Topic: And Qur’an

26:194, 195.

See 2:90.

Important Words:

جبریل (Gabriel) is a compound word made up of جبر (גבך) which in Hebrew means a man or a mighty man or a hero, and ایل (א ל) which means God (Hebrew-English Lexicon by William Geseneus, Boston, 1836. Also see Bukhari, chap. onTafsir). The latter word occurs in many combinations (e.g. in the word Ishmael in Gen. 16:11 which means "God heareth" or "God has heard"). In Arabic, which is the mother of Hebrew, the word جبر means, mending a broken thing; giving a poor man so liberally as to make him well off; a brave man. The word ایل is either derived from the Arabic word الله (God) or from the root آل, the active participle from which is آئل meaning Controller or Ruler, i.e. God (Aqrab). Ibn ‘Abbas relates that the other name of جبریل is عبدالله i.e. the servant of God (Jarir), which is simply another rendering of the word جبریل. Thus the angel جبریل (Gabriel) is so called because he is the servant of God; he is the strong and brave servant of God; he looks after the repairing or reformation of the universe, he bestows God’s bounties on mankind and is a liberal giver.

In Islam جبریل has been described as the chief among the angels (Manthur) and was therefore selected by God to be the bearer of the Quranic message, the best and the last شریعة (Law) to descend from Heaven. Many commentators consider that جبریل (Gabriel) is synonymous with روح القدس (the Spirit of Holiness) spoken of in the Quran and the Hadith. Similarly, Gabriel has been spoken of as روح الامین (the Trusty Spirit) in the Quran (26:194).

Commentary:

The Jews had been invited to believe in the Quran, but they refused to accept it (v. 92 above) on the ground that it was said to have been brought by Gabriel while, according to them, the bearer of Divine Revelation was Michael, and not Gabriel (Musnad). The function of Gabriel, as we learn from the Bible, is to convey the messages of God to His servants (Dan. 8:16; 9:21; and Luke 1:19, 26. It is strange that Gabriel is mentioned in the Old Testament for the first time in Daniel and not earlier). The Quran, as the verse under comment points out, assigns the same function to Gabriel. But in some later writings of the Jews, he is described as "the angel of fire and thunder" (Enc. Bib. under Gabriel).

Such was the idea of the Jews in the days of the Holy Prophet. They looked upon Gabriel as an angel of wars, calamities and hardships (Jarir under 2:98). Muslim historians tell us that this idea had such a firm hold on the minds of the Jews that when they were told that the bearer of the Quranic revelation was Gabriel, they said: جبریل ذالك الذی ینزل بالحرب والقتال والعذاب- عدونا i.e. "Gabriel is the angel who is associated with war and bloodshed and punishment. He is our enemy." By saying this, they meant that they would not believe in a revelation brought by Gabriel (Musnad). The reason why the Jews bore enmity to Gabriel seems to be that they had fallen on evil days and as, according to them, Gabriel was the angel of war and punishment, therefore they ascribed their misfortunes to him. There is no doubt that the Talmudic traditions and the Targums were the origin of this notion which gained such a firm footing among Jews; otherwise originally the Bible declares Gabriel to be the angel of good tidings and of the Divine Word. It is evident that with the lapse of time legends and myths grew round the original truth, which was subsequently lost; and the Jews clung fast to their erroneous belief, which stood in the way of their accepting the Quran or, for that matter, any revelation coming through the agency of Gabriel.

The Quran has, in the verse under comment, brought forward four arguments in refutation of the Jewish plea for rejecting the Quran:

Firstly, that no angel can bring down any revelation unless he receives direct command from God. Hence the angel who brings the revelation, whether he is Gabriel or Michael or any other, is only a vehicle for the Divine Word; and even if Jewish tradition associates an angel with calamities, it cannot call into question the authority from which his message originates.

Secondly, that the revelation sent down to the Prophet of Islam is مصدق (in fulfilment) of the previous Books and in it all the prophecies about the promised Lawgiver contained in the earlier Scriptures find their fulfilment, which is a clear proof of its Divine origin.

Thirdly, that when it is practically established that the teachings of the Quran are a guidance for mankind, its acceptance becomes binding upon all right thinking men.

Fourthly, that the Quran contains teachings which, besides being right, are also بشری (bearers of glad tidings) to its followers and harbingers of God’s mercy and favours. Such revelation should not be rejected simply for the reason that it has been brought down by Gabriel.

5:76.

2:144, 218; 5:55; 47:39.

Commentary:

As already mentioned (3:122), the false report was spread at Uhud that the Holy Prophet was killed. The verse refers to this incident and purports to say that although the report about the death of the Prophet was untrue, yet even if it had been true, that should not have made the Faithful waver in their faith. Muhammad was only a Prophet; and as other Prophets before him had died, so would he. But the God of Islam ever lives.

It is also on record that when, seven years later, the Holy Prophet died, ‘Umar stood up in the Mosque at Medina with a drawn sword in his hand, and said, "Whoever will say that the Prophet of God is dead, I will cut off his head. He is not dead, but has gone to his Lord, (i.e. he has ascended to heaven) even as Moses had gone to his Lord, and he would come back and punish the hypocrites." At this stage, Abu Bakr, who happened to be away at the time of the Prophet’s death, hurriedly came back, went straight into the Prophet’s chamber and, seeing that he was really dead, kissed his forehead, saying, "Sweet art thou in death as thou wert in life, and surely God will not bring on thee two deaths." Then he came out, strong and firm, asked ‘Umar to sit down and, addressing the Companions, who were gathered in the Mosque, recited to them this very verse, i.e. Muhammad is only a Messenger; verily all Messengers have passed away before him; if then he die or be slain, will you turn back on your heels? meaning, that in the circumstances it was no wonder that the Holy Prophet also had passed away. Hearing this timely recital, ‘Umar, and all others, were convinced of the death of the Holy Prophet and were overpowered with grief. Thus, the verse incidentally proves that the Prophets that lived before the Holy Prophet had all died; for if any of them had been alive, the verse could not have been quoted as proof of the Holy Prophet’s death.

