Topic: Quraysh

2:180.

Important Words:

الموتی (the dead, i.e. dead persons) is the plural of میت (a dead person) which means: (1) one really dead; (2) one like dead (3) one dying or nearing death (Lane). See also under 2:20, 2:29 & 2:57.

Commentary:

In the preceding verses God related some of the misdeeds of the Israelites in order to bring home to them the fact that, in face of such conduct on their part, it was idle to expect that God would continue to bestow favours on them. In the verses under comment i.e. 2:73, 74, 75, God recounts one of their final misdeeds which filled the cup of their iniquity to overflowing and sealed their fate.

The Quran has not named the person slain, but when read with the context and the relevant facts of history, the verses appear to apply to the murder of a Companion of the Holy Prophet by the Jews at Medina. Following are some of the details of the incident which was the first public act of enmity perpetrated by the Medinite Jews against Muslims.

The Holy Prophet, on his arrival at Medina, entered into a treaty with the Jews. But the growing prosperity and success of Islam gradually roused the jealousy of the Jewish leaders and some of them began secretly to incite their people against the Muslims. The crisis came with the Battle of Badr when the jealousy of the Jews reached its highest pitch. The result was that the Jews were emboldened and assumed a highly insolent attitude towards Islam. A short time after the said battle, a Muslim lady happened to go to a Jew’s shop to make some purchases. The shopkeeper and the other Jews sitting at the shop behaved very insultingly toward her, and the shopkeeper mischievously fastened the lower part of her mantle to the upper part thereof with a thorn so that when, being unable to bear their insults, she unsuspectingly rose to depart, part of her body became naked, at which the shopkeeper and other Jews burst out laughing. This made the helpless lady cry for help. A Muslim happened to be near. Hearing her cry, he rushed to the place and in the fight that ensued the shopkeeper was killed, whereupon the Jews fell upon the Muslim and murdered him and the situation threatened to develop into a sort of a riot. This happened towards the close of the second year of the Hijrah. It is with reference to this murder that the preceding verse says, and remember the time when you slew a person and differed among yourselves about it. The Jews differed among themselves about the murder, for none of them admitted that he had committed it, though all adopted a highly insulting attitude towards the Holy Prophet when he exhorted the Jewish leaders to fear God and abstain from jeopardising the peace of the city. The result was ongoing enmity between the Jewish tribe of Banu Qainuqa‘ and the Muslims culminating in the banishment of the tribe from Medina (Hisham, Tabari & Zurqani).

But the real responsibility lay on the ringleader of the Medinite Jews—Ka‘b bin Ashraf—who had taken a leading part in inciting the Jewish tribes and kindling their hatred against the Muslims. The man was looked upon as their leader by the Jews of the whole of Arabia. He was a very rich man and a poet of eminence. Ka‘b was also a party to the treaty which was concluded between the Jews and the Holy Prophet on the arrival of the latter in Medina. Inwardly, however, he harboured deep hatred against Islam and its Holy Founder which grew in intensity as Islam made progress. When the Muslims won a decisive victory at Badr, Ka‘b, realizing that Islam was taking a deep root in the soil, thought it imperative to make strenuous efforts to extirpate the new faith. So he at once started for Mecca and there, with the aid of his powerful eloquence and stirring verses, set ablaze the fire of enmity and hatred that was already smouldering in the hearts of the Quraish, and with the skirts of the sacred curtain of the Ka‘bah in their hands, he made them take a solemn oath that they would know no rest until they had destroyed Islam and its Founder. Thereafter he toured among other tribes of Arabia and stirred them up against the Prophet and the small body of his followers. Having lighted up the fire of hatred and enmity throughout the land, he returned to Medina and began to create mischief by making scurrilous poems in which mention was made of Muslim women and the ladies nearly related to the Holy Prophet, in the most offensive language. These verses were widely published and were publicly recited by the enemies of Islam. The result of these tactics was that feelings of extreme hatred were excited in the minds of the Jews who assumed an openly hostile attitude to the Holy Prophet and his Companions, throwing to the winds their treaty obligations. It was this attitude of the Jews which emboldened them to commit such offences as the one referred to above, in open defiance of the terms of the treaty they had concluded with the Holy Prophet on his arrival at Medina (Hisham, Zurqani & Dawud).

Thus the real culprit responsible for the assassination of the Muslim referred to above was no other than Ka‘b bin Ashraf, the bold and wicked Jewish leader, who had instigated the Jews to rebellion and breach of contract. He even did not hesitate to plot against the life of the Holy Prophet (Zurqani). His guilt was an established fact. He was guilty of high treason against the State and was the arch-enemy of peace. So he was put to death by the Prophet’s command in the third year of Hijrah. It is to this sentence of death that the present verse refers when it says: then We said, "Smite him (the murderer, i.e. the real culprit) for a part of the offence against him (the murdered person)”, which meant that the sentence of death was only a partial punishment of the offence, the rest of the punishment being reserved for the Hereafter. In fact, there are certain sins which are atoned for by the punishment which is inflicted for them on the offender in this world. But the offence of wilfully killing an innocent man and particularly one who is a righteous servant of the Lord, is not adequately punished with the execution of the murderer, which is only a partial punishment. The real punishment of such an offence is Hell (4:94).

By using the word قتلتم (you slew) in the plural number, the Quran hints that the whole Jewish community of Medinawas responsible for it. For the sentence of death, however, the ringleader, who had brought about a tense atmosphere of hatred and enmity, was selected.

The clause, thus Allah gives life to the dead, signifies that retaliation is an effective form of giving life to the dead, for punishing the offender prevents the would-be assassins from committing further murders, and thus many who would otherwise have been victims of assassination are saved. That retaliation is a sure means of giving life is clearly alluded to in the Quran itself. We read in 2:180, and there is life for you in the law of retaliation, O men of understanding.

Finally, it may be noted that these verses have also been applied to the attempted murder of Jesus by the Jews (for which see Part I of the Quran published by Anjuman Taraqqi Islam, Qadian, in 1916), but recent research strongly supports the above explanation. It may also be noted that the interpretation put on this verse by some commentators that a physically dead person was restored to life is quite erroneous, being unsupported by the context of the verse as well as the authentic teaching of Islam. It is a mere legend which has no foundation in fact.

2:152; 3:165; 62:3.

Important Words:

آیات (Signs) is the plural of آیة which means, a sign, token, or mark by which a person or thing is known or recognized; it properly signifies any apparent thing inseparable from a thing not equally apparent, so that when one perceives the former, one knows that one also perceives the latter which one cannot perceive by itself; it also means a miracle, a wonder. The word is also used in the sense of a sentence; a part of speech; a verse (Lane & Aqrab).

کتاب (Book) means, anything written; a book; a prescribed law (Aqrab). See also 2:54.

حکمة (Wisdom) is derived from حکم (hakama). They say, حکمه i.e. he prevented or restrained him (from acting in an evil manner). حکم بالامر means, he judged and decreed in the matter. حکم (hakuma) means, he became wise (Aqrab). حکمةmeans, what prevents or restrains one from ignorant behaviour; knowledge or science; knowledge of the true nature of things; wisdom or wisdom under­lying a commandment; an action according to the requirements thereof (Mufradat & Lane).

یزکیھم (purify them) is derived from زکی (zakka) which again is derived from زکا meaning, he or it grew and increased and developed; he or it be­came purified. زکی means, he purified; he caused to grow and increase. تزکیة means, the act of purifying and increasing (Aqrab).

