Topic: Message Of

6:20.

Commentary:

There is much difference of opinion about the time when this verse, containing a promise of God to protect the Holy Prophet against his enemies, was revealed. Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir, Durr-e-Manthur and Al-Bahrul-Muhit mention a large number of narrators who report that the verse was revealed at Mecca. There are certain others, however, according to whom the verse was revealed at Medina. The author of the Ruhul-Ma‘ani says, the verse was first revealed at Mecca, and was revealed again at Medina, and this seems to be the correct view. In fact, it appears to have been revealed four or five times.

The words, if thou do it not, thou hast not conveyed His message, do not signify apprehension that the Holy Prophet was going to be remiss in his duty. They have been simply used to express the general principle that he who fails to convey part of his message, in fact, fails to deliver the message at all.

The expression لایھدی (guides not) is not used here in the sense of "not showing the way to truth", for occurring directly after the command to deliver the message of God to the people it cannot mean that God will not guide disbelievers to truth. If they were not to be guided to the right path, what was the sense in commanding the Prophet to deliver God’s Message to them? The expression is, therefore, used here not in the spiritual but in the physical sense. Occurring immediately after the Divine promise of protection to the Holy Prophet, the expression لایھدی means that God will not allow disbelievers to devise means of successfully harming him; and that they will not be guided to come near him and kill him. It must, however, be remembered that the Divine promise regarding the protection of the Holy Prophet did not mean that his enemies would not be allowed to do him any physical harm whatsoever. It only means that they would not be permitted to take his life or disable him permanently so as to render him unfit for his work.

4:167; 13:44; 29:53.

Commentary:

God Himself answers the question which He has put in the beginning of the verse; for the disbelievers did not know how to answer. They could not think that God also could bear witness. The answer has been given by God in order to instruct and teach believers.

Now the question is, how does God bear witness? This verse and the next two mention three ways by which God bears witness to the truth of the Holy Prophet. The first is by means of the Quran. This Quran has been revealed to me, the verse calls upon the Holy Prophet to say, so that with it I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches. These words signify that whosoever opposes the Quran and obstructs it will be visited by Divine punishment. This punishment will constitute God’s testimony to the truth of the Holy Prophet. The second and the third ways by which God bears witness are mentioned in the verses that follow.

11:32.

10:16; 46:10.

Commentary:

The words, I do not say to you, I possess the treasures of Allah, imply that when the Quran says that the Messengers of God are the announcers of glad tidings, this should not be construed to mean that as soon as a person believes in a Prophet of God, he acquires wealth. He will have to wait for the favours of God to come at their appointed time.

The words, nor do I say to you, I am an angel, here imply that it is not in the power of the Prophet to bring down punishment, for he is not "an angel of punishment."

After the above declarations it might be asked what good there was in following the Prophet when worldly favours took time in coming and when the Prophet was so powerless against his enemies. The Quran answers this implied question by saying that the getting of a treasure was not the only boon which one could desire. The perfect guidance which was received through the Prophet was a great blessing in itself for those who accepted the guidance were like one who possessed eyes, while those who rejected it were like one who had no eyes, and the blind and the seeing could never be alike. These are matters to be reflected upon and pondered over.

10:110; 33:3.

Important Words:

نسك (sacrifice) is derived from نسك. They say نسك الثوب i.e. he washed the cloth and rendered it clear and pure. نسك الذبیحةmeans, he slaughtered and sacrificed the animal. نسك البیت means, he repaired to the Ka‘bah for Pilgrimage. نسك الرجل means, the man worshipped God and devoted himself to His service. نسك لله means, he offered a sacrifice to win the pleasure of God and attain His nearness. Soنسك means, sacrifice; worship; a right due to God; blood of an animal shed by way of sacrifice or in fulfilment of a vow; animal of sacrifice (Aqrab).