The verse also negates the idea that any Prophet has risen to heaven; for it was used to falsify ‘Umar’s contention to the effect that the Holy Prophet was not dead but had risen to heaven. The verse thus proves, without a shadow of doubt, that Jesus too, who was one of the Prophets that had appeared before the Holy Prophet, is not physically alive in the heavens, as some present-day Muslims, following the Christian belief, erroneously think. He is certainly dead, as proved by this verse and the consensus of the Companions’ opinion on the occasion of the death of the Holy Prophet.

In fact, religion does not depend on any personality. It belongs to God alone. That is why the Quran says that if the Holy Prophet dies or is killed, it will be no ground for Muslims to turn away from Islam; for the Prophet is only a Messenger and the religion is God’s. Elsewhere, however, the Quran clearly says: And Allah will protect thee from men(5:68). These two verses are not at variance with each other. What the Quran intends to emphasize in the verse is the fundamental truth of Islamic teachings. Muslims had seen how pure and true these teachings were. Their truth was evident and they could not have become false even if the Holy Prophet had been slain. For instance, the fundamental teaching of Islam is the Unity of God. Now, this truth could not become an untruth if the Prophet were killed. But apart from this announcement in principle, the Prophet could not be killed, for God had definitely promised to protect him.

It should also be remembered that immunity from being murdered is not given in the Quran as a criterion of a Prophet’s truth. People are required to accept a Prophet in his lifetime, and, therefore, they must have proofs of his truth in his lifetime, so that, by witnessing them, they may believe in him. They cannot wait till the time of his death in order to know whether he is a true or a false claimant.

Once a Prophet has furnished clear proofs of his truth in his lifetime, his claim is established and nothing can undo those proofs. Only if a Prophet were murdered before he had been able to give any proof of his truth could we conclude that he had proved a failure and was not a true claimant. But such a thing has never happened.

The enemy rejoiced when the report went round that the Prophet had been slain, but that supposed death of the Prophet turned out to be the veritable "life" of Islam. It fulfilled a great purpose. It prepared Muslims for the actual passing of the Holy Prophet. If this event had not occurred, the death of the Holy Prophet would have proved an unbearable trial for Muslims. In fact, this painful experience brought in disguise many blessings for Islam. At the Battle of Uhud, it brought to light the unshakable faith of the believers; at the time of his death it served to save Islam from going to pieces; and now that Islam is to all appearances dead, it is serving as a means of breathing new life into it, by proving that Jesus, whom Christians have deified, is dead, like all other Prophets that lived before Islam.

See 10:8.

17:74.

6:51; 7:204; 46:10.

Important Words:

تلقاء (accord) is derived from لقی. They say لقیه i.e. he came face to face with him; he found or met him. توجه تلقاء النار means, he went in the direction of the fire, or towards the fire. جلس تلقاء فلان means, he sat facing him or opposite to him. فعله من تلقاء نفسه means, he did it himself; he did it of his own accord, i.e. without being led to it by someone else or without being forced to do it (Aqrab).

Commentary:

Signs (آیات) are of two kinds: (1) simple signs, and (2) clear or manifest signs. To the first class belong all things, even the smallest atom of the universe, because every one of these things points to the existence of a Creator, though it is our own faculty of reasoning that draws the inference that every created thing must have a Creator. But the signs shown at the hands of Prophets speak for themselves. They are shown to establish the truth of things hidden from our eyes, viz. the existence of God, the Day of Resurrection, the truth of the Prophets, and the nature of Divine attributes. As these signs serve as evidence for matters that concern belief, they have been spoken of as آیات بینات (clear signs), while the Signs from nature are spoken of simply as آیات (signs). All pestilences, for example, are آیات while a pestilence predicted by a Prophet of God to prove the truth of his claim is آیة بینة i.e. a clear and manifest sign, for such a pestilence serves its purpose much more clearly and definitely than a general one.

The words, those who look not for the meeting with Us say, Bring a Quran other than this or change it, show that when the leaders of disbelief saw that the hearts of their followers were becoming gradually inclined towards the truth and they were beginning to accept the new faith, they became anxious and, in order to incite their followers against the Prophet, assumed the garb of peacemakers. As men naturally love peace, the leaders of disbelief exploit this natural human desire and suggest a compromise, viz. that the Prophet should introduce no new teaching but should only assume the leadership of the people which would maintain the homogeneity of the community and save it from discord or dissension. If, however, this proposal should not meet with the Prophet’s acceptance, he should at least omit from his teachings such portions as offend against the cherished ideas of the people. When making these proposals, the ringleaders know full well that the Prophet would never accede to these unreasonable demands, which cut at the very root of his divine mission, and that in this way the people would come to think that he was too narrow-minded to give up even some of his ideas for the sake of national unity and concord. Thus they think they would succeed in making the people ignore the important fact that truth and the acceptance of a Divine Call were much more precious than mere patched-up unity and that the decline of nations was always due to the denial of divine truth. In reply to these demands of his opponents the Holy Prophet is commanded to say in this verse that he could not change a teaching which was revealed by God and which was the only means of their regeneration, for such change, instead of proving useful, was sure to prove ruinous.

