Topic: Migration (Hijrah)

7:21, 28; 20:121.

2:62; 7:25; 20:124.

7:25, 26; 20:56; 77:26, 27.

Important Words:

ازلھما (caused them both to slip). ازل derived from زل i.e. he slipped. ازل means: (1) he caused him to slip; (2) he turned him from the truth or from the right path (Aqrab). The word زل is sometimes used of slipping without intention (Mufradat).

اھبطوا (go forth) is derived from ھبط meaning, he descended or alighted or went down. But when the word is followed by the preposition من it generally means, he went forth or he departed. Thus ھبط من الوادی means, he went forth from the valley (Baqa). Arabic grammar, however, permits of the preposition being omitted. Thus the word اھبطوا in the present verse would mean, go forth or depart. Further on (in 2:39) we read اھبطوامنھا which means, go out of it or go forth from it.

مستقر (abode) is derived from استقر which again is derived from قر. They say قر فی المکان or استقر بالمکان i.e. he stayed or became established in the place; he adopted the place as his residence. So مستقر means, a place where one resides or abides for some length of time (Aqrab).

متاع (provision) is derived from متع. They say متعه الله بکذا. i.e. God made him profit by it for some length of time. So متاعmeans: (1) any of the necessaries of life like food, clothes and furniture; (2) goods of the world; (3) any short-lived profit that does not last for long (Aqrab). The word also means, deriving benefit from a thing for some length of time (Mufradat).

Commentary:

The pronoun "it" in, caused them both to slip by means of it, evidently refers to the شجرة or tree. The first two clauses of the verse mean that a satanic being enticed Adam and his spouse from the place where they were and thereby deprived them of the comforts they enjoyed. As explained in 2:35 above, it will be noted that he who beguiled and brought trouble on Adam was Shaitan and not Iblis who is spoken of as refusing to serve Adam. This distinction is to be found not only in the verse under comment but throughout the Quran which invariably speaks of Iblis while mentioning the incident of refusal to bow down through pride, and of Shaitan wherever mention is made of Adam being instigated to eat of the prohibited شجرة (tree). The distinction points to the conclusion that the word Shaitan does not here refer to Iblis, but to someone from among the fellow beings of Adam who was hostile to him. The inference is further supported by the verse: As to My servants, thou (O Iblis) shalt certainly have no power over them (17: 66). As Adam was a vicegerent of God, Iblis could have no power over him, and the being who beguiled him was someone else. Hence, in order to bring out this fact, the word Shaitan, which has a much wider significance than Iblis, has been used here.

The concluding words of the verse, i.e. for you there is an abode in the earth, also prove that the Quran lends no support to the idea of anybody ascending to the heavens alive, for the verse clearly fixes the earth as the lifelong abode of man. Thus the Quran rejects the idea that Jesus or, for that matter, anybody else ever went up to the heavens alive.

A short note here on the word 'satan' will not be out of place. As will be readily seen, the word 'satan' is of much wider significance than Iblis, for whereas Iblis is the name given to the Evil Spirit who belonged to the jinn and refused to serve Adam, thereafter becoming the leader of the forces of evil in the universe, the word 'satan' is used about any evil or harmful being or thing, whether a spirit or a human being or an animal or a disease or any other thing. Thus Iblis is a 'satan'; his comrades and associates are 'satans'; enemies of truth are 'satans'; mischievous men are 'satans', injurious animals are 'satans' and harmful diseases are 'satans'. The Quran, the Hadith and the Arabic literature are full of instances in which the word 'satan' has been freely used about one or all of these things. Thus the Quran says that there are 'satans' both among men and the jinn (6:113). Again, mischievous enemies of truth are also called 'satans' in the Quran (2:15). The Holy Prophet once used the name 'satan' about a thief who had repeatedly robbed Abu Hurairah (Bukhari). Similarly the Holy Prophet once said that a black street dog was a 'satan' (Majah). Again he once ordered his Companions to cover up their utensils containing food and drink lest 'satan' should find its way into them, evidently meaning harmful insects and germs (Majah). At another place the Holy Prophet exhorts his followers to clean their nostrils when they rise from sleep in the morning as 'satan' rests in them, hinting that harmful matter accumulates in the nostrils which, if not removed, may injure health (Muslim).

From the above instances it is clear that 'satan' is a very general term and is freely used about all evil or harmful beings or things. For the meaning of the word 'satan' see note on 2:15.

8:75; 9:20.