Commentary:

This and the following verse beautifully describe the Holy Prophet’s religion, to which reference was made in the preceding verse. The two latter mentioned expressions, viz. "my life" and "my death" correspond respectively to the two former expressions viz. "my prayer" and "my sacrifice." As prayer imparts life to the worshipper, so it has been followed by the words, "my life." On the contrary, "sacrifice" kills the self of man, so it has been followed by the words, "my death." These four words, i.e. prayer, sacrifice, life and death, thus cover the entire field of man’s actions, and the Holy Prophet has been asked to declare that all phases of his life were devoted to God alone. All his prayers were offered to God; all his sacrifices were made to Him; all his life was devoted to His service; and if in the cause of religion he sought death, that was also to win His pleasure. He lived for God and would not die but in harness.

With regard to Prayer particularly, the Holy Prophet is reported to have said, جعلت قرة عینی فی الصلوة i.e. "the coolness or delight of my eyes lies in Prayer" (Nasa’i).

6:15; 39:12-13.

Commentary:

Not only were all the energies of the Holy Prophet devoted to God, but he believed in no other deity, and his eyes were shut to every thing but his Lord and Maker to Whom alone he submitted. The Holy Prophet was indeed the First Muslim.

29:49; 42:53; 62:3.

48:30.

See 3:105.

Important Words:

امی (Immaculate One) is derived from ام. They say امه i.e. he repaired to it; or he aimed at or sought after it; or he endeavoured to get it. ماکنت اما ولقد اممت means, thou wast not a mother, but thou hast come to be sought like a mother. امیmeans, belonging to or pertaining to the mother, i.e. as innocent as a child at the breast of its mother. The word also means, one not having a revealed Scripture, parti-cularly an Arab; one who does not know the art of reading or writing; one belonging to Mecca which was known as ام القری i.e. the mother of towns. See also 3:21.

اغلال (shackles) is the plural of غل (ghullun) which is derived from غل (ghalla). They say غل فلانا i.e. he put upon the neck or the hand of such a one a collar or a manacle, etc. غل, therefore, means, a ring or collar of iron put upon the neck; a shackle for the neck or the hand; a pinion or manacle for the hand; a shackle of iron collecting together the two hands to the neck; a difficult and fatiguing work. The Arabs say ھذاغل فی عنقك i.e. this is tied to your neck, meaning, it is inseparable from you and the punishment of it will stick to you (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse qualifies and explains the last sentence of the previous verse, viz. those who believe in Our Signs.

The verse puts the words "Messenger" and "Prophet" side by side which may lead some to think that one may be a Messenger without being a Prophet or vice versa. But this is not so. A رسول (Messenger) of God is also a نبی (Prophet) of God. The former epithet is applied to him in his relation to God from Whom he brings a message, while the latter is applied to him in his relation to men to whom he conveys that message, the word نبی (Prophet) meaning, one who prophesies, or makes known hidden secrets.

The word امی (Ummi) literally means "belonging to the mother", i.e. as innocent as a newborn child. The Promised Prophet, who is none other than the Holy Prophet of Islam, has been called امی because he was to be innocent like a child at the breast of its mother. The word has also been translated as "illiterate" or "one belonging to Mecca" or "an Arab", but "innocent" or "immaculate" is a preferable rendering, inasmuch as it is in keeping with the sense of the prophecy contained in Deut. 18:18-22 to which this verse particularly refers and wherein truthfulness has been mentioned as a distinctive feature of the Promised Prophet. For some of the prophecies of the Bible about the Holy Prophet see under 2:42 and also Matt. 23:39; John 14:16, 26; 16:7-14; Acts 3:21-24.

If the word امی be taken in the sense of "unlettered", the verse would signify that although the Prophet had received no education whatever and was quite unread and illiterate, yet God vouchsafed to him such knowledge as can impart light and guidance even to those who are considered to be most advanced in learning and enlightenment.