The expression "of my own accord" occurring in the words, It is not for me to change it of my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me, contains a subtle hint that Divine teachings are always in accordance with the condition of the people for whom they are sent, and hence nobody can change them of his own accord. If the Holy Prophet should himself change the teachings revealed to him, it would lead to the ruin of the people because Divine teachings, being in fitness of prevailing circumstances, can alone bring about a real spiritual and moral reformation among people and any change in these teachings would certainly be not to their good. The words, Bring a Quran other than this or change it, may also refer to the prophecies of punishment and destruction contained in the Quran. Disbelievers naturally did not like these prophecies and wanted them to be changed. The verse tells them that they could have these warnings changed only if they changed their own condition, because if a change takes place in them, the nature of the warnings would automatically change.

The words, I only follow what is revealed to me, may also mean, "In respect of the Quran I follow nothing but what is revealed to me" i.e. not only are all the words of the Quran divine but its divisions into verses and Surahs as well as the arrangement thereof are also divine. Incidentally this also does away with the objection raised by certain critics of Islam that the opening verse of each Surah, viz. بسم الله was not of Divine origin but was placed there by the Prophet himself.

Some Christian writers pretend to see this verse as an effort by the Holy Prophet to justify the alleged abrogation of certain verses of the Quran. By the words, It is not for me to change it of my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me, the Holy Prophet is supposed by these writers to have disclaimed all responsibility for abrogation in the Quran. But this assumption is absurd. Far from justifying abrogation, the verse shows that not a single verse of the Quran has ever been abrogated. When disbelievers demanded that the Holy Prophet should make some alteration in the Quran, they did not mean that they would accept it after the demanded changes had been made. Their object in making such a demand was that, if the Holy Prophet agreed to make any change in the Quran, in compliance with their demand, they would at once say that it was not the word of God but his own composition which he altered at will to meet their wishes. But if he refused to accede to their demand, they would get a ready tool to incite the masses against him, condemning him as one who had no regard for national peace and harmony. Christian writers seem to forget the fact that if, as alleged by them, certain verses of the Quran had already been replaced by others, disbelievers had no need to resort to the above device, but could justify their objection on the basis of the abrogation that had already taken place in the Quran and could seize on it as evidence of the Quran not being the word of God. Thus the verse under comment incidentally furnishes evidence that there has been no abrogation in the Quran.

The words, the punishment of an awful day, signify a national disaster. The words mean that the teachings which are revealed by God are for the good of the people themselves and it is on acting upon them that all progress depends. So, if any change is made in these teachings, it is sure to prove detrimental to the best interests of the entire people.

17:74.

17:94; 25:9.

13:8.

Important Words:

فلعلك (thou art now perhaps). The word لعل is used to denote either a state of hope or of fear, whether that state pertains to the speaker or to the addressee or to someone else. In the Quranic expression فلعلك تارك بعض مایوحی الیك (thou art now perhaps going to abandon part of that which has been revealed to thee) the word لعل has been used to signify that "the people imagine that thou art now perhaps going to abandon, etc." (Mufradat). See also 2:22.

کنز (treasure) is the noun-infinitive from کنز (kanaza). They say کنز المال i.e. he buried the property or treasure in the earth; he collected the property and treasured it, or he hoarded it or stored it in secret. کنز الرمح means, he stuck or fixed the spear in the ground. کنز التمر means, he stored or packed up the dates (in the receptacle). کنز (kanz) means, treasure; property buried in the earth; any property whereof the portion that should be given in alms is not given; property that is preserved in a receptacle; anything abundant and collected together; gold and silver; a treasure of knowledge or science; that in which property is preserved or that in which property is buried or hoarded in secret (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

It is a peculiarity of Quranic diction that sometimes it omits to give the question and only gives the answer, the question being implied in the answer itself. The present verse constitutes an example of this style. In the previous verse believers were promised forgiveness and a great reward. Thereupon disbelievers asked the Holy Prophet in a jeering and ironical manner, "You say your followers will get a great reward and their sins will be forgiven. We know nothing about the forgiveness of their sins. But where is the promised reward of which we do not see the slightest sign? You do not have even the money which you need so badly, nor do the angels descend from heaven to help you." The Quran turns the tables upon the disbelievers and answers their irony, with an irony, saying, "How weighty indeed is the objection of these people and perhaps, o Prophet, from fear of being unable to answer it, you would hide a part of Our revelation which contains prophecies regarding the prosperity and triumph of Islam!" meaning that such a thing can never be.

The verse is capable of another interpretation also. In this case the word لعل would be taken to refer to the hope of disbelievers that the Holy Prophet may, out of fear of their objections, suppress part of the Divine revelation. The verse declares such hopes to be vain and futile, for the Holy Prophet was "only a warner," and the function and duty of a warner is only to issue the warning and deliver his message faithfully; he has no right to suppress any portion of the message. Again, by using the words "only a Warner" the verse also hints that the Holy Prophet did not claim to be God so that the treasures of the earth might be under his control; he was only a human being. If it be said here that believers who were promised "a great reward" (see the preceding verse) were also human beings like the Holy Prophet, it should be remembered that they were promised the reward not immediately but after they had established their title to it by displaying patience and steadfastness under trials and hardships for a considerable time. So disbelievers could demand from the Holy Prophet clear and palpable signs of the prosperity promised to him only when the promised time had come and not earlier. To come attended with power and glory in the very beginning is a sign of personal authority which belongs to God alone and not to any human being."

