Topic: Mate

7:20, 23; 20:117, 118.

Important Words:

شجرة (tree) is the singular of شجر (trees). It is derived from the verb شجر. The Arabs say شجرالامربینھم i.e. the affair or case became complicated and confused so as to be a subject of disagreement and difference between them. شجرة means, a tree, because of the intermixing or confusion of its branches. شجرة also signifies, the stock or origin of a man. They say, ھومن شجرة طیبة i.e. he is of a good stock or origin (Lane).

ظالمین (wrongdoers) is the plural of ظالم being derived from ظلم which means: (1) he put a thing in the wrong place or in a place not its own; (2) he made one suffer loss; (3) he transgressed or committed a wrong. A ظالم is thus one who does an inappropriate or improper thing; or one who commits a wrong; or one who makes someone suffer a loss (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

The word جنة (garden) occurring in this verse does not refer to Heaven or Paradise but simply to the garden-like place where Adam was first made to live. It cannot refer to Heaven: firstly, because it was on the earth that Adam was made to live, as the words, I am about to place a vicegerent in the earth, occurring in 2:31 clearly indicate.

Secondly, Heaven is a place from which no one who once enters it will ever be expelled (15:49), whereas Adam was made to quit the جنة (garden) spoken of in this verse. This shows that the جنة or garden in which Adam first dwelt was a place on this very earth which was given this name on account of the fertility of its soil and the abundance of its verdure. Recent researches go to show that the place where Adam was made to dwell was the garden of Eden which lay near Babylon in Iraq or Assyria.

According to the Bible, the forbidden شجرة (tree) was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17). But we learn from the Quran that after having eaten of the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve became naked which means that, unlike knowledge which is a source of goodness, the tree was a source of evil, making Adam exhibit a weakness. The Quranic view is evidently correct, because to deprive man of knowledge was to defeat the very purpose for which he had been brought into being. The Quran and the Bible seem, however, to agree on the point that the tree was not a real one, but only a symbol, because no tree with either of the above characteristics, i.e. making a man naked or giving him knowledge of good or evil, exists on the face of the globe. So the tree must represent something else.

As explained above, the word شجرة also means a quarrel. Says the Quran: But no, by thy Lord, they are not believers until they make thee judge in all that is in dispute between them (4:66).

Elsewhere, the Quran makes mention of two kinds of شجرة (1) شجرة طیبة (good tree) and (2) شجرة خبیثة (evil tree) for which see 14:25 & 27. Pure things and pure teachings are likened to the former, and impure things and impure thoughts are likened to the latter. In the light of these explanations, the verse would mean: (1) that Adam was enjoined to avoid quarrels; (2) that he was warned against evil things, because although the verse does not specify evil or good, yet the prohibition cannot but refer to impure and evil things.

The expression, eat therefrom plentifully wherever you will, indicates that the place where Adam lived had not yet come under the jurisdiction of anybody and was what may be termed "God’s land" which was given to Adam who was thus made lord of all he surveyed.

The concluding clause, lest you be of ظالمین or wrongdoers, means that the result of approaching the prohibited شجرة would be that Adam would become one of those who do not observe propriety in their actions for, as explained under Important Words, ظلم means, putting a thing at a wrong place.

Important Words:

تتلوا (followed). See 2:114

شیاطین (rebellious men). See 2:15.

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important Words:

یتراجعا (return to each other) is derived from رجع i.e. he returned; the word is used to indicate the coming together of people after their dispersal or separation, as they say تراجع القوم i.e. the people returned to the place from where they separated or left (Aqrab).

یقیما (observe) is derived from اقام which means, he made a thing stand upright; he observed or duly performed a religious commandment or duty, etc. (Lane). See also under 2:4.

تنکح (she marries) is derived from نکح. They say نکح or نکحت meaning (1) he or she married a spouse; (2) he or she had sexual intercourse with his or her spouse. In the present verse the word is used in the latter sense. See also 2:222.

Commentary:

This verse refers to the third and final pronouncement of divorce after which the husband loses all right of reunion with his wife unless the divorced woman marries another man and establishes conjugal relations with him, and is then formally divorced by him or he dies, leaving her free to marry another man. By the inclusion of this provision in the law of divorce, Islam has, on the one hand, enhanced the sanctity of the marriage tie which must not be trifled with and has declared unlawful the evil practice of حلالة (halalah); and, on the other, it has afforded yet another opportunity to the couple who once had lived as husband and wife to become reunited if they so desired. The practice of halalah referred to above consists in a divorced woman marrying a man, other than her former husband, with the object of obtaining divorce from him and thereby making herself lawful for the former husband. Islam condemns this practice as a thing accursed (Tirmidhi ch. on Nikah) and enjoins that marriage with and divorce from another husband must both be genuine.