Important Words:

ھاجروا (migrated) is derived from ھجر. They say ھجر الشیء i.e. (1) he cut it or he severed it; (2) he avoided it or kept away from it, or he gave it up. ھاجر means, he left one place to settle in another (Aqrab). The word is particularly used about one who leaves a place where religion is persecuted and goes to a place where there is no such persecution, especially to a place where there exists means of serving and supporting the faith. The early Muslims who migrated from Mecca to Medina were known as مھاجرین i.e. those who left Mecca and settled in Medina with the intention of helping the cause of Islam.

جاھدوا (strive hard) is derived from جھد which means, he strove or laboured hard, taking extraordinary pains. جھد فی الامرmeans, he used his utmost power in prosecuting the affair. جاھدالعدو means, he fought with the enemy exerting his utmost effort to repel him, his enemy doing the like. جھاد means, exerting one’s utmost power in contending with an object of disapprobation; and this is of three kinds, namely, (1) with a visible enemy (2) with Satan, and (3) with one’s self (Lane).

یرجون (who hope) is derived from رجا which gives twofold meaning. They say رجا الشیء meaning: (1) he hoped to get the thing; (2) he was afraid of the thing (Aqrab). When used in the sense of hoping, it is used on occasions when the thing hoped for is likely to afford pleasure (Mufradat).

Commentary:

The verse holds out the promise to Muslims, and they are indeed buoyed up with the hope, that though now they are beset with great difficulties and unusual hardships, the time is fast approaching when all difficulties would disappear and they would become heirs to God’s mercy both in this world and the next.

As the context shows, the words, those who believe, occurring in the verse refer to such of the believers as resided in Medina and had not been called upon to migrate. Thus the verse mentions two classes of believers who can hope to get Allah’s mercy; (1) believers resident in Medina, i.e. the Helpers, who engaged themselves in جھاد or holy war against the forces of Satan; and (2) Migrants from Mecca who were also engaged in such war. The words, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful, have been added to point out that Allah will forgive the above-mentioned two classes of believers their sins and shortcomings which will not stand in the way of their winning God’s mercy, provided they remain sincere in their faith and continue striving hard in the cause of Allah, for, as the Quran elsewhere explains, the good works of a man drive away his evil ones (11:115).

5:27.

Commentary:

The commandments relating to conjugal relations were mentioned as an offshoot of the subject of جھاد (holy war) dealt with in 2:217 and the following verses. The Quran now reverts to the original subject and by way of re-introduction cites the example of the Israelites who had left the land of the Pharaohs for fear of death. Trodden under the foot of the tyrant, the children of Israel were then in a most abject condition, and the wise God, in His eternal wisdom, decreed that they should lead a life of ordeals in the wilderness before becoming fit for the great life that awaited them in the Promised Land. The words, Allah said to them: 'Die', point to the great truth that all life must be preceded by death, i.e. great trials and extraordinary sacrifices.

As mentioned above, the clause, those who went forth from their homes, refers to the Israelites who had gone forth from Egypt to escape persecution by Pharaoh. It was the fear of death which had made the Israelites migrate from the land (2:50).

The words, they were thousands, contradict the Bible which represents the number of the Israelites migrating from Egypt as six hundred thousand. Recent researches favour the Quranic view (See History of the People of Israel, p. 145, by Ernest Renan, London, 1888, and History of Palestine and the Jews, i. 174 by John Kitto, London, 1844). See also. 2:55.

The story of the exodus of the Israelites is briefly this. When, being persecuted by Pharaoh, they left Egypt and crossed over to Asia, Moses wanted them to enter the Promised Land, but they were afraid of the people that dwelt there and refused to march ahead, saying Go thou and thy Lord and fight and here we sit (5:25). The result was that they drew upon themselves the wrath of God, Who said to Moses, Verily, it shall be forbidden them for forty years; in distraction shall they wander through the land (5:27). The promise was thus put off for forty years and the children of Israel were left to wander in the wilderness until those who had refused to fight perished in the desert, whereafter the younger generation led by Joshua conquered the land. Thus it was that the people whom God had caused to perish had new life breathed into them. It is with reference to these events that the Quran uses the word "die" in the verse under comment. This very death, i.e. destruction of the rebellious and training of the youth through trials and ordeals, proved the forerunner of life. Elsewhere, the Quran says about the Israelites: Then We raised you up after your death (2:57).

It may also be noted here that from this verse onward, the Quran begins the description of تزکیة or means of national progress spoken of in 2:130, reference to "Signs" and "the Book" and "Wisdom" having already been made.