The words, Allah is Guardian over all things, are intended to point to the fact that all these promises will certainly come to pass. The Holy Prophet will assuredly get both مغفرة (lit. covering up) and a great reward, and the angels of God will undoubtedly descend to bring his work to completion and make null and void the machinations of his enemies. Not only will he himself be favoured with a great reward, but his followers and disciples also would become rulers and kings. Any fair-minded and impartial person can see that both these promises were literally fulfilled.

Some hostile critics of Islam have pretended to infer from this verse that the Holy Prophet was actually prepared to abandon a portion of the Quran out of fear of the objections of his opponents. But the context spurns this baseless interpretation. Can any reasonable person imagine that the demand for the descent of helping angels or for the possession of a treasure was such that, on account of it, the Holy Prophet should, in any way, have become prepared to suppress part of Divine revelation, or that he was unaware of the fact that he was only a warner whose duty was to deliver the Message, whatever it might be? Again, did he not know that God had clearly spoken to him saying He Himself was "Guardian over all things"? So the words, thou art now perhaps going to abandon part of that which has been revealed to thee, contain only a vain hope on the part of the disbelievers that the Prophet might give up part of his revelation; they do not at all find any intention or readiness on his part to do so. Do not these critics know that when at Mecca a deputation of the Quraish waited on the Holy Prophet and asked him to give up preaching against their idols and threatened to crush him and his tribe in case he refused to do so, the prompt answer he gave was that even if they put the sun on his right and the moon on his left he would not swerve a hair’s breadth from the teachings which God had given him? Could he, whom the threats or cajolery of the Quraish at a time when he was extremely weak could not induce to give up his preaching, have become so unnerved by these silly objections as to become ready to conceal a part of the DivineWord?

The verse that follows also gives the lie to such an inference, for it contains a challenge to the world to produce ten Surahs like any ten Surahs of the Quran. If there had been any doubt in the Prophet’s mind concerning any portion of the Quran, could that very portion possibly have been followed by a challenge like this? This challenge shows that he believed in the truth of every word of the Quran with a conviction firm as a rock.

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.

35:26.

3:59; 15:7, 10; 20:100.

Important Words:

The word الذکر translated as Reminder among other things means: (1) remembrance, the presence of a thing in the mind so that it is never forgotten; (2) the praise or glorification of God; (3) eminence, honour: (4) a book containing an exposition of religion and an institution of religious laws; (5) strong and firm saying (Lane). See also 2:41, 153, 201; 6:69; 12:105 & 15:7.

Commentary:

The word applies to the Quran in all these different senses: (a) The Quran is a book which helps man to remember God; (b) it praises and glorifies God; (c) those who act upon its teachings get honour and eminence; (d) it contains an exposition of the religion of Islam; and (e) it is strong and firm in the sense that its teachings and the truths it inculcates admit of no doubt or objection. The verse develops the theme of the previous verse and says that the Prophets come with clear proofs and Divine Scriptures, that is to say they come with heavenly signs and Divine commands. In this lies the secret of their success.

The verse further points to a distinction between the Holy Prophet and former Prophets. It says that while clear signs and Scriptures were given to former Prophets, the Holy Prophet has been given the Reminder, the most perfect of all Divine Books. So when the former Prophets succeeded in their mission by the help of their Scriptures, it is inconceivable that the Holy Prophet should fail when he has got the most perfect of all Divine Scriptures.

The expression لتبین للناس (that thou mayest explain to mankind) may mean two things: (1) That the Prophet has been given the most perfect Divine Book in order that he might preach its message to all the world. It is not intended for any one people or nation or for any particular age, but for all peoples and all ages. (2) Since such a perfect Book has been revealed to the Holy Prophet he could not possibly keep it a secret. The perfection of the Book demanded that he should invite the whole world to its great Message.

By adopting the form of address contained in the words "which has been sent down to them" the verse appeals to disbelievers to listen to the Divine Message which although revealed to the Holy Prophet is intended for all men. They should appreciate this token of Divine love and favour by accepting it and acting upon it. The words also imply that since the Quran is intended for all mankind it is the primary and paramount duty of Muslims to preach it to all the nations of the world. Unfortunately, Muslims have neglected this sacred duty to their own detriment.

The words, "that they may reflect", suggest that Divine revelation, among other things, possesses the characteristic of sharpening the intellect of men. The marvellous change that took place in the condition of the Arabs after they accepted the Quran bears eloquent testimony to the truth of this statement. Wild and half savage hordes of the desert became, within a few years, the teachers and leaders of the world in knowledge and culture.

Important Words:

یلحدون (they unjustly incline in making this insinuation) is derived from لحد. They say لحد المیت i.e. he buried the corpse. لحدالسھم عن الھدف means, the arrow deviated from the target. الحد الی فلان means, he inclined towards such a one. They say الحد فی الدین i.e. he deviated or swerved from the right way with respect to religion; he impugned religion. الحد فی الحرم means, he desecrated the haram and violated its sanctity. The Quranic expression لسان الذی یلحدون الیه means, the tongue of him unto whom they incline (Lane & Aqrab).