Important Words:

لاتعضلوھن (prevent them not) is derived from عضل. They say عضلھا i.e. he prevented or debarred her from marrying. The primary signification of عضل is the act of straitening or preventing, or withholding or debarring. عضل means, he straitened him in his affairs and intervened as an obstacle between him and that which he desired (Taj).

تراضوا (agree between themselves) is derived from رضی i.e. he was pleased, or he was satisfied, or he agreed. تراضی القومmeans, the people agreed between themselves, or they came to a mutual agreement (Aqrab).

ازکی (more blessed) is derived from زکا which means, it increased or augmented; it received blessing from God; it was or became pure. ازکی means, more blessed, containing greater benefits, conducive to more good (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The word "husbands" mentioned in this verse may refer either to former husbands or to prospective ones. In the former case, the clause, and when you divorce women, would be taken as referring to the first or second pronouncement of divorce. Sometimes, when a husband desires to take back his wife before pronouncing the third or irrevocable divorce, her offended relatives do not like her to go back to him again and therefore try to prevent her from remarrying him. The verse condemns that practice. In case the word "husbands" stands for prospective husbands, the above phrase would refer to the third or final divorce. Some men, even after the complete dissolution of their marriage, do not like the idea that their divorced wives should marry other persons and try to prevent them from contracting new marriages. This practice is also condemned in the clause, prevent them not from marrying their (prospective) husbands. Should the guardian of a divorced woman prevent her from remarrying her former husband or should the former husband prevent her from marrying a new husband, she can do so with the permission of the Qadi or the judge. The verse under comment also implies a repudiation of the evil practice of pronouncing three divorces at one and the same time, because had it been permissible, the question of divorced women remarrying their former husbands would have been meaningless.

2:241.

2:229.

Important Words:

یتوفون (who die) is derived from توفی which is derived from وفی (wafa). They say وفی بالعھد i.e. he fulfilled his promise; he was faithful in his word. وفی فلانا حقه (waffa) means, he gave him his right in full. اوفی gives both the meanings ascribed to وفی and وفی(waffa) above. توفی means, he took something in full, as they say توفی حقه i.e. he got or obtained his right in full. توفی الله زیداmeans, God took away the soul of Zaid, leaving the body behind; God caused Zaid to die. توفی فلان means, his soul was taken away, i.e. he died. In this case God is متوفی (mutawaffi) and the man who dies is متوفی (mutawaffa). الوفاة means, death (Aqrab). The Quran says: الله یتوفی الانفس حین موتھاوالتی لم تمت فی منامھا i.e. God takes away the souls of men at the time of their death; and He also takes away the souls of men that have not died, during their sleep (39:43). The Arabic idiom, which has the support of the Quranic usage, definitely shows that wherever God is فاعل (i.e. subject) and a being having a soul is مفعول به(i.e. object) the word توفی invariably means, the taking away of the soul.

Commentary:

After having dealt with the question of the remarriage of divorced women, the Quran in this verse proceeds to issue commandments regarding widows. The عدة i.e. the period of waiting in the case of widows, is four months and ten days which roughly corresponds to four alternate periods of menstruation and purity combined. Islam has prescribed a longer period in the case of a widow as a mark of respect for her feelings at the death of her husband and has thus added to the dignity and sanctity of the marriage tie.

This verse also implies a rebuke to those who are opposed to widow remarriage, thinking it to be an insult to the family and a disgrace to the widowed woman. The words, what is fair, show that it is not only lawful, but preferable and desirable, for a widow to remarry. The words, in anything that they do with regard to themselves, obviously refer to remarriage. Elsewhere the Quran says, And marry your widows (24:33).

2:235.

Commentary:

The middle verses, which came in like the middle Prayer, having ended, the Quran reverts to the original subject of conjugal relations. The verse under comment is erroneously believed by some to have been abrogated by 2:235 and 4:13. Apart from the fact that the abrogation theory is based on lack of the knowledge of true teaching of the Quran, there is nothing in the verses referred to above which contradicts the provision contained in the present verse. The period of waiting laid down for a widow in 2:235 is four months and ten days in which time she can, as of right, claim residence and maintenance from the heirs of her deceased husband. The period of one year mentioned in the present verse has nothing to do with the above-mentioned period of waiting, as the words, but if they themselves go out, there shall be no blame upon you; clearly show. The present verse only contains a concession or a favour for a widow in addition to her right of residence and maintenance mentioned in 2:235. One year is about the time conveniently required by a widow for making suitable arrangements about her future. It is also the requisite time for a pregnant widow to be delivered of the child and relieved of the encumbrances attending thereto. Nor has this verse anything to do with the share of a widow in the property left by her husband as stated in 4:13. The concession about residence and maintenance for one year mentioned in the present verse forms no part of her share in the inheritance. The verse contains no obligatory injunction, but only an additional exhortation to the heirs of the deceased person to show special kindness to the widow for a period of one year, just as the following verse embodies an identical exhortation in favour of a divorced woman.