العزیز (the Mighty) is derived from عز i.e. he was or became mighty, potent or powerful; or high, elevated or illustrious; or hard and resisting. عزیز means, mighty and powerful or high and elevated; or hard and resisting. It also sometimes means, distressing or grievous. العزیز used as the attributive name of God means, the Mighty Who overcomes everything; the Incomparable or Unparalleled (Lane). See also 2:207 and 5:55.

الحکیم (the Wise) is derived from the same root from which حکمة (for which see above) is derived. حکیم means, possessing knowledge or science or wisdom; wise; a sage; a philosopher; a physician; one who performs or executes affairs firmly, soundly, thoroughly, skilfully and well. الحکیم is one of the names of God meaning the All-Wise (Lane). Applied to the Quran the word would signify the book that is full of wisdom and is free from all defect and imperfection, having no incongruity or unsoundness; or the book which judiciously decides religious differences.

Commentary:

In this verse which is one of the most important, attention is drawn to the prayer of Abraham when he was leaving his wife Hagar and his son Ishmael to live in the arid valley of Mecca. The great prayer was to the effect that God might raise from among the Meccans a Prophet, who should (1) lay before the people Signs of God that may carry conviction to their minds; (2) teach them the Law of God; (3) initiate them into the philosophy of divine commandments, because until the wisdom underlying a commandment is brought home, one does not feel disposed to attend to it, but rather looks upon it as a burden, as was the case with the Christians who, unable to understand the underlying wisdom of the Mosaic Law, began to look upon it as a curse (Rom. 4:15; Gal. 3:13); and finally (4) purify the lives of men and open out to them the avenues of progress. See also 2:152.

This prayer of Abraham, offered from the very depth of his heart, was fulfilled in the person of the Holy Prophet. The wonderful way in which the Holy Prophet combined in his person the four characteristics mentioned in this prayer is a fact of history to which even his most hostile critics have testified. By universal consent the Prophet of Islam has been acclaimed as "the most successful Prophet".

The fact that Abraham did not here pray for many Prophets, but for one Prophet only shows that while offering this prayer, he had in view a very great Prophet, a Master-Prophet who was to transcend all. This prayer of Abraham has been applied by the Holy Prophet to himself. He is reported to have said انا دعوة ابراھیم i.e. "I am the prayer (personified) of Abraham" (Jarir & ‘Asakir).

As mentioned in the introductory remarks in the beginning of this chapter, the verse under comment serves as a summary of the entire chapter which is not only an enlargement of the subject matter of this verse but treats its various subjects in exactly the same order in which they have been mentioned in this verse, i.e. first come the Signs, then the Book, then the Wisdom of the Law, and last of all the means of national progress.

It may be of interest to note here that the Quran speaks of two separate prayers of Abraham—one about the progeny of Isaac and the other about that of Ishmael. The former prayer has been mentioned in 2:125 and the latter in the verse under comment. In his prayer about the progeny of Isaac, Abraham asks that Imams or Reformers may be raised from among them, but he makes no mention of their special work or status—they are ordinary Reformers who will follow one another for the reformation of the Israelites. On the other hand, when Abraham prays about the progeny of Ishmael, he begs his Lord to raise among them a special Prophet with a specific and lofty mission. Again, when God answers the first-mentioned prayer of Abraham, He does not make any mention of the Reformers to be raised but leaves their appearance to be inferred only by implication; but He does make a pointed reference to the fact that in spite of these Reformers, the Israelites will end as transgressors. On the contrary, God makes no such mention about the progeny of Ishmael, thereby hinting that after the Promised Prophet has been raised, their glorious days will continue till the end of the world. This is indeed a marvellously true portrait of the two branches of the House of Abraham.

In making mention of the prayers of Abraham in verses 127 to 130 the Quran makes an allusion to the fact that Abraham did not only pray for the prosperity of the children of Isaac but also for the posterity of Ishmael, his firstborn. When the offspring of Isaac lost the gift of prophethood on account of their evil deeds, the next descendants of Abraham were the children of Ishmael and thus the Promised Prophet must belong to the House of the latter. In order to point out that the expected Prophet was to be an Ishmaelite, the Quran makes mention of the construction of the Ka‘bah by Abraham and Ishmael and of the prayers offered by Abraham for the posterity of his eldest son.

To this natural conclusion Christian critics generally bring forward two objections (1) that the Bible makes no mention of any promise having been made by God to Abraham concerning Ishmael, and (2) that, admitting that God did make such a promise, there is no proof of the fact that the Prophet of Islam was descended from Ishmael.

As regards the first objection, it should be borne in mind that even if the Bible be shown to contain no prophecy about Ishmael, the absence of such a mention in it cannot be considered as conclusive testimony that such a prophecy was not actually made. It is no secret that Sarah, the mother of Isaac, hated Ishmael and his mother, Hagar. This hatred of their mother for the House of Ishmael was inherited by her sons, the Israelites (Gen. 16:12). In these circumstances it would be idle to search for any express prophecy in favour of Ishmael and his progeny in the Bible; particularly when it was for a long time subjected to all sorts of interference on the part of the Israelites. Moreover, if the Biblical evidence can be taken to establish the existence of a promise about Isaac and his sons, why should not the evidence of the Quran and, for that matter, of the children of Ishmael, be accepted to establish the fact that promises were held out by God to Ishmael and his sons also. But the undeniable fact is that the Bible does contain references to the future prosperity of the sons of Ishmael similar to those it contains about the sons of Isaac. The following are some of these references:

(1) "And God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my covenant, therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised" (Gen. 17:9, 10). This covenant was made with Abraham before the birth of Isaac and after Ishmael had been born, which shows that it applied to Ishmael and his children.

(2) "And the angel of the Lord said unto her (Ishmael’s mother), I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man (it appears that here some expression like "Arab" or the dweller of a desert country, has been translated as "wild"); his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren"; i.e., although all will constantly oppose him and be jealous of him, yet he will succeed (Gen. 16:10-12).

(3) Further evidence of Ishmael and his posterity being included in the covenant which God established between Himself and Abraham and his seed after him is furnished by Gen. 17:6-8 which says, "And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." Now, has not the land of Canaan remained in the possession of the Ishmaelites for over 1,300 years? If the Arab Muslims are not the seed of Abraham, why has Canaan continued in their possession for so long?

(4) Again in Gen. 17:18-20, we read:

"And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! and God said,…And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee. Behold I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation." It will thus be seen that the promises made for Ishmael are similar to those made for Isaac; nay, they are even greater in number, for, with regard to Ishmael, God says, (a) "I have blessed him"; (b) "I will make him fruitful"; (c) "I will multiply him exceedingly"; (d) "twelve princes shall he beget"; and (e) "I will make him a great nation".

(5) Further evidence of the fact that Ishmael was included in God’s covenant is furnished by the fact that circumcision which was instituted by God as a token of His covenant with Abraham and his seed after him, has continued among the descendants of Ishmael. Though Islam also enjoined it, yet it was already in vogue among the Arabs, which shows that they were the seed of Abraham and were consequently included in the covenant of which circumcision was instituted as a symbol.

In order to exclude Ishmael from God’s covenant, Christian writers sometimes bring forward the plea that the offspring of a handmaid cannot be included in Abraham’s seed. But this is entirely baseless; for, even conceding, for the sake of argument, that Ishmael’s mother was a handmaid, it has been clearly said with reference to Ishmael: "And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation because he is thy seed" (Gen. 41:13).