اعجمی (foreign) is derived from عجم (‘ajama) which means, he bit it: and he chewed it. عجم (‘ajuma) means, he had an impotence or an impediment or a difficulty in his speech or utterance and a want of clearness, chasteness, or correctness therein. They say اعجم الکلام i.e. he made the speech or language to want or be without or to have a quality the contrary of clearness, perspicuous-ness or distinctness or to want or be without chasteness or correctness. اعجم الکتاب means, he dotted the book or pointed it or he removed its want of clearness by means of diacritical points. The Arabs say, اعجم البابi.e. he closed the door. عجم means, foreigners as meaning others than Arabs; such as are not Arabs, especially Persians. عجمی signifies one who is of the race of the عجم though he may be chaste or correct in Arabic speech. قوم اعجم means, a people not of the Arabs. اعجم means, one having an impotence or impediment or difficulty in speech though he may be clear, perspicuous, chaste or correct in speaking a foreign language; and not clear, perspicuous, chaste or correct in speaking Arabic though he may be an Arab; and اعجمی signifies the same, (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

Names of different persons have been mentioned in the traditions from whom disbelievers alleged the Holy Prophetreceived help in composing the Quran. According to some reports, it was a Christian slave named Jabr, who read the Christian Scriptures while making swords. The Prophet used to go and sit with him. According to another report, it was ‘Aish or Ya‘ish, a servant of al-Huwaitib Ibn ‘Abdul-‘Uzza, who knew the previous Scriptures and had embraced Islam and held firmly to the Faith. According to yet another report a slave named Abu Fuqaih who was also known as Yasar and was a Jew assisted the Holy Prophet in preparing the Quran. He was subjected to much persecution for his adoption of Islam and probably died sometime before the Hijrah. Again, ‘Abdullah bin Muslim al-Hadrami is reported to have said that his two Christian slaves named Yasar and Jabr, natives of ‘Ain at-Tamar, followed the trade of sword-cutters at Mecca. They used to read the Gospels while engaged in their work. When the Holy Prophet passed by their shop and saw them reading the Gospels he would stop there for a while. A report says that when one of them was asked whether he taught Muhammad the Bible he replied, ‘No, but he teaches me.’ Ibn ‘Abbas reports that the Holy Prophet gave instruction in Islam to a Roman slave named Bal‘am. The Quraish taunted the Prophet that he learned many things from him. The same is said of ‘Adas or ‘Addas, a slave of Ausa bin Rabi (Ma‘ani & Fath). The names of sundry other persons have also been mentioned from whom the Prophet was alleged by the Quraish to have received help, among them being ‘Ammar and Suhaib. The names of Salman, the Persian, and of ‘Abdullah bin Salam and of the Nestorian monk, Sergius, who according to Mas‘udi is the well-known Buhairah, have also been mentioned in this connection.

From the verse under comment, it appears that Meccans accused the Prophet of receiving help from a certain person in preparing the Quran and the verse answers the allegation by saying, But the tongue of him to whom they unjustly incline in making this insinuation is foreign, while this is Arabic tongue, plain and clear. The Christian critics say that this answer is irrelevant, for, as Arnold says: "admitting they were foreigners, they might nevertheless supply him with material" (Sherr’s Commentary of the Bible). It was the necessary material or subject matter, they allege, with which the foreigners supplied the Prophet and to say in reply that the tongue of the person who was alleged to teach him was not Arabic betrayed the irrelevancy of the answer. But these reverend gentlemen seem conveniently to ignore the patent fact that this was not the only objection with which the Quran was assailed. It has not hesitated to mention many other similar objections of disbelievers and has refuted them thoroughly. If the Quran could successfully rebut so many other objections of disbelievers, it could answer this one also. In fact it has adequately done so even in the verse under comment, but the reverend gentlemen themselves have not been able to understand the answer. Moreover, if the reply given in the Quran was so manifestly irrelevant as Christian critics pretend to find it, why did not the Meccans of the Prophet’s times who first made this objection, failed to detect this manifest irrelevancy and why did they not express their dissatisfaction with the answer? But not the slightest reference is to be found in any tradition to this so-called irrelevancy of this answer of the Quran. If Meccans had signified their dissatisfaction with this answer and had pointed out its absurdity and irrelevancy, the traditions would have mentioned it as they have mentioned so many other incidents calculated to impugn the Quran and render its position apparently indefensible.

The fact is that these critics themselves have not understood the objection. The traditions quoted above bring to light two objections of the Meccans. One was that Christian and Jewish slaves who had been converted to Islam secretly helped the Holy Prophet in composing the Quran. They furnished him with the necessary material which was subsequently rendered into Arabic. The other was that he listened to certain non-Muslim slaves while they recited the Gospels and incorporated into the Quran what he heard from them.

Thus Meccans made two objections. One of these the Quran has answered in this verse, while the other has been answered in vv. 25:5, 6, 7. This second objection along with its answer runs thus: And the disbelievers say, It is nothing but a lie which he has forged and at which other people have assisted him. But they have been guilty of a great injustice and have uttered an untruth. And they say: These are legends of the ancients; he has got them written down and they are dictated to him morning and evening, Nay, He Who knows the secrets in the heavens and the earth has revealed it. He truly is Most Forgiving and Merciful. The difference between these verses and the verse under comment is quite manifest. In the verse under comment disbelievers refer to a single man as having taught the Holy Prophet, while in Surah 25, it is not one man but many who are alleged, by disbelievers, to have assisted him in writing the Quran. To both these allegations different answers suiting the nature of the allegations have been given. Thus it is clear that Meccans had made two distinct and separate objections and both these have been answered in the Quran at different places, and traditions support this conclusion. It was with regard to several of the slave converts to Islam that it was alleged that they furnished material to the Prophet. To this allegation of the Meccans, chapter 25 refers in the words, at which other people have assisted him. From the same chapter it also appears that those who were alleged to have assisted the Prophet were Muslims, for the passage in question says: They are dictated to him morning and evening. Now it is an historical fact that while at Mecca Muslims assembled in the morning and evening in the house of Arqam for prayers and sat round the Holy Prophet with doors closed in order to avoid interference by disbelievers. Disbelievers alleged that the meetings were held to compose the Quran in secret, when the slave converts from Judaism and Christianity would tell the old histories of their religions, and the Prophet would have these accounts written down by his Companions. This is how disbelievers declared the Quran to be a forgery which was prepared by many persons, incidentally admitting by implication that a work of the unique excellence of the Quran could not be prepared by one man. Some Christian critics even in our own time have identified themselves with this allegation and have the hardihood to suggest that the letters with which some of the chapters of the Quran begin are the initial letters of the names of the Companions who composed them.