The illiteracy (امیة) of the Holy Prophet, mentioned in this verse and believed to have also been hinted at in 10:17, has been subjected to much hostile criticism. George Sale, a well-known Christian commentator of the Quran, writes as follows: "For so old was Muhammad before he took upon him to be a Prophet, during which time his fellow-citizens well knew that he had not applied himself to learning of any sort, nor frequented learned men, nor had ever exercised himself in composing verses or orations, whereby he might acquire the art of rhetoric or elegance of speech" (Prelim. Disc, Section II).

Referring to this view of Sale, another Christian commentator of the Quran, the Rev. E. M. Wherry, says:

"This view, however, does not agree with what is recorded of his previous career. Is it likely that he should have been trained in the same household with ‘Ali, who knew both how to read and write, and not have received similar instruction? Could he have conducted an important mercantile business for years without some knowledge of letters? That he could read and write in later years is certain. Tradition tells us, he said to Mu‘awiyah, one of his secretaries: 'Draw the ب straight, divide the س properly', etc., and that in his last moments he called for writing materials. The question arises, when did he acquire this art? The commentators say that God gave him the power, as he did his inspiration, and they quote chap. xcvi. 4, one of the earliest verses of the Quran, in proof. Certainly that verse seems to teach clearly that he could write as well as read, though it by no means teaches that he had not received the knowledge of both beforehand, or that he did not receive it in the ordinary way. His use of amanuenses does not militate against his knowledge of the art of writing, for such use of amanuenses was common in that age, even among the most learned. But still there remains the testimony of many traditions and the almost universal belief of Muhammadans. How account for this? I am inclined to think it originated with a misunderstanding of Muhammad’s repeated claim that he was the "Illiterate Prophet", or rather the "Prophet of the Illiterate", the term "illiterate" being generally applied by the Jews to the Arabs. See notes on chap. v. 85, 86. This misunderstanding turned out to the furtherance of Muhammad’s claims, inasmuch as the miracle of the matchless style of the Quran was enhanced by the consideration that the Prophet was illiterate. On the whole, we think there is very good reason for believing Muhammad to have been acquainted with the art of both reading and writing from an early period in his life" (Commentary of the Quran, ii. 326).

The above constitutes the gist of Wherry’s criticism of the generally accepted view that the Holy Prophet was امی or illiterate. But this contention seems to possess no substance. It is indeed a poor argument to say that because the Prophet "had been trained in the same house with ‘Ali, who knew both how to read and write", therefore he should also have learnt reading and writing. It only betrays ignorance of elementary facts of the Holy Prophet’s life on the part of the reverend gentleman. Even a desultory acquaintance with the life history of the Holy Prophet should make one know that ‘Ali and the Holy Prophet could not be brought up together. There was a great difference between the ages of the two. The Prophet was no less than 29 years older than ‘Ali; therefore, it was impossible for the two to be trained and brought up together.

Those whom prejudice against the Holy Prophet has not blinded to the patent facts of history know that, let alone the Prophet being educated and trained together with ‘Ali, which the great disparity in their ages evidently obviated, it was ‘Ali who got his training in the house and under the fostering care of the Holy Prophet (Hisham). Abu Talib in whose house the Holy Prophet was brought up was a man of very meagre means. He did not know the value of learning and knowledge nor was their possession regarded as an asset and acquisition in his time. The Holy Prophet, therefore, remained illiterate in his house. But ‘Ali was brought up in the house of the Holy Prophet himself, whose marriage with Khadijah, a wealthy lady of great repute, had placed ample means at his disposal. The Prophet also fully realized how priceless a thing good education was. So under his benign care and ennobling influence, ‘Ali, judged by the standards of that time, naturally grew up to be a young man of good education.