The above-quoted verses of the Bible show (1) that Ishmael was born according to the promise of God given to Abraham before Ishmael’s birth; (2) that God blessed Ishmael and his mother, Hagar; (3) that He promised to make Ishmael and his mother fruitful and to multiply them exceedingly; (4) that God was with Ishmael; and (5) that the covenant of God with Abraham about the circumcision of every male child among his progeny applied to Ishmael and his children.

As a matter of fact, the promise made to Ishmael does not differ very much from that made to Isaac; they are both to be blessed, both to be made fruitful, the descendants of both to multiply exceedingly and both are to be made great nations, and kingdom and dominion is promised to the progeny of both. So when the nature of the promise made to both the brothers does not substantially differ, the kind of reward granted to the children of Isaac will have also to be admitted for the children of Ishmael. It would be wrong to think that as in Gen. 17:21 it is written that God will establish His covenant with Isaac, so Prophets were meant to be raised from among his children only, for a similar covenant was made with Abraham even before the birth of Isaac, and this clearly applied to Ishmael. This covenant is contained in Gen. 17:10, 11 according to which Ishmael was circumcised at the age of 13 and thenceforward circumcision became a religious rite with the posterity of Ishmael. It is therefore beyond any shadow of doubt that the covenant referred to above was intended for the children of Ishmael quite as much as for the children of Isaac. This fact has even been admitted by some eminent Christian writers of established authority (The Scofield Reference Bible, p. 25).

So far about verbal promises. Now let us see how God practically treated Ishmael. We read in Gen. 21:14-20, "And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba. And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lifted up her voice, and wept. And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer."

This shows that God rendered miraculous help to Ishmael and brought into existence a well of water for his sake. It is now for the Christians to show what extraordinary thing God wrought for Isaac that may be compared with this. In the above passage it is also said that "God was with the lad", which means that Ishmael grew up under the special protection of the Lord.

Further evidence of the fact that Ishmael was looked upon as the seed of Abraham, on a par with Isaac, is furnished by the following circumstances:

In Gen. 25:6, we read that when Abraham grew old and was nearing his end, he sent away the sons of the concubines. And then the Bible goes on to say: "And these are the days of the years of Abraham’s life which he lived, an hundred three score and fifteen years, and Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man full of years; and was gathered to his people. And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah." (Gen. 25:7-9). Now, if Ishmael was also treated as the offspring of a concubine, he ought to have been treated as the other children, who were the issue of concubines, were treated. But such was not the case; for when Abraham died, the children of the concubines were away and only Ishmael and Isaac were present, and both of them participated in the burial ceremony of their father. This shows that Ishmael was not treated as the offspring of a concubine, but was looked upon as the equal of Isaac and was treated accordingly.

In reply to the second objection that even if the covenant be understood to include the sons of Ishmael, it is yet to be proved that the Holy Prophet belonged to the House of Ishmael, the following points may briefly be noted:

(1) The best way to know the origin of a race is to refer to the traditions and the testimony of the race itself; and, as we all know, the Quraish, the tribe to which the Holy Prophet belonged, always believed and declared themselves to be the descendants of Ishmael and this claim was recognized by all the people of Arabia.

(2) If the claim of the Quraish and, for that matter, that of other Ishmaelite tribes of Arabia, to Ishmaelite descent had been false, the real descendants of Ishmael would have protested against such a false claim; but no such objection is known to have been ever raised.

(3) In Gen. 17:20 God had promised to bless Ishmael, to multiply his progeny, to make him a great nation and the father of twelve princes. If the people of Arabia are not his descendants, where is the promised nation? The Ishmaelite tribes of Arabia are indeed the only claimants in the field,

(4) According to Gen. 21:8-14 Hagar had to leave her home in order to satisfy the vanity of Sarah. If she was not taken to Hedjaz, where are her descendants found, and which is the place of her banishment?

(5) After her banishment Hagar dwelt in the wilderness of Paran (Gen. 21:21). Christian writers have tried to prove that Paran is Feiran near Jebel Serbal in the Sinai Peninsula. But the great English commentator of the Old Testament, who devoted his whole life to the study of the Bible, Dr. S. R. Driver, has had to confess after all that "the site of Paran, from which the wilderness derives its name, is, however, unknown" (Deut. p.4). On the contrary, the Arab geographers are all agreed that Paran is the name given to the hills of Hedjaz (Mu‘jamul-Buldan).

(6) We are told that the generations of Ishmael "dwelt from Havilah unto Shur" (Gen. 25:18) and the phrase "from Havilah unto Shur" designates the opposite extremes of Arabia (Bib. Cyc. by J. Eadie, London, 1862).

(7) The Bible calls Ishmael "a wild man" (Gen. 16:12) and the word اعرابی (A‘rabi) "a dweller of the desert" conveys almost the same sense.

(8) Even Paul has admitted Hagar’s connection with Arabia (Gal. 4:25).

(9) Kedar was a son of Ishmael and it is admitted that his descendants settled in the southern part of Arabia (Bib. Cyc. London, 1862).

(10) Prof. C. C. Torrey says: "The Arabs were Ishmaelites according to the Hebrew tradition…The 'twelve princes' (Gen. 17:20) subsequently named in Gen. 25:13ff, represent Arabian tribes or districts; notice especially Kedar, Duma (Dumatul-Jandal), Teima. The great nation is the people of Arabia." (Jewish Foundation of Islam, p.83).

(11) Similarly, the learned authors of the Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, New York, (1877, p. 685) admit that "the Arabs, from physical characteristics, language, the occurrence of native traditions…and the testimony of the Bible are mainly and essentially Ishmaelites."

(12) Lastly there is the opinion of Narsai, a Syrian writer who lived about a hundred years before the birth of the Holy Prophet. Mingana quotes Narsai as saying: "The raid of the sons of Hagar was more cruel even than famine, and the blow that they gave was more sore than disease; the wound of the sons of Abraham is like the venom of a serpent and perhaps there is a remedy for the poison of reptiles but not for theirs—let us always blame the foul inclination of the sons of Hagar, and specially the people (the tribe) of Kuraish who are like animals." (Leaves from Three Ancient Qurans, edited by the Rev. A. Mingana, D.D. Intro. xiii).

In the face of these conclusive proofs both the objections, that (1) Ishmael was not included in the covenant which God made with Abraham, and that (2) Ishmael did not settle in Arabia or that the Holy Prophet of Islam was not a descen-dant of Ishmael, fall to the ground.

Before passing on to the next verse a brief reference to Hagar, mother of Ishmael, will not be out of place here. C. J. Ellicott, Lord Bishop of Gloucester, says in his Commentary: "Hagar…was to be, not Abraham’s concubine, but his wife" (Vol. 1, p. 69). The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel tell us that "Sarah…took Hagar…and set her free, and gave her to Abraham, her husband, to wife" (Translation by J. W. Etheridge, London, 1862, p. 205). This setting free of the "handmaid" or "bondwoman" does not imply that Hagar was a barbarian slave or that she was a slave from her very childhood. Sir Leonard Wooley says that she was a "civilised creature sprung from the second great centre of culture in the ancient world" (Abraham, London, 1936, p. 144).

"According to Midrash", says another authority, "Hagar had been given as a slave to Abraham by her father, the Pharaoh of Egypt, who said, "My daughter had better be a slave in the house of Abraham, than mistress in any other" (Translation of the Targums by J. W. Etheridge, note 8, on page 204).

2:192.

3:84, 91; 4:138; 5:55; 47:26.

3:23; 7:148; 18:106.

Important Words:

کبیر (great transgression) really stands for ذنب کبیر i.e. a great sin or great transgression or great offence. اکبر is in the comparative degree and means, a greater sin, etc.