The objection gives rise to two inevitable questions: (a) whether those slave converts who were alleged to have assisted the Holy Prophet in writing the Quran were so learned and intelligent as to teach the Prophet what they were alleged to have taught him and (b) whether the Quran is a human production.

It is not difficult to find answers to both these questions. It does not require extraordinary intelligence to understand that those who helped the Prophet in producing and preparing the Quran and to whom he was indebted for what the Quran contained could not believe it to be the word of God and could not, for his sake, undergo willingly those inhuman cruelties and tyrannies which they suffered at the hands of disbelievers. Could these accomplices of the Holy Prophet in forging the Quran possibly endure the most cruel persecution for believing in a book which they themselves had fabricated? Are these Christian critics unaware of the persecution which these so-called forgers of the Quran bore without wavering and flinching?

With regard to the second question, viz. whether those great truths which are alleged to have been taught to the Prophet by the slave converts could possibly have been taught by them, the Quran says that what are spoken of as 'the legends of the ancients' and what are represented as being taught by the slave converts from Judaism and Christianity are not legends but great truths and mighty prophecies which have been made by Him 'Who knows the secrets in the heavens and the earth, and which it is beyond the power of any mortal to foretell'.

Now, if the objection mentioned in the verse under comment was the same as had been quoted and answered in 25:5-7 (which by common consent was revealed before the present Surah) viz. that some other persons had supplied the Prophet with material, the same convincing answer should have been given here also. But the answer given here is quite different from the one given in chapter 25. This shows that the objection referred to in the verse under comment has not been understood by these critics of the Quran. The present verse does not refer to the objection that a certain man provided material for the Quran. It refers to the second allegation of disbelievers viz. that the Prophet incorporated into the Quran what he heard from the Christian slave when the latter read the Gospels at his shop. The tradition says that there were two Christian slaves, Jabr and Yasar, who worked as sword-cutters at Mecca and read the Gospels at their shop and, when the Prophet passed by them, he used to stop there and listen to them. But on closer scrutiny it appears that really there was only one slave, Jabr, who was alleged to teach the Prophet. Another tradition, to which reference has already been made, supports this view and gives the name of Jabr only. Yet another tradition tells us that only one of the two Christian sword-cutters was asked whether he taught the Prophet, and he replied that, far from his teaching the Prophet, it was the Prophet who taught him. This not only shows that it was only one slave who read the Gospels, but also throws light on the purpose for which the Prophet sometimes stopped at his shop. He did not stop there to learn but to teach the man whom he considered to be religious-minded.

It has now been clearly established that the Quran refers to two objections of disbelievers, one relating to certain slave converts from whom the Prophet is alleged to have received help in preparing the Quran which is mentioned in chapter 25 and the other relating to what he heard of the Gospels from Jabr and incorporated in the Quran.

This second objection has been answered in the verse under comment. The verse purports to say that the tongue of him to whom they attribute the teaching of the Prophet being اعجمی i.e. foreign and defective, he could not impart to the Prophet in his faulty Arabic those great and eternal truths for explaining which the possession of sound and deep knowledge of Arabic was essential.

Other pertinent questions which arise here are, did the slave in question read an Arabic version of the Gospels and were the Gospels translated into Arabic in the Prophet’s time and were the Arabic versions so common that even slaves read them while working at their workshops? The original language of the Gospels was, according to Muslims, Hebrew, and according to Christians, Greek. If the existence of an Arabic version of the Bible in the time of the Prophet cannot be proved, it would follow that the slave in question read either a Hebrew or a Greek version. But if he read a Hebrew or a Greek Gospel, the question arises, how was the Prophet able to understand him, since he did not know either of these languages? Hence in order to understand the significance of the verse under comment, it has to be seen whether the Gospels had been translated into Arabic at the time of the Holy Prophet. That they had not been translated into Arabic is clear from the following facts:

Up to the time of the Prophet translations of the Gospels had not been made in any language. It was in the 13th or 14th centuries of the Christian era that the Gospels first began to be translated into other languages. The study of the Commentaries of the Quran by Muslim scholars also shows that Arabic versions of the Bible were not available to them, because when in their Commentaries they quote the New or the Old Testament they make very serious mistakes. They ascribe to these books stories which are not found in them. This clearly shows that Arabic versions of the Bible did not exist in their time, otherwise they would not have made such blunders.