Wherry’s second objection is that if the Holy Prophet had been illiterate and did not know how to read and write, he could not have proved such a successful business man as he actually was. This objection is born of the mistaken concept of a good and successful Arab business man of the Prophet’s time. Judging by the present European standards of a successful business man, Wherry thought that lack of education and success in business could not go together. He would not have made this objection if he had known that in Asia even in the present twentieth century, highly successful business men are to be found who have not received even elementary education. In Mecca, in the Holy Prophet’s time, education was not much in favour. There were very few persons there who could read and write, though hundreds carried on most successful and flourishing business. Education was not at that time regarded in Arabia as the sine qua non of a good business man. Moreover, the fact that Khadijah had given the Prophet, a slave named Maisara who knew reading and writing and who always accompanied him on his trade journeys, knocks the bottom out of Wherry’s objection.

The tradition which says that the Holy Prophet had once asked Mu‘awiyah to write correctly the letters ب and س does not seem to be quite reliable. In the ‘Abbasid period many traditions derogatory to the Umayyads were forged. This tradition seeks to show off Mu‘awiyah, a prominent member of the distinguished House of Umayyah, as a man of very poor education who could not even write properly such simple letters as ب and س. Even, however, if this tradition be proved to be reliable, it does not show that the Holy Prophet was literate, because he had become so used to dictating the Quran that it was not impossible for him to have become familiar with the general form of letters and to give instruction regarding an improperly written word. It is also possible that someone, while rehearsing some portion of the Quran to the Prophet, might have stopped at a certain place, not being able to decipher the writing, and the Holy Prophet having asked the cause of stopping, the reader might have replied that the delay was due to the letters ب and سnot having been written properly or legibly. This might have led the Holy Prophet to instruct Mu‘awiyah to see that the letters were written correctly.

The fact that the Holy Prophet sent for pen and paper in the last moments of his life also lends no support to Wherry’s assumption. It is an established fact of history that whenever any verse was revealed, the Holy Prophet used to send for pen and paper and dictate to one of his scribes what had been revealed to him. The mere sending for pen and paper cannot, therefore, prove that the Holy Prophet himself knew how to read and write.

Nor do the words, referred to by Wherry in support of his contention viz. "read in the name of thy Lord", prove anything. The Arabic word اقرء (read) used in the verse referred to above not only means the reading of a written thing, but also repeating and rehearsing what one hears from another person. Again, the words ھویحسن القراءة (i.e. he recites well) occurring in a tradition can be spoken of even of a blind man who can recite the Quran properly and well. Moreover, the Hadith establishes the fact that when, at the time of the first revelation, the angel Gabriel said to the Prophet اقرء(read), no writing was actually placed before him to read. He was simply asked to repeat orally what the angel was reciting to him. The word قراءة not only means to read a writing but to repeat orally or recite or rehearse what another man has uttered.

Wherry’s inference that the idea that the Holy Prophet could not read or write originated with a misunderstanding of his repeated claim that he was the "Illiterate Prophet", is as strange as it is ill-based. It is really very surprising to say that those with whom he had lived day and night for years could not find out that he was illiterate but were misled into this belief only by his own repeated claim that he was امی (illiterate). Only a man of Wherry’s hostile attitude could come to such a conclusion. The question is whether it was the Prophet’s own contempor-aries who suffered from this misunderstanding or those who came afterwards. If it were the former, then the question would naturally arise how those, who saw him daily with their own eyes reading and writing, could possibly fall victims to the glaring misunderstanding that he was illiterate. If it were the latter class, even then the whole theory of misunderstanding advanced by Wherry looks frivolous, because the argument put forward by him is that because the Holy Prophet was considered to be illiterate, therefore, the matchless style of the Quran was regarded as a miracle. This inference is both foolish and flimsy, inasmuch as Muslims and other contemporaries of the Prophet, who were fully aware that he knew quite well how to read and write, could never believe in such a miracle.