صد (to hinder) is the infinitive from صد. They say صدہ i.e. he prevented him; he turned him back. صد عنه اومنه means, he kept back from it. Thus the word is both transitive and intransitive. صد, therefore, means: (1) to hinder or to prevent; (2) a hindrance or a barrier; (3) a mountain or a wall, etc., because it serves as a barrier (Aqrab).

یردوکم (turn you back) and یرتدد (turns back) are both derived from رد. They say ردہ i.e. he turned him back; and ارتد i.e.he himself turned back. ارتد عن الاسلام means, he turned back from Islam and reverted to a state of disbelief. مرتد means, one who turns back from his religion, particularly from Islam; one who apostatizes (Taj).

حبطت (shall be in vain). حبط البعیر means, the stomach of the camel became inflated and his belly became bound by eating unwholesome food. حبط عمله means: (1) his work or deed became null and void and went for nothing; (2) his work or deed became evil and corrupt. حبط دمه means, his blood went unavenged. حبط ماء البئر means, the water of the well receded and went down never to return to its original level (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

The words translated as "to be ungrateful to Him and the Sacred Mosque" may also be rendered as "to be ungrateful to Him and to hinder men from the Sacred Mosque".

The Quran has already explained that if disbelievers violate the sanctity of a sacred month, Muslims may also retaliate in a sacred month; for thus only can the sanctity of a sacred thing be safeguarded (2:195).

The present verse provides a further reason for defending Islam, if need be, in a sacred month. Disbelievers, particularly those of Mecca, had violated the sanctity of things far more sacred than a "sacred month"––they were trying forcibly to turn men form the way of God; they were preventing people from approaching the Sacred Mosque and they had forced the Muslim dwellers of Mecca to flee from it. This was a form of persecution which was certainly much more heinous than fighting in a Sacred Month.

Commentators generally state, and in fact there are also traditions to the effect, that once the Holy Prophet sent one of his Companions, named ‘Abdullah bin Jahsh, to bring news about a party of the Quraish proceeding to Mecca. When ‘Abdullah and his comrades reached a place called Nakhlah, they met a small party proceeding to Mecca. Guided by his own judgement and without any instruction to that effect from the Prophet, ‘Abdullah attacked the party, killing one of them and capturing two. The date was doubtful, some considering it to be as one of the Sacred Month and others as not. When the news reached Mecca, the Quraish took advantage of the doubt as regards date and clamoured that the Muslims had violated the Sacred Month. The verse under comment was revealed on that occasion (Tabari, Hisham & Zurqani).

The verse acknowledges the sanctity of the Sacred Months and considers it an act of sin and transgression knowingly to fight in a sacred month, but forcefully points out that the sanctities which disbelievers were violating were far more worthy of safeguarding. Disbelievers were forcibly preventing people from accepting Islam. They did not allow Muslims to approach the Sacred Mosque and they had mercilessly turned the Prophet and his followers out of their homes.

The verse should not be understood to imply that Muslims did start a fight in a sacred month, it only purports to bring home to disbelievers the fact that in view of their persistent violation of highly sacred thing, it does not lie in their mouth to accuse Muslim of violating the sanctity of a sacred month.

The clause it is they whose works shall be vain in this world and the next does not mean that everything that a renegade from Islam, or, for that matter, everything that a disbeliever, does will go for nothing and produce no result. The clause only means that such actions of the renegades as they might do to weaken the cause of Islam in this world as well as those of their actions which they might perform in opposition to the teaching of Islam in order to win the pleasure of God in the world to come, will all be in vain. Thus the clause does not refer to such good actions as a person may perform in the state o unbelief; for, as the Quran expressly states, these must have their reward (99:8) which may either take the form of the acceptance of Islam or that of the lightening of punishment. The Holy Prophet is reported to have said about his uncle Abu Talib that on account of the good treatment the latter extended to him, he is likely to be only lightly punished for his non-acceptance of Islam (Bukhari). On another occasion when Hakim bin Hizam, a nephew of his wife Khadijah, asked the Prophet whether he would get any reward for the good deeds he did before he accepted Islam, the Holy Prophet said, "your very acceptance of Islam is a reward thereof" (Bukhari).

The clause, their works shall be vain in this world and the next, also signifies that if such men as apostatize from Islam had not done so, their deeds would have brought them the great reward promised to Muslims both in this world and the next, but by apostatizing from Islam they had totally deprived themselves of this twofold reward.

Finally, the clause, and they will not cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith, if they can, throws a flood of light on the attitude of disbelievers towards Muslim. They were not only the first to begin hostilities, but had also vowed not to cease fighting until Islam had been totally wiped out from Arabia and not a soul remained to call himself a Muslim. This clear testimony of the Quran should be an eye-opener for those who accuse Muslims of being aggressors in their early struggle against disbelievers. The words, if they can, are highly eulogistic of the Companions of the Holy Prophet. Do what they could, disbelievers would never be able to turn back Muslims from their faith. Their love for Islam was too deep to be extirpated by persecution however severe and bitter it might be.

Important Words:

فور (immediately) is derived from فار. They say فار الماء i.e. the water gushed forth from the earth. فارت القدر means, the contents of the cooking pot vehemently boiled and rose high in it. فورة means, the intensity of heat or anger or the like. فورة النھار means, the first part of the day. فور signifies the state or condition that comes without delay. The Arabs say رجع من فوره he returned or turned back immediately without tarrying (Arab).

مسومین (attacking vehemently) is derived from سوم. They say سوم الفرس i.e. he branded the horse with a brand. سوم الخیل means, he let loose the horses for grazing. سوم علیھمmeans, he suddenly and vehemently attacked them and wrought havoc among them (Aqrab). In the verse under comment the word is used in the last-mentioned sense.

Commentary:

The verse signifies that if the disbelievers returned to the attack at once, without giving the Muslims any opportunity to recoup themselves, God would help the latter with five thousand angels. The difference in the number of angels,—in the preceding verse the number mentioned being 3,000—was due to the difference in the condition of the Muslims. They were at that time exhausted and wounded and, therefore, needed greater help than they would have needed, if the enemy attack had been delayed.

The enemy did indeed think of returning, but God prevented them from doing so. Briefly stated, the facts are that when the Quraish were retracing their steps towards Mecca, members of the Arab tribes living in the vicinity of Medina asked them about the results of the battle, and when they declared that they were victorious, these men put them to shame by saying, "If you have been really victorious, where are the spoils? What have you brought from the battlefield?" Touched to the quick by this taunt, the Quraish decided to retrieve their shame by attacking the Muslims once more. When the Holy Prophet came to know of this, on the day following the battle, he gave immediate orders to march and directed that only those of his followers who had taken part in the Battle of Uhud should join him. The Muslims went as far as Hamra’ul-Asad, a place about eight miles from Medina. The Meccans were, however, so overawed by this unexpectedly bold and prompt appearance of the Holy Prophet and his followers that they decided to retreat hastily to Mecca. This was due to the fear which the angels had inspired in their hearts. Otherwise there was no reason for them to flee from an enemy upon whom they had inflicted so heavy a loss only a day before and who, besides being very much reduced in number, were utterly exhausted and were suffering from grievous wounds as a result of the previous day’s fighting.

A recent commentator, having translated the words, من فورھم ھذا as "in headlong manner", has applied them to the Battle of Ahzab. This is not right. The fact is that verses 125 and 126, as already explained, are both connected with the Battle of Uhud and relate to the time immediately following it. The word بلی (yea) occurring in the beginning of the verse also denotes a connection between the verses and supplies the answer to the question in 3:125, viz: will it not suffice you? Thus the word بلی would here mean "yes, it will suffice, and so will suffice a force of 5,000 angels if the enemy were to return to the attack at this very moment."