Traditions also show that in the time of the Holy Prophet the Gospels were to be found only in Hebrew or Greek. In Bukhari we have the following about Waraqah bin Naufal; "He had become Christian in the days of ignorance and he used to write the Gospels in Hebrew." True, another tradition gives Arabic in place of Hebrew, as the language in which Waraqah wrote the Gospels but preference must be given to the tradition quoted from Bukhari because if the Arabic versions of the Bible could be available in the days of the Prophet many Muslims would have read them. But no such scholars of the Bible among early Muslims were to be found. We are even inclined to the view that the reporter had, by mistake, substituted the word "Hebrew" for "Greek" in the above tradition, because only Greek versions were current in those days and Hebrew versions had almost ceased to exist. That the Christian Scriptures had not been translated into Arabic by the time of the Prophet receives further support from the fact that even the Jewish tribes of Medina had not translated the Torah into Arabic by that time, and whenever he needed a reference to this book, he consulted ‘Abdullah bin Salam, a great Hebrew scholar. This view is also supported by the following testimony of a well-known Christian writer, Dr. Alexander Souter, M.A., LL.D., who writes in his book, "The Text and Canon of the New Testament" (Second Edition, 1925 p. 74), under the head, 'Arabic Versions': "These come partly and directly from Greek, and partly through Syriac and partly through Coptic. Mohammad himself knew the Gospel story only orally. The oldest manuscript goes no further back than the 8th century. Two versions of the Arabic are reported to have taken place at Alexandria in the 13th century." In short, there is no doubt about the fact that the Gospels had not been translated into Arabic at the time of the Prophet and those who had to consult them used the Greek or Hebrew version.

Thus it is clear that when Jabr, the Christian slave, read the Gospels, he must have read the Greek or the Hebrew version. And how could the Holy Prophet benefit by listening to a book in a language which he did not understand? The fact seems to be that when disbelievers saw the Prophet standing at Jabr’s shop they imagined that he must have learnt something from him. The Quran removes these doubts by saying, the tongue of him to whom they unjustly incline in making this insinuation is foreign, while this is Arabic tongue plain and clear, meaning that the man from whom the Prophet was alleged to have received material for the Quran must have read the book in Hebrew or Greek because his "tongue being foreign" he could not explain to the Holy Prophet in his defective Arabic those great truths which the Quran comprises. But the Prophet knew only Arabic and so he could not follow him, much less incorporate in the Quran what he heard from him.

In short, disbelievers brought two distinct charges against the Prophet. First, that he listened to a Christian slave while the latter read the Gospels at his workshop, and incorporated into the Quran what he heard from him. Secondly, that he received help from those slaves who had been converted to Islam from Judaism and Christianity and who met him in secret in the house of Arqam. Both these objections have been separately answered by the Quran, the first in the verse under comment and the second in 25:5-7.

It would be of some use to mention here the following facts which are relevant to the objections stated above.

1. The Quran has either abrogated or improved upon the teachings of former Scriptures. The Holy Prophet must have derived the knowledge of the teachings of those Scriptures from the same source—from God—from which he had derived the knowledge of the new teachings of the Quran which have supplanted previous Scriptures.

2. It has condemned some of the fundamental teachings of Christianity and has improved upon others. There is no known Christian sect with which it has not disagreed on one point or other. Now it is for Christian critics to say to which sect that man who is supposed to have "taught" the Holy Prophet belonged and how he could teach him things which were against his own beliefs. Certainly the Prophet’s so-called helpers could not have helped him in abrogating the teachings of their own religious Scriptures.

3. It has corrected many Biblical statements. For instance, it declares that Aaron did not take part in the worship of the calf. It clears David, Solomon and Noah of the sinful acts ascribed to them in the Bible. These are facts to the truth of which even Christian writers have had to bear witness today when more than 1350 years have passed since these truths were, for the first time, proclaimed by the Quran. Surely, no Christian slave could teach the Prophet these historical truths.

4. The Quran has made some very important prophecies with regard to some of the events mentioned in the Bible. No Jewish or Christian sect had any knowledge of them. But their truth has now come to light. For instance, the Quran states that God preserved the body of Pharaoh so that it might be a sign for the generations to come. No Christian slave could impart this knowledge to the Prophet.

5. It appears from the traditions that the Holy Prophet used to visit Jabr’s shop in the fourth or fifth year of the Call, when he was boycotted by Meccans. But chapters 18, 19, 20 and 25 of the Quran which deal with Jews and Christians had been revealed before that time. Ibn Mas‘ud who was one of very early converts to Islam says that chapters 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 belong to the early Meccan period (Bukhari, Kitabut-Tafsir). All these Surahs abound in facts relating to Jews and Christians. How could the Prophet know these facts if the source of his information was the Christian slave, Jabr, the sword-cutter of Mecca?

25:33.

Commentary:

Verses 14:29 and 25:33 help to explain the meaning of the present verse. In these verses respectively we have, Allah strengthens the believers with the word that is firmly established both in the present life and in the Hereafter; and, it is thus revealed that We may strengthen thy heart therewith. These verses show that in the verse under comment the words, if We had not strengthened thee, refer to the revelation of the Quran. The verse means to say that the Prophet’s nature was so pure that even if the Quran had not been revealed to him and he had no knowledge of God’s great intentions about him, he would never have stooped to practising shirk. In the event, however, of the Quran not having been revealed to him and his not having been blessed with heavenly light he might have perhaps compromised with disbelievers on some very minor details of doctrine or practice. But after the Quran had been revealed to him, there remained absolutely no possibility of any compromise with them on his part. The verse thus sheds a flood of light on the purity of the Prophet’s heart and the greatness of his spiritual stature and does not refer to any possible weakening in his Mission on his part on account of persecution or temptations held out to him by his enemies.

20:5; 56:81.

Commentary:

The verse continues the theme of the preceding verses. It purports to say that the revelation of the Quran is no new phenomenon. As the messages of the Prophets mentioned above were revealed by God, so has this last message for all mankind also been revealed by Him, but with this difference that whereas the former Prophets were sent to their respective peoples, the Quran has been sent for all the nations of the world, because "it is a revelation from the Lord of all the worlds."