Wherry’s last argument in support of his contention, that "his (the Holy Prophet’s) use of amanuenses does not militate against his knowledge of the art of writing, for such use of amanuenses was common in that age, even among the most learned," betrays his ignorance of Arab and Islamic history. The fact is that there were no ulema or learned men among the Arabs in the time of the Holy Prophet in the sense in which this word is understood now, nor were they used to keeping amanuenses and scribes. There is no instance on record of an amanuensis having been kept by an Arab. We know of only one learned man among the Meccans in the Prophet’s time, viz. Waraqah bin Naufal, and he was his own secretary. It is a pity that in their zeal for misrepresenting Islam, some Christian writers do not even hesitate to invent historical facts.

The words, and remove from them their burden and shackles, occurring in the latter part of the verse, contain a hint that by accepting the Promised Prophet Christians will get rid of the curse of the original sin of Adam and Eve and of the punishment thereof which, according to them, has dogged their footsteps through no fault of theirs.

21:108; 25:2; 34:29.

2:259; 23:81; 44:9; 57:3.

Commentary:

This verse beautifully declares that the prophecies of the Old and New Testaments concerning the Promised Prophet have been fulfilled in the Holy Prophet.

The reference in the words, to Whom belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, is to the fact that just as there is one kingdom in the heavens, so, as a result of the advent of the Holy Prophet, there will in future be only one spiritual kingdom on earth. It is to this kingdom that the prayer of Jesus (Matt. 6:10) refers. This prayer embodied a prophecy about the advent of the Holy Prophet.

The establishment of one spiritual kingdom on earth points to the fact that the Promised Prophet will be a Messenger of God to all mankind, and that by his advent all distinctions of race, nationality and colour will cease.

6:5.

6:105; 17:103.

Important Words:

اجتبیتھا (dost thou forge it). The word اجتبیت derived from جبی . They say, جبی المال i.e. he collected wealth or property. اجتباهmeans, he chose it or selected it. اجتباه also means, he forged it; he extemporised it. The expression لولااجتبیتھا would, therefore, mean, wherefore hast thou not forged it, or produced it, or invented it; or wherefore hast thou not demanded it of God (Lane & Aqrab).

بصائر (evidences) is the plural of بصیرة which is derived from بصر which means, he saw; he was or became endowed with mental perception or belief or knowledge or understanding or intelligence or skill. ابصر الطریق means, the way became manifest. You say انا علی بصیرة i.e. I am certain; or I possess certain knowledge. بصیرة means, mental perception; the perceptive faculty of the mind; understanding; intelligence or skill; firm belief of the heart; constancy or firmness in religion; an evidence, testimony, proof or argument; a witness; an example by which one is admonished; a shield (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The word آیة means "a sign". The verses of the Quran are also called آیات (signs) because every one of them by itself constitutes a divine sign, an evidence of the Divine origin of the Quran, and of the truth of the Holy Prophet. The purport of the verse is that although the Word of God is being revealed as occasion demands, and successive signs of God are being shown to men, yet whenever there is some delay in the coming of Divine revelation or the occurrence of signs, disbelievers ignore the Word of God already revealed and the signs already shown and shamelessly begin to ask of the Prophet, "Why do you not bring any revelation or show any sign in your support?" as if no sign had so far been shown and no revelation had come. To this impudent demand of disbelievers, the Holy Prophet is instructed to reply that the sending down of revelation or the showing of signs lies entirely in the hands of God and that he himself possesses no power to produce them at will. But why do they demand a fresh revelation or a new sign, asks the Quran. Are not the revelations that have already come and the signs that have already appeared enough to establish the truth of Islam? Why do they not ponder over them and profit by them?

It should be remembered that God seldom shows signs at the demand of disbelievers. Moreover, the demand for a fresh sign on their part implies that the signs already shown were no signs and furnished no evidence of the Prophet’s truth. Thus to accede to their demand means a reflection on the signs already shown and detracts from their value. It is, therefore, very rare that God shows fresh signs or miracles as demanded by disbelievers. He requires them rather to consider past signs and profit by them.

3:33; 4:60; 8:47; 24:55.