33:71; 59:19.

7:190; 16:73; 30:22; 39:7.

Important Words:

رقیبا (Watcher) is derived from رقب. They say رقبه i.e. he watched him; or guarded him; or waited for him; or he kept or preserved it. رقیبis one of God’s attributes meaning, Watcher, Guardian, Keeper; One from Whom nothing is hidden.رقیب also means, an observer; a spy (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The words نفس واحدة (single soul) may signify: (1) Adam; or (2) man and woman taken together, because when two things jointly perform one function, they may be spoken of as one. For instance, 2:62 speaks of one food, while it consisted of manna and quails; or (3) man and woman taken individually, because mankind may be said to have been created from one "single soul" in the sense that each and every individual is created from the seed of man who is "one soul" and is also born of woman who is likewise "one soul".

The expression, and created therefrom its mate, does not mean that woman was created out of the body of man but that she belonged to the same kind and species as man, having the same nature and the same propensities. The meaning of this expression becomes clear when elsewhere we read in the Quran: And Allah has made for you mates from among yourselves (16:73); and He has made for you pairs of your own selves, and of the cattle also pairs (42:12). This means that, like other human beings, a wife was provided for Adam from his own species. And just as other men’s wives are not created from their ribs, so was the wife of Adam not created out of his ribs; and just as our wives have been made from ourselves in the sense that they are of the same kind as ourselves, so was the wife of Adam created from his rib in the sense that she belonged to the same race as Adam did. The preposition من (from) which has given rise to this misconception has been used in the Quran not only about Adam but about other men as well (e.g. 4:60; 9:128; 10:3; 62:3, 4), and in both cases it should mean the same thing, i.e. belonging to the same kind or species. The Quran lends no support whatever to the view that Eve was actually created from the rib of Adam, as is clear from the following verses: We have created you in pairs (78:9); And of everything have We created pairs (51:50), which means that, just as God created a mate for every living thing, so did He make one for Adam. He did not need to depart from this law in respect of Adam and to create a female for him out of his own body.

The idea of Eve having been created out of the rib of Adam seems to have arisen from a saying of the Holy Prophet to the effect "Women have been created from a rib, and surely, the most crooked part of a rib is the highest part thereof. If you set yourself to straighten it, you will break it" (Bukhari, ch. on Nikah). This hadith is, however, an argument against the above view rather than in favour of it, for it makes no mention of Eve, and speaks of all women, and it is clear that every woman has not been created from a rib.

The expression "created from a rib" is evidently figurative and must not be taken literally. What it means is only that, like unto a rib, there is a sort of crookedness in the nature of woman and that this very crookedness lends charm to her. An analogous Quranic expression, viz.: خلق الانسان من عجل i.e. "man is made of (lit. from) haste" (21:38) helps to illustrate the point. These words clearly do not mean that man has been created out of a substance called عجل or haste. They mean only that man is hasty by nature. The above view has been supported by Majma‘ul Bihar, Bahrul-Muhit and Sirajul-Wahhaj, which all agree that in the above hadith the Arabic word ضلع means a certain crookedness of manners, the word itself meaning crookedness.

In fact, this hadith refers to a certain peculiarity of woman, viz. her affectation of displeasure and coquetry. This "crookedness" has been spoken of in the hadith as the highest or the best trait in her character, and those, who take affectation of anger on her part as an expression of her real anger and begin to deal harshly with her for that reason, in fact destroy woman’s most attractive and winning feature.

The verse places "the fear of God", side by side with "respect for the ties of relationship", thus emphasizing the importance of good treatment of relatives, on which the Quran lays so much stress. The Holy Prophet used to recite this verse when delivering a marriage sermon in order to remind the parties of their duties to one another.

4:177.

Important Words:

کلالة (one who has neither parent nor child) is derived from کل i.e. he was or became fatigued, tired or wearied and could proceed no further; he was or became one having no child and no parent, the latter meaning being based on the former, as a person having no child or parent becomes, as it were, too fatigued for the racial march. کلالة is (1) a person who leaves behind neither father nor child, male or female; or (2) a person who leaves behind neither father nor son. According to Ibn ‘Abbas, کلالة is a person who leaves no son irrespective of the fact whether his father is living or not. This would thus be the third meaning of کلالة (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

The first part of this verse determines the share of the husband and the wife in inheritance and needs no comment. The latter part deals with the case of a Kalalah, i.e. one who leaves neither parent nor child and whose property is inherited by his or her brother and sister. Now, if there is only one brother and one sister, each of them will get one-sixth. But if they are more than that, they will be sharers in one-third.