4:125; 16:98; 20:113; 16:42.

22:59, 60.

See 2:26.

Commentary:

As this Surah mainly deals with Christian doctrines and ideals and their way of life, and as Christianity, in spite of its claims to the contrary, gives woman a status definitely inferior to that of man, the insistence on the equality of the status of woman with man in the spiritual sphere forms a fitting sequel to it. At several places in the Quran, believing men and believing women are addressed in the same language and are made equally subject to the same commandments and entitled to the same rights and privileges. Briefly, Islam recognizes the equality of the social and religious rights of man and woman. The words, you are from one another, are intended to emphasize the equality of status mentioned in the preceding part of the verse.

The verse also constitutes an effective refutation of the charges of the Shias against the Holy Prophet’s Companions whose failings and shortcomings, if any, were all forgiven by God in view of the good works they performed.

9:111.

9:52.

2:110; 4:45; 14:14.

Commentary:

The word کفر (disbelief) as used in this verse stands for hypocrisy, as a hypocrite is none but a disbeliever at heart. The hypocrites belonging to the Bedouin tribes of the desert, referred to in the preceding verse, claimed to be believers but rendered no help to Islam. Believers are enjoined to have nothing to do with them.

The words, until they migrate in the way of Allah, show that the hypocrites referred to in this verse did not belong to the town of Medina but to outside territory. They attached no value to faith and through cowardice wished that all should become like themselves, making friends with the enemies of Islam and mixing with them as they liked. The Quran forbids Muslims to take such people as friends, or to seek help from them, unless they migrate in the way of God and sever all connection with the enemy.

As the word قتل is also used in the sense of boycotting (see 2:62), the words اقتلوھم (kill them) may also mean boycott them, i.e. have nothing to do with them; treat them in the same manner in which you treat those with whom they have made common cause. This meaning finds support in the fact that the expression اقتلوھم (kill them) is followed by the words, take no friend nor helper from among them.

16:29.

Commentary:

The words فتھاجروا (for you to migrate) show that the people referred to here were not so weak as not to be able to migrate from their homes. They were thus not truly "disabled ones" as mentioned in 4:96 above. The present verse, therefore, strongly condemns them. Islam would not be satisfied with a weak or passive belief, for it is neither good for the believer nor for the community. If the environment of a believer is not suitable for him, he should shift to a different environment more congenial to his faith; and if he does not do so, he is not sincere in his faith.

Important Words:

مراغما (place of refuge) is derived from رغم. They say رغم أنفه meaning his nose clove to the dust, i.e. he became abased and humbled. رغمه means, he disliked it. ارغم اھله or راغم اھله means, he forsook or deserted his family against their wish. رغامmeans, earth or dust. مرغم or مراغم means, a road by travelling on which a man separates himself from his people against their wish or so as to displease them; a place to which one migrates; a place of refuge; a safe and fortified place (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The verse promises those sincere believers who are forced by circumstances to migrate from their homes in the cause of God abundant place of refuge and plentifulness. There is, therefore, no excuse for the people to stay at home surrounded by hostile disbelievers. But the motive must be good and the migration sincere.

The Holy Prophet is reported to have said: "Whoso migrates from his home for the sake of God and His Messenger, his migration will be regarded as having been performed for the sake of God and His Messenger and will be rewarded as such. But whoso leaves his home for the sake of a worldly gain which he wishes to get or for a woman whom he wishes to marry, will be considered to have migrated for the sake of the object for which he migrated, and his migration will not be considered as having been performed in the cause of God" (Bukhari, ch. on Bad’ul Wahy).

2:37, 39; 20:124.

Commentary:

The verse shows that Adam was commanded to migrate from the land of his birth because enmity and hatred had sprung up between different members of his community. This constitutes a further evidence of the fact that "the garden" which Adam was bidden to leave was not the Heaven or Paradise of the Quran, because, as the Quran itself tells us, Paradise is a place from which nobody is ever turned out (15:49), nor can Satan deceive or even approach anyone there. It appears that Adam migrated from Mesopotamia, the land of his birth, to a neighbouring land. The migration was perhaps a temporary one, and Adam may have returned to his native land not long after. Indeed, the words, a provision for a time, contain a veiled hint at the migration being a temporary one.

3:55; 27:51.