Commentary:

Though the verse enjoins the Faithful to respond to both Allah and His Messenger, it does not say "when they (Allah and His Messenger) call you" but simply "when he calls you." The pronoun "he" obviously refers to the Messenger, for it is the Messenger who actually calls. Calling by God is also through His Messenger. Or the singular pronoun "he" may be taken to refer to both Allah and the Messenger taken separately, i.e. when Allah calls you or when the Messenger calls you.

The words, that he may give you life, embody a great truth. The calling of the Messenger is always for the purpose of giving life to those who believe. It must, however, be remembered that when the quickening of, or the giving of life to, the dead is ascribed to a Prophet of God, the words should be taken not in their physical but in their spiritual sense.

The words, know that Allah comes in between a man and his heart, are important. There are two powers in men, firstly, the will-power of the "I". This power has its seat in the mind and has, therefore, been referred to in the verse as "man". The second power lies in the heart. The "I" or the will-power, or in other words "the man," issues its command and it is for the heart to obey it. But an unpurified heart does not always obey the command emanating from the mind. The words, Allah comes in between a man and his heart, therefore, signify that God has His position between the "I" and the heart. Man has not the power to purify his heart, i.e. he cannot make it obey the dictates of the "I", for he has no control over it. But God controls the heart and can purify it. So we should obey God that He may purify our heart and make it follow the will of the "I". The expression is figurative and means that it is God alone Who can make the dictates of the "I" have the desired effect on the heart.

The verse also hints that one should always hasten to hear and obey a good call; for if one delays doing so, the law of God, meant for those who hesitate to accept the truth and keep back from it, is likely to come in, and make the heart rusty, with the result that it becomes all the more disinclined to accept the truth.

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.

7:204.

Commentary:

This, the concluding verse of the present Surah, briefly refers to the subject with which it began. The Holy Prophet is here told that the decree of God is bound to come to pass, for God is not only حکیم (Wise) but also خیر الحاکمین (the Best of Judges). So the Prophet should continue preaching the word of God and bear the persecution of his enemies with patience and fortitude until the decree of God was fulfilled.

In the words, He is the Best of judges, the Quran hints at the fact that God’s decree is going to prove the best for His Prophet. Accordingly, we find that when that decree actually came to pass, the world was simply taken aback. Those who were thirsty for the Prophet’s blood, became his most devoted followers; and the entire country of Arabia like unto the people of Jonah believed in him, and tribesmen from all parts of the land hastened to pay homage to him as their lord and master.

30:53.

Commentary:

The verse means to say that the prophecies which the Holy Prophet has made about the triumph of Islam and about the defeat and discomfiture of disbelief are not the figment of his own imagination. They proceed from the Almighty God and are based on His clear and express Word.

Important Words:

منسک (ways of worship) means, rites of sacrifice; religious rites and ceremonies of the Pilgrimage; animals of sacrifice; ways of worship; acts of devotion. See also 6:163 & 22:35.

Commentary:

Taking منسک in the sense of animals of sacrifice or the rites of sacrifice the verse signifies (a) that the ritual of sacrifice in one form or another is common to all religions; and (b) that it was the sacrifice of animals that was at first enjoined by God and not human sacrifice which was invented afterwards.

Taking the word منسک in the sense of 'ways of worship,' the verse means that Divine worship is found in one form or another among all nations and peoples. This fact leads to another great truth which Islam, among all religions, was the first to proclaim, viz. that Divine Messengers appeared at different times among all nations and peoples to teach them the different forms and ways of worship.

The words فی الامر (in the matter) mean, 'in the matter of Islam' or 'in the matter of the Quran.' In this sense of the words the verse purports to say that when it has been made clear that Prophets were raised among all peoples, the disbelievers have no right or justification to say that the Holy Prophet has brought a novel teaching. He has done no new thing and has introduced no innovation. See 46:10.