2:98; 16:103.

Commentary:

In this verse the angel who brought the revelation from God to the Holy Prophet has been called الروح الامین i.e. the Spirit faithful to the trust. Elsewhere he is called روح القدس (16:103), i.e. the Spirit of Holiness. Both are the attributive names of the Archangel Gabriel who was the medium through whom Divine revelation came to the Holy Prophet. The epithet روح القدس has been used to point to the eternal and complete freedom from every error or blemish in the Quran and the use of the epithet الروح الامین implies that it shall continue to enjoy Divine protection against all attempts to tamper with its text. This latter epithet has been used exclusively with regard to the revelation of the Quran because the promise of everlasting Divine protection was held out to no other Divine Scripture and their texts, in course of time came to be interfered and tampered with. Strangely enough, the Holy Prophet himself was known as الامین (the trustworthy) at Mecca. What a great Divine tribute to, and evidence of, the trustworthiness of the Quran that its revelation was brought by an Amin to an Amin!

Commentary:

The words 'on thy heart' have been added to indicate that the Quranic revelations were not merely inspired ideas which the Holy Prophet expressed in his own words but were the actual words of God Himself which descended upon the Prophet’s heart through the medium of Gabriel. The verse also implies reference to a famous prophecy of Moses (Deut. 18:18) in which it is stated that God would put His words in the mouth of the Prophet whom He would raise from among the brethren of the Israelites. Of all revealed scriptures, the Quran stands unique in this respect that from beginning to end it is the spoken Word of God (کلام اللّٰه).

The allusion in the words "on thy heart" may also be to the purity of the Holy Prophet’s heart and his perfect aptitude for receiving Divine revelation to which a beautiful reference has also been made in 24:36.

It may be noted in passing that Divine revelation descends, besides the heart, on the tongue and the ears. In 75:17 we have the words, "move not thy tongue with this revelation that thou mayest hasten to preserve it," which shows that revelation descends on the tongue also. The Holy Prophet is reported to have said: "Sometimes the angel takes the form of a man and talks to me and I remember what he says" (Bukhari). This hadith shows that revelation descends on the ears also. But the revelation which descends upon the tongue or the ear descends at the same time on the heart as well.

16:104; 41:45; 46:13.

Commentary:

The word عرب from which عربی is a relative noun conveys the sense of fulness, abundance and clearness and the Arabic language is so called because its roots are innumerable full of meaning and because also it is most expressive, eloquent and comprehensive. It possesses suitable words and phrases for the full expression of all sorts of ideas and shades of meaning and being complete in respect of its roots it can discuss any topic with a precision and thoroughness unmatched in any other language. It was therefore natural and quite in the fitness of things that the Arabic language should have been selected as the vehicle for the revelation of the last and most perfect Divine Message for all mankind.

The word مبین also points to the Quran being complete in itself. It needs the help of no external evidence to demonstrate the truth of its claims but contains adequate internal proofs to establish and substantiate them. The word also contains a beautiful hint to the effect that all that is essential for the attainment of nearness to God and relates to the laws of the Shari‘ah, to ethics and matters of belief, in short to all that is necessary to make a perfect code of laws has been made quite clear and manifest in the Quran.

13:20; 22:55; 34:7.

Important Words:

بالھم (their affairs) is substantive noun from بال (bala) which means, it (fat) melted or dissolved. البال means, a state, condition or case (12:51). ھو فی البال means: (1) he is in ample and easy circumstances or condition. (2) A thing or affair to which one devotes his special care. They say لیس ھذا من بالی i.e. this is not of the things for which I care. (3) The heart or mind. خطر ببالی means, it occurred to me. (4) Attention. An Arab would say أعطنی بالک i.e. give me thy attention (Lane & Aqrab).

الحق (truth) means, an established fact which is undeniable; a right, equity or justice; a thing that is decreed; a thing suitable to the requirements of justice; truth; wisdom; what is binding; obligatory, just, proper; right; genuine, authentic, real; prudence (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

Because belief in the Holy Prophet, as in all Divine Messengers, is included in the words "those who believe and do good works," the expression "and believe in what has been revealed to Muhammad" seems to be redundant. But nothing in the Quran is redundant or superfluous, the expression serves a definite purpose. It removes a possible misconception, that belief in God and belief in life after death alone are the two fundamental articles of Faith (2:63). The verse leaves no doubt about the indispensability of belief in the Holy Prophet by saying that what has been revealed to him is الحق i.e. it is the whole truth and nothing but the truth; it agrees with the requirements of justice, truth and wisdom, and fully meets the exigencies and circumstances of time and the varying human needs, and by it moral lapses of those who believe in him are obliterated, their difficulties removed and their condition progressively bettered.

Commentary:

قولا ثقیلا may have any one of the following meanings: (a) The Quran is pregnant with the highest import. (b) It is too heavy to be displaced or dislocated i.e. the Quranic Teaching will continue to guide mankind and no other teaching would ever take its place or improve upon it. (c) No word or letter of the Quran could be changed, altered or amended. (d) The Quran will break all opposition and (e) no single book or a collection of books could encompass all the knowledge contained in it. Briefly, the collective and concerted effort of all mankind will not be able to produce a Book like the Quran.

According to an oft-quoted hadith, the Holy Prophet, whenever a revelation descended upon him, went into a trance and felt a peculiar sensation so that even on an extremely cold day big drops of sweat fell from his forehead and he felt a dead weight of his body (Bukhari). The Quranic revelation being "a weighty word", his paroxysm was due to this sensation.