding out such temptation. And what will Christian critics say of Jesus, who promised the keys of Paradise to Peter and to his other followers and threatened disbelievers with deprivation of the kingdom of God? (Matt. 16:15-19; 18:3 & 19:28, 29).

40:26.

Important Words:

سحر (enchantment) means, producing what is false in the form of truth; embellishment by falsification and deceit; enchantment or fascination (Lane). See also 2:103 & 7:110.

مبین (manifest) has three meanings: (1) manifest, apparent or clear; (2) that which makes a thing clear or manifest; (3) that which separates, disunites or severs (Lane). See also 2:169.

Commentary:

In the two simple words سحر and مبین lie hidden almost all the stratagems and machinations that the enemies of the Prophets of God employ to defeat and discomfit them. People with a religious bent of mind are told by them that the new teaching is nothing but a سحر or a fraud which would corrupt the religion of the land, whereas those nationalists who profess to have the material good of their country at heart are frightened away from it by being told that the new teaching is مبین i.e. the acceptance of it would create dissension and discord among the different communities in the land and would thus give a death-blow to the national cause. (For the meaning of the word مبین see Important Words). This double weapon has always been used against heavenly Messengers—from Moses right up to the Holy Prophet—and it was employed in our own times against Ahmad, the Promised Messiah, Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement. His opponents accused him of misleading people by deceitful teachings and of creating discord among Muslims, naively forgetting that discord had already eaten into the national entity of Islam and the efforts of Ahmad were all directed to uniting the broken threads of the Faith.