Important Words:

ناکبون (deviating) is the plural of ناکب which is active participle from نکب. They say نکب عن الطریق (nakiba) i.e. he deviated or turned aside from the path. نکب الرجل means, the shoulder of the man complained of pain. نکب البعیر means, the camel suffered from a disease of the shoulder (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The word تبارک means, highly exalted, far removed from every defect, impurity, imperfection, or from everything derogatory, and possessing abundant good (6:156 & 24:36). This attribute has been very appropriately used in connection with the revelation of the Quran as it possesses all the qualities and attributes implicit in this word. The Quran is not only completely free from every defect and imperfection but possesses all the conceivable excellent qualities that the last Divine Law for the whole of mankind must possess and it possesses these qualities in an abundant measure.

The word فرقان (Discrimination) is applied to something which differentiates between what is true and what is false. It also means an argument, a proof, or evidence, because an argument or a proof also serves to discriminate between right and wrong. The word also means, morning or dawn, because dawn distinguishes the day from night. It also means, aid or support, because a person who receives help and support from another person becomes marked from him against whom help is sought to be given. See also 2:54. The Quran has been called "The Discrimination" in the verse under comment because it possesses all the various qualities and attributes which flow from the root فرق from which the word فرقان has been derived. Among the multifarious and multitudinous beauties and excellences that distinguish the Quran from other revealed books and which establish its superiority over them all, two stand out most marked, viz. it makes no statement or claim in support of which it does not bring forward sound and solid proofs and arguments, and it makes truth so distinguishable from falsehood as day is from night. The Quran has been called فرقان in the verse under comment while, in the preceding chapter, Divine revelation had been compared to نور (light) because the functions of both فرقان and نور are the same. Both mark out truth from falsehood. The Quran is both نور (Light) and فرقان (Discrimination) because it possesses this quality in an abundant measure and among all Divinely revealed Scriptures it stands unique in making this claim and such a claim is also quite natural on its part as it is humanity’s sole guide till the end of time.

In understanding the subject of لیکون, it may be either God or the Holy Prophet or the Quran, and thus the expression لیکون للعالمین نذیرا may mean that God or the Holy Prophet or the Quran may be a Warner to all the worlds.

Commentary:

This verse throws a flood of light on the Islamic conception of jihad which unfortunately has been much misunderstood, alike by the adversaries and the so-called followers of Islam. The great and real jihad, according to this verse, is to preach the Message of the Quran. Thus to strive for the propagation of Islam and the dissemination and diffusion of its teachings is the jihad which the Muslims are enjoined always to carry on with unabated zeal. The jihad with the sword which the Holy Prophet and early Muslims had to wage under their own peculiar circumstances was a passing phase. Those who sought to destroy Islam by the sword themselves perished by the sword. Unless a people wage war against Muslims in order to exterminate Islam, no fight in which Muslims are engaged is called jihad, but to fight in defence of one’s hearth and home is also a very sacred duty and those who are killed in such a fight also die the death of martyrs, according to a saying of the Holy Prophet, viz. من قتل دون ماله و عرضه فھو شھید i.e. he who is killed while defending his property and honour is a martyr (Bukhari Kitabu1-Mazalim wal-Ghasb).

It is worthy of note that this Surah was revealed at Mecca when only a few persons of no high social standing had accepted Islam and even those few individuals were being severely persecuted and the fate of the new Faith itself was hanging in the balance. It was then out of the question even remotely to refer to jihad with the sword. In fact, jihad with the sword was only a side issue of the Prophet’s activities. The Holy Prophet’s real jihad consisted in unceasing fight against the forces of darkness and he waged this jihad with unabated zeal and undiminished vigour as long as he lived and this jihad will continue to be relentlessly waged by his true followers till the end of time, not with the sword but with the Quran. It is to this jihad that the verse under comment refers and it is this jihad to which the Holy Prophet referred when on returning from an expedition he is reported to have said رجعنا من الجھاد الاصغر الی الجھاد الاکبر i.e. we have returned from the smaller jihad to the greater jihad (Raddul-Muhtar). See also 22:40.