3:55; 27:51.

Important Words:

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

Commentary:

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

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

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

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

Important Words:

تثریب (blame) is derived from ثرب. They say, ثربه i.e. he stripped the beast of the fat covering the bowels; he stripped the man of his garment. تثریب means, removing the fat over the bowels; act of blaming or reproving or punishing for an offence or a crime; severe blaming or reproving that takes away brightness of countenance; reminding a man of his offences and crimes and exposing the foulness of his deeds to him (Lane).

Commentary:

The verse throws interesting light on the nobility of Joseph’s character. He did not keep his brothers in suspense nor even give them time to crave his forgiveness, but at once removed all their fears and apprehensions as concerning the treatment he would now extend to them; by telling them forthwith that his pardon was unreserved and unqualified. This magnanimous treatment of his brothers by Joseph is alone sufficient to immortalize him.

This large-hearted and generous forgiving of his brothers by Joseph constitutes his greatest and most outstanding resemblance to the Holy Prophet. Like Joseph, the Holy Prophet, too, gained honour and power in flight and banishment; and when after years of exile he entered his native town as a conqueror, at the head of ten thousand Companions, and Mecca lay prostrate at his feet, he asked his people what treatment they expected from him. "The treatment that Joseph accorded to his brethren," they replied, "Then no reproach shall lie on you this day," promptly returned the Holy Prophet. This noble treatment by the Prophet of his erstwhile bloodthirsty enemies, the Quraish of Mecca, who had left no stone unturned to compass his death and destroy him root and branch stands unparalleled in the whole annals of human history.

36:50; 67:28.

Commentary:

The reference in the verse may be to the Fall of Mecca when the Quraish were taken completely by surprise and were utterly confounded. The sign of punishment which they demanded came upon them suddenly in the form of the fall of their capital city the centre of disbelief and idolatry.

Commentary:

This and the next verse constitute at once a prayer and a prophecy. The present Surah was revealed towards the end of the Meccan period. The Holy Prophet was about to leave Mecca. His departure from Mecca was a signal and a sign that as the result of persistent denial and persecution and of his expulsion from his beloved native town by the Meccans, Divine punishment was about to overtake them. In this verse the Holy Prophet is taught to pray to God that when the threatened punishment should seize the Meccans he might not be among them in Mecca. While on the one hand the actual words of the verse, viz. "My Lord then place me not among the wrongdoing people" expressed a prayer, on the other, they implied a prophecy that when actual punishment overtook the Meccans the Prophet would be far away from the scene of punishment. These words may also mean: "My Lord, grant that I may not be of the wrongdoing people when these people are punished by Thee, and grant that when I get mastery over them I should act with justice and equity on that occasion." By implication the verse admonishes Muslims that in the hour of their victory they should not behave proudly and arrogantly towards their vanquished and humbled enemies.

Commentary:

It is on record that when this verse was revealed the Holy Prophet stood on Mount Safa and called every Quraish tribe by name and warned them of the Divine punishment that would overtake them if they did not accept his message and give up their evil ways. He is also reported to have told his daughter Fatimah, his aunt Safiyya and other members of his household that no relationship with him but only their own righteous deeds would save them from Divine wrath (Bukhari, Kitabut-Tafsir).

26:153.

Important Words:

رھط (party) is derived from (rahata) which means, he took large bits; he devoured greedily. ارتھط القوم means, the people assembled. رھط means, a man’s people or tribe consisting of his near relations or kinsfolk; a number of men less than ten among whom there is no woman; or a number of men from three to ten or from seven to ten (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

By implication the reference in the verse is to the enemies of the Holy Prophet, prominent among whom were nine persons. Eight of them were killed in the Battle of Badr and the ninth, the notorious Abu Lahab, died at Mecca on hearing of the news of the defeat at Badr. The eight were: Abu Jahl, Mut‘im bin ‘Adiyy, Shaibah bin Rabi‘ah, ‘Utbah bin Rabi‘ah, Walid bin ‘Utbah,’ Ummayah bin Khalf, Nadar bin Harith and ‘Aqbah bin Abi Mu‘ait. All these nine men conspired to murder the Holy Prophet. The actual plan to select one man from every tribe of the Quraish and then make a concerted murderous attack upon the Holy Prophet so that no particular tribe might be held responsible for his murder came from Abu Jahl, the leader of this wicked junta.

The present Surah was revealed towards the middle of the Meccan period and the plot against the Holy Prophet matured just before his departure for Medina. Thus mention of such a plot in the account of Prophet Salih implied a prophetic reference to a similar plot against the Holy Prophet at a later date. A reference to the plot against the Holy Prophet has also been made in 8:31. See next verse.

3:155; 13:32.

Important Words:

بضع (a few) is derived from بضع (bada‘a). They say بضعه i.e. he cut it; he cut it into pieces; he cut it length-wise. بضعmeans, a part or portion of the night; a time thereof. They say مضی بضع من اللیل i.e. a part of the night passed. The word also denotes a variety of numbers such as five, seven, ten, etc., but is generally understood to mean from three to nine. بضع رجال means from three to nine men. بضع سنین means, from three to nine years (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

In order fully to appreciate the significance of this and the preceding two verses it is necessary to cast a cursory glance over the political conditions that obtained in the two great Empires that lay on the borders of Arabia—the Persian and the Roman Empires—shortly before the advent of the Holy Prophet of Islam. They were at war with each other. The first round had gone in favour of the Persians whose tide of conquest began in 602 A.D., when in order to avenge the death of Maurice, his patron and benefactor, at the hands of Phocas, Chosroes II started the war with Rome. For twenty years the Roman Empire was overrun by Persian armies as it had never been before. The Persian armies plundered Syria and Asia Minor and in 608 A.D. advanced to Chalcedon. Damascus was taken in 613. The surrounding country on which no Persian had ever set foot since the founding of the Empire was utterly and completely laid waste. In June 614 Jerusalem was also captured. The whole of Christendom was horrified by the news that together with the Patriarch the Persians had carried off the cross of Christ. Christianity had been humbled in the dust. The flood of Persian conquest, however, did not stop with the capture of Jerusalem. Egypt was next conquered, Asia Minor again overrun, and the Persian armies were knocking at the very gates of Constantinople. The Romans could offer but little resistance as they were torn by internal dissensions. The humiliation of Heraclius was so complete that "Chosroes wanted to see him brought in chains to the foot of his throne and was not prepared to give him peace till he had abjured his crucified god and embraced the worship of the sun" (Historians’ History of the World, vol. 7, p. 159, vol. 8, pp. 94-95 & Enc. Brit. under "Chosroes" II & "Heraclius"). This state of affairs very much grieved the Muslims as they had much in common with the Romans who were the "People of the Book". But the Quraish of Mecca who, like the Persians, were idolaters, feigned to see in this discomfiture of Christian armies a happy augury for the overthrow and destruction of Islam. It was shortly after this complete debacle of Roman forces that in 616 A.D., came the revelation to the Holy Prophet which forms the subject-matter of the verse under comment and the two preceding verses. The verses possessed a twofold significance. They foretold, in circumstances then quite inconceivable, that the whole position would be completely reversed within the short space of eight or nine years and the erstwhile victorious Persian armies would suffer a crushing defeat at the hands of the utterly defeated, prostrated and humbled Romans. The Arabic word used in the verse to denote this period is بضع (bid‘un) which as shown under "Important Words," signifies a period from three to nine years. The significance of the prophecy embodied in the verses, however, lay in the fact that, within this short period, the foundations of the ultimate triumph of Islam and that of the defeat and discomfiture of the forces of disbelief and darkness would be firmly laid. The prophecy was fulfilled in circumstances beyond human calculation or comprehension. Regarding the extreme improbability of fulfilment of the prophecy under the prevailing circumstances, the following observation of Gibbon may be read with interest:

In the midst of the Persian triumphs he (the Holy Prophet) ventured to foretell that before many years should elapse victory would return to the banners of the Romans…At the time when this prediction is said to have been delivered, no prophecy could be more distant from its accomplishment, since the first twelve years of Heraclius announced the approaching dissolution of the Empire (Rise, Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 5, p. 74).