Important Words:

یثبتوك (imprison thee) is derived from اثبت which is derived from ثبت which means, it continued or subsisted or endured; or it remained fixed or stationary; or it was or became constant, fast or established. اثبته means, he made it to continue or subsist or endure; or he made it to remain fixed or stationary. They say اثبته جراحة i.e. wound rendered him unable to move. ضربوہ حتی اثبتوه means, they beat him so as to render him motionless. اثبته بوثاق means, he made him fast with a bond so that he could not move. So لیثبتوك (liyuthbituka) or لیثبتوك (liyuthabbituka), which is another reading of the word, means, that they might inflict upon thee a wound by reason of which thou shouldst not be able to rise or move about; or that they might confine thee to thy place, i.e. imprison thee and prevent thy moving about (Lane).

Commentary:

The Holy Prophet bore resemblance to all Prophets of God. At the Battle of Badr, God showed a miracle, similar to the miracle of Moses (see 8:18 above), while the present verse refers to a sign which was like the signs of Jonah and Jesus. At Mecca, the Quraish had a council-room called Darun-Nadwah. There they used to hold their consultations against the Holy Prophet. When they learnt that Islam had spread to Medina, where converts to the new Faith were fleeing for refuge, Abu Jahl and other leaders of the Quraish held a meeting at Darun-Nadwah in order to consider some decisive step to put an end to the new Movement. Various proposals were made at the meeting. One was that the Holy Prophet should be put under confinement, i.e. imprisoned; another was that he should be expelled from the city; yet another was that suitable men belonging to all the different tribes of the Quraish should be selected, and these should make a joint attack on the Holy Prophet and slay him. This last proposal was finally agreed upon, and the Holy Prophet’s house was surrounded one dark night with the object of attacking him as soon as he came forth. But, being apprised by God of the coming danger, the Holy Prophet had already made arrangements with Abu Bakr to flee from Mecca that very night. He, therefore, caused his nephew ‘Ali to lie in his bed and prepared himself to leave. Those who had laid siege to the house occasionally peeped into the house and, mistaking ‘Ali for the Holy Prophet, waited patiently for him outside. While thus waiting, it so happened that the watchers were overpowered by sleep, and the Holy Prophet, availing himself of the opportunity, departed from the house unnoticed. Abu Bakr was already waiting for him at some distance, and the two, bidding farewell to their beloved city, repaired, according to a pre-arranged plan, to a cave in a difficult mountain-top outside Mecca, where they took shelter. When the bloodthirsty Meccans knew of his escape, they quickly prepared to pursue him. They actually followed him, tracing his steps, till they reached the very cave where the Holy Prophet and Abu Bakr were in hiding; but, as the report says, already a spider had spun its cobweb across the mouth of the cave. Thus confronted, it never occurred to them that the Holy Prophet had taken shelter in that out-of-the-way cave whose entrance looked as if it had not been used for a long time. They argued that the tracer who had brought them to the mouth of the cave was at fault and it so happened that none of them so much as glanced into the cave to make sure whether or not anybody was inside. Thus it was that God saved His beloved servant from the clutches of the ravenous wolves that so savagely pursued him. Being unable to find any further trace of him, they returned to Mecca. As, however, a heavy price was set on his head, and it was announced that whoever brought him, dead or alive, would have a reward of 100 camels, people pursued him in all directions; but here, too, God came to his help and none could lay hands on him. After remaining hidden in the cave for three days, the Holy Prophet and his devoted Companion resumed their flight to Medina and, avoiding the better-known tracks, hastened to their destination where the Muslim community of the Ansar and such of the Muhajirin as had already reached there accorded them a most cordial welcome.

Thus, the Quraish practically resorted to all the three plans that have been mentioned in the verse under comment: (1) they confined the Holy Prophet when they laid siege to his house at night; (2) they drove him from his native city; and (3) they attempted to carry out their resolution of Darun-Nadwah to put him to death. But God baffled every attempt of theirs, and he, who had fled from their town as a helpless fugitive, returned to them eight years later as an illustrious victor, at whose hands they cringingly sought, and readily obtained, pardon. They planned and plotted against him, as the verse says; but their plans and intrigues led to their own ruin. They drove him from their city, but his very flight led him to power and prosperity and proved the cause of their destruction. Sometime after the flight, a Meccan army proudly issued forth from Mecca and proceeded to Badr, a place near Medina, little dreaming that it was going to its own ruin. All this was arranged and decreed by God, Who is the best of planners. He so arranged that the army which had come forth with such pomp and display of power returned from Badr an utterly routed and disorderly rabble, leaving its proud leaders either dead on the battlefield or captives in the hands of those whom they hated and despised.

It should be noted that the word مکر (plan) used in this verse does not necessarily mean an evil plot. It is general in its significance, comprising both good and evil planning, according to the purpose for which it is contrived. The plots of the enemies of truth were, of course, evil; but God never has recourse to evil design. He planned things in such a way as to frustrate the evil designs of the enemy and make the cause of Islam triumph. The very fact that the Quran prefixes the word خیر (best) to the word ماکرین (planners) shows that the word has been used in a good sense with respect to God; for the word خیر (meaning good, better or best) is invariably prefixed to words which are used in a good sense. See also 3:55.

The present verse has been placed most fittingly between the verses relating to the Battle of Badr; for after speaking of that great battle, the Quran reminds the Holy Prophet and his Companions of the plots of the enemy against him and draws his attention to the wonderful way in which God had helped him at the time of his flight, frustrating the designs of the enemy and turning them to the advantage of Islam. He would do it again when needed and the Battle of Badr was another instance of the kind.

2:219; 9:20; 61:12.

Important Words:

آووا (gave shelter) is derived from اوی. They say اوی الیه i.e. he betook himself to it; or he repaired to it for lodging, covert or refuge; or simply he betook himself to it or repaired to it; or he returned to it. اواه means, he gave or afforded him lodging, covert, refuge or asylum; or he sheltered, protected or harboured him. اوی له means, he felt compassion or pity for him. آواه means, he gave or afforded him lodging, covert, refuge or asylum; or he sheltered or harboured him (Lane).

Commentary:

The verse enunciates a great principle which should govern the social relations of Muslims. It lays down that those Muslims who live in the same country and under the same administrations, whether as immigrants or as original citizens, are bound to help one another in the hour of need. If one of them is wronged, the others must come to his help. But as regards those Muslims who have not migrated to a Muslim country and prefer to live apart, they have no claim on the assistance of these Muslims in worldly matters. But if they seek their help in the matter of religion, e.g. when they are persecuted for the sake of their religion, then they must be helped. If, however, they are living under a non-Muslim government, with whom Muslims have entered into a treaty of peace, then no help should be rendered them even in matters of religion; and in this case, the only way open to them is to migrate from the non-Muslim country. The reader should note what high regard for compacts and treaties the Quran inculcates in its followers. It is to warn Muslims against a violation of compacts that the verse fittingly ends with the words, And Allah sees what you do.

9:26; 48:27.

Important Words:

کلمة (word). See 2:38, 125; 3:46 & 4:172.

Commentary:

The reference in this verse is to the flight of the Holy Prophet from Mecca to Medina when, accompanied by Abu Bakr, he took shelter in a cave called Thaur. See note on 8:31. The Arabic words rendered as "one of the two" literally mean "the second of the two" and refer to the Holy Prophet and Abu Bakr. The Holy Prophet has been referred to as "the second" because in the Quranic idiom the more important member of the group is referred to as being the last part, i.e. the final figure. For instance see 5:74 where God is referred to as being "the Third of the Trinity" according to the Christian doctrine.

The verse sheds important light on the high spiritual status of Abu Bakr, who accompanied the Holy Prophet in his flight from Mecca and was thus one of "the two" referred to in the verse. It is worthy of note that when at a time of danger, the Israelites anxiously addressed Moses, saying, We are surely overtaken, he replied, nay speak not thus for my Lord is with me. He will direct me aright (26:62, 63). In a similar situation, however, the Holy Prophet, when Abu Bakr expressed anxiety, calmly said: Grieve not, for Allah is with us. This speaks volumes for Abu Bakr’s spiritual greatness, for the pronoun "us"- signifies that God was not only with the Holy Prophet but with Abu Bakr as well. Again, it is on record that, while in the cave, Abu Bakr began to weep, and when asked by the Holy Prophet why he was weeping he replied, "I do not weep for my life, because if I die, it is only the question of a single life. But if you die, O Prophet of God, it will be the death of Islam and of the entire Muslim community" (Zurqani).

The pronoun in the clause, Allah sent down His peace on him, stands for Abu Bakr and not the Holy Prophet, for the Holy Prophet had all along enjoyed peace. The succeeding pronoun in the clause, strengthened him with hosts, refers to the Holy Prophet. This divergence in the use of similar pronouns is permissible in Arabic, being known as, انتشار ضمائر (see 2:75; 48:10).

The words, and (God) humbled the word of those who disbelieved, mean that God frustrated the designs of the disbelievers and they failed to accomplish what they desired. See also 8:31.