After licking his wounds for several years, Heraclius was at last able to take the field against the Persians in 622, the year of the Holy Prophet’s Migration to Medina. In 624 he advanced into northern Media, where he destroyed the great fire-temple of Gandzak (Gazaca) and thus avenged the destruction of Jerusalem. This happened exactly within nine years, the period foretold in the verse, and to add to its importance and significance it happened in the year when the power of the Quraish also suffered a very serious reverse in the Battle of Badr, which recalled a Biblical prophecy foretelling the fading of the glory of Kedar (Isa. 21:17). In 627, Heraclius defeated the Persian army at Nineveh and advanced towards Ctesiphon. Chosroes fled from his favourite residence Dastgerd (near Baghdad), and after dragging on an inglorious existence was murdered by his own son, Siroes, on 19th February, 628. A.D.; and thus the Persian Empire, from the apparent greatness which it had reached a few years earlier sank into hopeless anarchy (Enc. Brit.).

The fulfilment of the prophecy was so remarkable and unforeseen that prejudiced Christian writers have been hard pressed to explain it away. Rodwell says that the vowel points of the Arabic expression سیغلبون were left undecided so that it would read either way, i.e. sa-yaghlibun meaning, "they will be victorious" or as sa-yughlabun meaning, "they will be defeated." He even adds that the ambiguity was intentional. The Rev. gentleman pretends not to understand this simple fact that the vowels of an expression which had been recited hundreds of times in daily Prayers and otherwise could hardly be left undecided. Mr. Wherry goes a step further. He says: "Our daily newspapers constantly forecast political events of this kind." The less said about this futile attempt to explain away and belittle the importance of this mighty prophecy, the better. If in the circumstances when Christianity lay humbled in the dust and Persian armies were knocking at the very gates of Constantinople and Heraclius had in vain sued for peace, a person situated as the Holy Prophet was, could forecast that within the short space of only eight or nine years the victors would become vanquished and the forces of Chosroes would receive a crushing defeat at the hands of the same Heraclius who only a few years back had very humbly but unsuccessfully sued for peace and the proud and mighty Persians would lie prostrate and exhausted, the forecast must indeed be considered to have proceeded from a superhuman source. What added to the remarkable character of the prophecy was the fact that the news of the victory of the Romans over the Persians reached the Muslims exactly at the time when they were themselves rejoicing over their own victory in the Battle of Badr.

The words: "Allah’s is the command before and after that," mean that it is God’s eternal and unalterable decree that disbelief is always defeated and humbled, and truth triumphs and progresses.

Commentary:

With this verse begins an account of the Battle of the Ditch. This battle which took place in the 5th year of the Hijrahwas the fiercest encounter in which the Muslims had so far been engaged. The whole of Arabia rose like one man against Islam. The Quraish of Mecca, their allies, the Ghatfan, the Ashja‘ and Murrah, the Fararah, the Sulaim and the Banu Sa‘d and Banu Asad, the desert tribes of Central Arabia, aided and abetted by the perfidious Jews and treacherous "Hypocrites"of Medina formed themselves into a grand confederacy against the Holy Prophet. A mighty force numbering from ten to twenty thousand strong was pitched against 1200 (according to some writers 3000 Muslims, including women and children, were employed in digging the Ditch) ill-prepared and ill-provisioned Muslims. The siege of Medina lasted from fifteen days to four weeks, according to different versions after which the forces of darkness melted away without inflicting any serious loss upon the Muslims. Islam emerged stronger from this severe ordeal and the disbelieving Quraish were never again able to march against Muslims in force.

The reference in the word ریحا (wind) is to the strong cold wind which blew upon the confederated hosts and uprooted their tents and extinguished their fires. Says William Muir:

"Forage was obtained with the utmost difficulty; provisions were running short, and the camels and horses dying daily in great numbers; wearied and damped in spirit, the night set in upon them, cold and tempestuous wind and rain beat mercilessly on the unprotected camp. The storm rose to a hurricane. Fires were extinguished, tents blown down, cooking vessels and other equipage overthrown". ("The Life of Mahomet").

The words "and hosts that you saw not" refer to the forces of nature—wind, rain and cold which wearied the disbelievers and damped their spirits. It may also refer to the hosts of angels which cast fear in the hearts of disbelievers and heartened and encouraged the Muslims.

Commentary:

The reference in the words "a clear victory" seems to be to the Treaty of Hudaibiyyah. It is remarkable that though, during the previous brief six years of his life at Medina, the Holy Prophet had gained great victories over his enemies which had crippled and crushed their fighting power, yet none of them is called "a clear victory" in the Quran. It was reserved for the Treaty of Hudaibiyyah to receive this single honour, in spite of the fact that its terms were seemingly so humiliating that the Muslims were greatly perturbed over this apparently rude rebuff to the prestige of Islam, and even a stalwart like ‘Umar exclaimed in extreme grief and indignation that had the terms been settled by any other person than the Holy Prophet, he would have scorned to listen to them (Hisham). The Treaty was indeed a great victory in that it opened the way to the expansion and spread of Islam and led to the Fall of Mecca and ultimately to the conquest of the whole of Arabia. It proved to be a master stroke of strategy as the Holy Prophet’s "political status as an equal and independent power was acknowledged by the Quraish" (Mohammad at Medina by Montgomery Watt).

As the Treaty of Hudaibiyyah constitutes a great landmark in the early history of Islam and as it forms the principal topic dealt with in the Surah under comment, it needs to be treated at some length.

The Holy Prophet had seen a vision that he was making a circuit of the Ka‘bah along with a party of his followers. In fulfilment of his vision, the Prophet started for Mecca with about 1500 Muslims to perform the Lesser Pilgrimage in 6 A.H., in the month of Dhul-Qa‘dah, one of the four sacred months in which, according to Arab tradition and usage, fighting was forbidden, even before Islam. When he reached ‘Usfan, a place a few miles distant from Mecca, he was informed by an advance party whom he had sent under the command of ‘Abbad bin Bishar that the Quraish were bent upon barring his entry into Mecca. In order to avoid an armed clash the Prophet changed his route and "after a fatiguing march through devious and rugged pathways reached Hudai-biyyah," where he encamped. The Prophet had declared that he would accept all the demands of the Quraish for the honour of the Holy Place (Hisham), but the Quraish were firmly resolved not to allow him to enter Mecca, whatever he might say or do. Messages were exchanged in an attempt to find a solution to the impasse. After heated and protracted parleys in which the Holy Prophet left no stone unturned, even at the cost of his prestige, to arrive at a reasonable compromise with the Quraish, a treaty was signed of which the terms were:

War shall be suspended for ten years. Whosoever would like to join the Holy Prophet or enter into treaty with him, shall have liberty to do so. The same will apply to whosoever would like to join the Quraish or enter into treaty with them. If a believing man goes over to the Prophet from Mecca without the permission of his guardian, he shall be sent back to his guardian; but should any of the followers of the Prophet return to the Quraish, they shall not be sent back. The Prophet shall retire this year without entering the city. Next year he and his Companions may visit Mecca only for three days to perform عمرة (Lesser Pilgrimage), but they shall carry no arms save sheathed swords (Bukhari, Hisham & Muir).

The terms of the Treaty were demonstrably very humiliating. The Muslims were greatly upset. No words could adequately describe their grief, and sense of humiliation and injured pride. The third term was particularly galling. But the Holy Prophet was quite calm and tranquil. Being convinced of the moral force of Islam, he knew that "a believer who had once tasted the sweetness of faith would prefer to be cast into fire than to revert to disbelief" (Bukhari), and that he would be a source of strength to his religion and other believers wherever he might happen to be. The case of Abu Basir, and that of Abu Jandal and their associates fully justified his conviction. He wanted to have a peaceful atmosphere. He knew that a peaceful soil was most congenial for the spread of Islam, and Islam did spread very rapidly after the signing of the Treaty of Hudaibiyyah. When as a result of violation by the Quraish of the terms of the Treaty, the Prophet marched on Mecca two years later, ten thousand faithful Companions were under his command, instead of the paltry 1500 who were with him on the occasion of the signing of the Treaty. Thus the Treaty and its aftermath gave in advance the direct lie to the false and foolish propaganda that was to be conducted by Christian missionaries in our own time, that Islam was propagated by the sword.

One immediate effect of the Treaty was that the tribes of Banu Khuza‘ah entered into an alliance with the Holy Prophet, while the Banu Bakar sided with the Quraish, an incident which 1ater on led to the march on Mecca. The Treaty did indeed prove to be "a clear victory." The Companions of the Holy Prophet were rightly proud of being present on the occasion, and quite justified in regarding the signing of the Treaty, and not the conquest of Mecca as "the victory referred to in the present verse" (Bukhari). According to them no victory was greater and more far-reaching in its results and effects than this Treaty (Hisham). And the Holy Prophet himself called it a victory (Baihaqi as quoted by Zurqani).

102:2.

3:168.

13:17; 25:4.

Commentary:

Reference in this verse is to those Bedouin tribes around Medina who apparently had friendly relations with the Muslims. These tribes were also invited to join the party of 1500 Muslims who were going to Mecca to perform the Lesser Pilgrimage (عمرة). Though the Prophet was going on a mission of peace, these desert tribes thought that the Quraish would not allow his entry into Mecca and that in all likelihood there would be a clash of arms and Muslims not being properly armed would be defeated, and therefore going with the Holy Prophet was tantamount to marching into the jaws of death (Muir, Hisham & Kathir). The verse may equally apply to those tribes who had remained behind in the expedition to Tabuk because analogous words have been used in Surah At-Taubah about them.

Commentary:

This and the preceding verse imply a subtle rebuke to the disbelievers. After having declared the Glory, Majesty and Dignity of God in the former verses, these two verses seem to say to them that, instead of adoring such a Mighty and Powerful Creator and Lord, they stoop so low as to worship gods made of wood and stone.

It may be noted here that some prejudiced Christian critics of the Holy Prophet have woven quite a fantastic and foolish story of his having fallen a victim to the machinations of the Satan.

It is stated that one day at Mecca, when the Holy Prophet recited this Surah and as in his recitation he came upon these verses, before a mixed assembly of Muslims and disbelievers, Satan contrived to put in his mouth the words: تلک الغرانیق العلیٰ و ان شفا عتھن لترتجیٰ i.e. these are exalted goddesses and their intercession is hoped for (Zurqani). The critics call it the "lapse of Muhammad" or his "compromise with idolatry" and seem to rely upon Waqidi—that inveterate liar and fabricator of reports—or on Tabari, who is generally regarded as a credulous and indiscriminate narrator of events, for this entirely baseless story. These gentlemen have the audacity to attribute this blasphemous utterance to that great iconoclast (the Holy Prophet) whose whole life was spent in denouncing and condemning idolatry and who carried out his noble mission with unremitting vigour and fearless devotion, spurning all offers of compromise with idol worship, and whom blandishments, bribes, cajolery or intimidation failed to move an inch from his set purpose, and to whose unshakable firmness against idolatry the Almighty Himself has borne testimony in the words: ودوا لو تدھن فیدھنون i.e. it is their intense desire that thou shouldst show some pliancy so that they may also be pliant (68:10).

Moreover, the whole context gives the direct lie to this baseless assertion. Not only do the verses that follow but the whole Surah contains an unsparing condemnation of idolatry and an uncompromising insistence on Divine Unity. It is strange that this patent fact should have escaped the notice of the Holy Prophet’s critics and carpers.

Historical data, too, lend no support whatever to this so-called "lapse." The story has been rejected as completely unreliable by all the learned commentators of the Quran, Ibn Kathir and Radi among them. The renowned leaders of Muslim religious thought, well versed in the science of Hadith, such as ‘Aini, Qadi ‘Ayyad and Nawawi, have regarded it as pure invention. No trace of this story is to be found in الصحاح الستة (the Six Reliable Collections of Hadith). Imam Bukhari, whose collection, the Sahih Al-Bukhari, is regarded by Muslim scholars as the most reliable book next to the Quran and who himself was a contemporary of Waqidi to whom goes the unenviable credit of forging and reporting this story, makes no mention of it, nor does the great historian, Ibn Ishaq, who was born more than 40 years before him. It may be, as stated by Qastalaniand Zurqani and supported by some other eminent scholars, that when the Holy Prophet, during the recital of the present Surah before a mixed assembly of Muslims and disbelievers, came to these verses, some evil-minded person from among the disbelievers might have loudly interjected the words تلک الغرانیق العلی الخ, as was the disbelievers’ wont to create confusion by resorting to such low tactics, when the Quran was being recited (41:27).

It is also on record that in the "Days of Ignorance," the Quraish, when making a circuit of the Ka‘bah, used to recite the sentence: تلک الغرانیق العلی و ان شفاعتھن لترتجیٰ (Mu‘jamul-Buldan, vol. 5, under ‘Uzza).

Besides, it is not possible for the Satan to interfere with the purity of the Quranic text. God has taken it upon Himself to protect and safeguard the Quran against all interference and interpolation (15:10 & 72:27-29). So the whole story as invented by Waqidi and taken undue advantage of by Muir and others of his class is a pure myth and possesses no basis in fact.

It is further stated that the 53rd verse of Surah Al-Hajj was revealed in connection with this incident. The fact that theSurah under comment was revealed in the 5th year of the Call and Surah Al-Hajj in the 13th or 12th year, takes the bottom completely from under this baseless assertion.

21:2.

Important Words:

انشق (is rent asunder) is derived from شق. They say شق الشیء i.e. he split, clave, tore or rent the thing. شق العصا means, he broke the staff, i.e. he separated himself from the community. An Arab would say, شق عصا المسلمین i.e. he created disunion and dissension among the Muslims. انشق القمر means, the moon was or became rent asunder; or according to some, the affair became manifest (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).