The verse also hints that even if none else had accompanied the Holy Prophet in the hazardous expedition to Tabuk, Abu Bakr would certainly have done so, just as he did on the occasion of his flight from Mecca. The verse thus provides a great testimonial to the strength and sincerity of Abu Bakr’s faith.

2:219; 4:101; 22:59.

Commentary:

In the previous verse we were told that when God wills a thing, it comes into being without fail. The verse under comment gives a proof of this Quranic claim. It says that the Faithful were a small and weak community. They had been so oppressed by disbelievers that they had to flee from their homes. But God willed, and He expressed His wish, that these persecuted people should be accorded an honourable position in the world, and so it came to pass. This proves that when God wills a thing, it comes into being without fail.

The expression فی اللّٰه (lit. in Allah) may have several interpretations: (1) It means, for the sake of Allah. The Faithful left their homes for the sake of Allah and for no material gains. (2) It may mean, فی دین اللّٰه i.e. for the sake of God’s religion—for the sake of the free and unfettered exercise of religion. The early Muslims left Mecca for a place where they could freely discharge their religious rites. (3) It may mean, in Allah. In this sense the expression would signify that early Muslims had become so completely lost in Allah that they gave up their homes and kith and kin for His sake. Their departure from Mecca was thus tantamount to the departure of God Himself from that city.

Muslims left their homes for the sake of God and God promised them a goodly abode wherever they went. History amply testifies to the truth of this statement. The great results which followed the flight of Muslims to Medina are too well known. Dwellers of the desert and drivers of camels came to rule over vast empires. But what they got in this world was not the full recompense of their noble deeds. They will get their full reward in the life after death. The fact that the first part of the prophecy met with a wonderful fulfilment constitutes an infallible proof of the fact that the second part would also be fulfilled, incidentally providing an irrefutable proof of the inevitability of Resurrection.

2:219.

Commentary:

Verses 108-110 referred to those who open their hearts to disbelief and are the avowed enemies of Islam. The verse under comment deals with those persons regarding whom judgement had been reserved in v. 107, viz. persons whose hearts are satisfied with truth, but who are forced to utter words which are apparently expressive of disbelief. The judgement given in their case is that if they migrate from their homes and strive in the cause of God and endure with patience any hardships that may befall them in the way of religion, then, and not till then, will God pardon their previous sins, for only then will it become established that they have made full amends for their past lapses. In v. 107, such persons were excepted from those who had opened their minds to disbelief. In the face of such hard conditions for securing Divine pardon, it is the height of injustice on the part of the critics of Islam to say that it condones the concealment of one’s faith or the denial of truth when one is confronted with trials and hardships. In fact, God demands a life-long sacrifice from such a person before admitting him again to His Grace and Mercy. The example of Tulaihah bin Khuwailad may be cited in this connection. When after having renegaded and laid claim to prophethood he became reconverted to Islam in the Caliphate of ‘Umar, the latter forgave him on condition that he would spend the remainder of his life in jihad.

5:22; 7:138.

Important Words:

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

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

Commentary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

29:27.

Commentary:

In this verse Abraham seems to be referring to his migration to Canaan. It is on record that Abraham went from Iraq to Canaan and from there to Egypt. He left his father and people behind him in Iraq.

2:37-39; 7:25.

Commentary:

The words "both of you", signify two groups of people i.e. the followers of Adam and the followers of Satan. The word کم (you) and جمیعا (all of you) also show that the verse refers not to two persons but to two groups of persons or parties. This is also clear from 7:25 where the plural number اھبطوا (go forth all of you) has been used instead of اھبطا (go forth both of you).

It appears that Adam migrated from Iraq, the land of his birth, to a neighbouring country. The migration was perhaps a temporary one, and he must have returned to his native land not long after. The words, a provision for a time, contain a hint about the migration being a temporary one.

Commentary:

By the words, the land which We blessed for the peoples, is meant Canaan to which country the great Patriarch migrated with his nephew, Lot.

Abraham journeyed from Ur (Mesopotamia) to Harran and from there, by God’s command, to Canaan, which God had decreed to give to his posterity. This journey had a precise objective and aim. In pursuance of Divine plan and design, all the great Prophets or their followers, at one time or another, have to migrate from their homes. Abraham accompanied by Lot migrated from Mesopotamia to Canaan; Moses had to flee with his people from Egypt to the Promised Land; Jesus had to quit Palestine after his escape from the cross and journeyed to the east in search of the ten lost tribes of Israel and last of all the Holy Prophet had to migrate from his native city, Mecca, and adopt Medina as his home.