القمر (the moon). قمر الشیء means, the light of the thing became intense. أقمر اللیل means, the night became bright with the light of the moon. القمر means, the moon in its third night and after; the moon absolutely. أقمار العلم و شموسه means, the ulema or learned men of the people. القمران means, the sun and the moon (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

Whether or not "splitting of the moon" into two parts, observable by the naked eye, contravened any physical law of nature, it cannot be denied that the event lacks historical evidence which could at all be described as unimpeachable. At the same time no one can presume to have fathomed all divine mysteries or fully comprehended or encompassed all the secrets of nature. It is not possible to imagine that such an event, affecting a considerable area of the globe, should have remained unnoticed in the observatories of the world or that it should have remained unrecorded in books of history. But the incident having found a mention in such reliable collections of Hadith as Bukhari and Muslim and having been narrated successively in traditions of reliable authority and reported by such learned Companions of the Holy Prophet as Ibn Mas‘ud and Ibn ‘Abbas, does show that some natural phenomenon of unusual importance must have taken place in the time of the Holy Prophet. Some commentators of the Quran—Radi among them—have sought to solve the difficult problem by declaring the incident to be a lunar eclipse. Imam Ghazali and Shah Wali Allah also hold the view that the moon had not in fact been rent asunder, but that God had so contrived that it appeared to the beholders as such. However, taking into consideration the forceful language in which it has been mentioned in the Quran, the incident appears to be something more than a mere lunar eclipse. It indeed constituted a great miracle shown by the Prophet at the insistent demand of disbelievers (see Bukhari & Muslim). It seems to be a vision of the Holy Prophet in which the Companions of the Holy Prophet and some of the Quraish were made to share—just as the rod turning into a serpent was a vision of Moses in which the magicians were made to share. Alternatively, it may be that just as the striking of seawater by Moses with his rod coincided with the ebb of the tide and thus assumed the character of a miracle, because God alone knew when the sea would recede and it was He Who commanded Moses to strike the waters at the time of recession, similarly God may have commanded the Holy Prophet to show the miracle of the cleaving asunder of the moon at a time when a heavenly body was to take such a position in front of the moon that it caused the moon to appear to the beholders as split into two parts.

But the most plausible explanation, which is also possessed of very deep spiritual significance of this, one of the most outstanding miracles shown by the Holy Prophet, lies in the fact that the moon was the national emblem of the Arabs and the symbol of their political power, just as the sun at that time was the national ensign of the Persians. When Safiyyah, the daughter of Huyay bin Akhtab, a leader of the Jews of Khaibar, mentioned to her father that she had seen in a dream that the moon had fallen into her lap, he slapped her face saying that she wanted to marry the leader of the Arabs. After the fall of Khaibar Safiyyah’s dream was fulfilled when she was married to the Holy Prophet (Zurqani & Usdul-Ghabbah). Similarly, ‘A’ishah had seen a dream that three moons had fallen in her private apartment which saw its fulfilment when the Holy Prophet, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were buried there one after the other (Mu’atta’, KitabuI-Jana’iz). According to this sense of the word و قمر the verse would signify that the hour of destruction of their political power with which the disbelieving Arabs had been threatened in 53:58 has already arrived. The word الساعه (Hour) in that case would refer to the Battle of Badr in which all the chiefs and leaders of the Quraish were killed and the foundations of the complete destruction of their power were laid. Thus the verse constituted a mighty prophecy which met with remarkable fulfilment, nearly eight or nine years after its announcement. Moreover, the Holy Prophet has been called "illuminating moon" (قمراً منیراً) in the Quran. In this sense of the word the verse would mean that after the Holy Prophet’s separation from the Quraish, the "Hour" of the destruction of their power would arrive, and it happened likewise. About a year after the Migration of the Holy Prophet to Medina, the Battle of Badr was fought which broke the Quraishite power.

Taking the expression انشق القمر in the sense, "the affair has become manifest," the verse would mean that the hour of the destruction of the Quraishite power has arrived and that now it would become manifest that the Prophet was a true Divine Messenger.

The word الساعة, besides the Battle of Badr, may apply to the Battle of the Ditch and the Fall of Mecca, as these three events combined to bring about complete and total annihilation of the power of pagan Arabs.

6:35; 22:43; 35:26; 40:6.

23:26.

Commentary:

As briefly stated in the Introduction, almost the entire Surah is devoted to a discussion of the dreadful fate which the Rejecters of former Divine Prophets had met and this fact has been adduced as an argument to prove the truth of the Holy Prophet’s claim. The cases of the People of Noah, of the tribes of ‘Ad and Thamud and that of the people of Lot have received a special and somewhat detailed mention because these peoples lived on the confines of the Hijaz and the Quraish were quite familiar with their histories and had commercial relations with them. The people to whom Noah preached his Message lived in Iraq which lies to the north-east of Arabia, and the tribe of ‘Ad lived in Yemen and Hadramaut which form the southern part of it while the tribe of Thamud throve and flourished in the north-west of Arabia which extends from the Hijaz to Palestine and the ill-fated people of Lot lived in Sodom and Gommorah in Palestine.

16:27; 39:26.

3:152; 8:13.

Commentary:

There lived at Medina three Jewish tribes—Banu Qainuqa‘, Banu Nadir and Banu Quraizah. The present verse refers to the banishment from Medina of the Banu Nadir. This tribe like Banu Qainuqa‘ before them, had acted treacherously towards Muslims on several occasions. They had hatched plots and had entered into secret alliances against them, with their enemies. They had repeatedly broken their plighted word and had repudiated the solemn agreement that they would remain neutral between the Holy Prophet and his enemies, and even had conspired to take his life. Their leader Ka‘b bin Ashraf had gone to Mecca to enlist the help of the Quraish and of other pagan tribes around Mecca in order to drive out the Muslims from Medina. After the temporary reverse suffered by Muslims at Uhud, their machinations and defiance of the Prophet had greatly increased. It was when the cup of their iniquities had become full to the brim and their presence in Medina had proved to be a constant source of mortal danger to Muslims and the Islamic State that the Holy Prophet had to take action against them. They were told to leave Medina. But the Prophet was exceptionally kind and considerate to them. He allowed them to carry their goods and chattels with them, and they departed from Medina in perfect safety, but not until they had despaired of the help they had expected from their Meccan allies and from the hypocrites of Medina, and had also found that their fortresses which they thought were impregnable could not save them. The Holy Prophet laid siege to the fortresses and after vainly holding out for about 21 days, they surrendered. They all left for Syria, only two families choosing to remain behind at Khaibar.

The reference in the words, "at the time of the first banishment" may be to the banishment of the Jewish tribe of BanuQainuqa‘ who had been expelled from Medina, sometime after the Battle of Badr, for their intrigues and defiance of the authority of the Holy Prophet, to whom they had pledged allegiance as the acknowledged Head of the Medina Republic. Or the words may refer to the banishment by the Holy Prophet from Medina of the three above-mentioned Jewish tribes. This was the first banishment. ‘Umar, the Holy Prophet’s Second Successor, however, banished all Jews from the whole of Arabia for the second and last time. Thus the words, "at the time of the first banishment" may be taken as embodying a prophecy that after the Jewish tribes of Medina will have been banished by the Holy Prophet, all the Jews of Arabia would suffer the same fate at some later time.

Before departing from Medina the Banu Nadir had destroyed their houses and other movable property before the very eyes of Muslims, because the Holy Prophet had given them ten days to dispose of their affairs as they liked. Thus the Jews of Medina were the originators of the scorched earth policy, centuries before the Russians had adopted it in the World War I1. The reference in the words "they destroyed their houses with their own hands," is to that policy.

The words, "you would not think that they would go forth," show that in view of the material resources, political alliances and organization of the Jews of Medina, the Muslims could not conceive that they could be driven out of Medinaso easily and without any loss of human life on either side.