It should, however, be noted that in this respect brothers and sisters fall under three heads; firstly, real brothers or sisters, offspring of the same parents (such brothers or sisters are technically known as اعیانی a‘yani); secondly, brothers and sisters on the side of the father only (these are technically known as علاتی ‘allati); thirdly, brothers and sisters on the side of the mother only, their father being not the same as that of the deceased (such brothers and sisters being technically called اخیافی akhyafi). It is to the last-mentioned class that the commandment given in the present verse pertains; the law with regard to the first two classes of brothers and sisters being given in the last verse of this Surah.

The reader will further note that the shares allotted to the brothers and sisters of the last-mentioned class are smaller than those allotted to the brothers and sisters of the first two classes, the reason being that the brothers and sisters of this class are on the side of the mother only, while the brothers and the sisters of the other two classes are the children of the same father as the deceased.

It is also noteworthy that in the property of a person who dies as a Kalalah, as mentioned in the present verse, both brothers and sisters have equal shares, the usual ratio of two to one not being observed in their case.

The words, "without prejudice to the debt", are important. They mean that the payment of debts should not suffer by the payment of bequests. In other words, debts are to be paid prior to the payment of bequests. It was in compliance with this Quranic injunction that the Holy Prophet used to have the debts paid before the payment of bequests. The rights of other people must be safeguarded before any bequest made by the deceased is complied with. So strict was the Holy Prophet in these matters that he refused to perform the funeral service of the man whose debts were likely to remain unpaid.

It may incidentally be noted here that heirs are divided into two main groups:

1. ذووالفرائض (Dhawul-Fara’id), i.e. persons to whom Islam allots a fixed and definite share (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 2/3, 1/3 or 1/6), or in the estate of a deceased person.

2. عصبات (‘Asabat), i.e. the heirs who receive the residue after the Dhawul-Fara’id have received their allotted shares.

It is, however, not necessary that a member of the first group should always remain a Dhul-Faridah. In certain cases, he may be both a Dhul-Faridah (sharer) and an ‘Asaba (residuary) and in other cases he may be simply an ‘Asaba.

The Dhawul-Fara’id (sharers) are 12 in number, four males and eight females. The males are: 1. father, 2. paternal grandfather, 3. husband and 4. half-brother on the maternal side. The females are: (1) daughter, (2) son’s daughter, (3) mother, (4) wife, (5) full sister, (6) half-sister on paternal side, (7) half-sister on maternal side, and (8) grandmother whether paternal or maternal.

The ‘Asabat (residuaries) are of four kinds: (1) ascendants of the deceased, i.e. father, paternal grandfather, etc. (2) descendants of the deceased, i.e. son, son’s son, etc. (3) descendants of the father of the deceased, i.e. full brother, brother’s son, etc. (4) descendants of the grandfather, i.e. full paternal uncle, paternal uncle’s son, etc.

Important Words:

بھتان (lying) is the noun-infinitive from بھت. They say بھته i.e. he slandered him or accused him falsely; or he did so in such a manner as to make him confounded at the falsity of the charge. بھتان therefore means, a calumny, slander or false accusation; falsehood by reason of which one is perplexed or confounded and is rendered unable to see his right course; a false accusation of adultery against a woman (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The verse does not mean that man can divorce his wife at will. Anas, a Companion of the Holy Prophet, relates that once Abu Ayyub and Abu Talha wanted to divorce their wives (without valid reason) and asked the Holy Prophet about it. He counselled them not to do so, characterizing their act as an act of injustice. Thereupon, they abandoned their intention of divorcing their wives and retained them. This does not mean that a husband cannot divorce his wife without obtaining the permission of the authorities; he can do so, if he so desires; but he will certainly be accountable before God if he does so without valid reason. Elsewhere the Holy Prophet is reported to have said, "Surely of the things sanctioned by the Law of Islam the most hateful in the sight of God is divorce" (Dawud, ch. on, Talaq).

If for some special reason a man wishes to divorce one wife and marry another, he is not allowed to take back from the former what he has already given her, no matter however big the sum may be. If he does so, he will be guilty of infidelity and sin.

2:38; 20:118.

Commentary:

See 2:36.

4:2; 16:73; 39:7.

30:22.

Commentary:

By the words, a single soul, is here meant the father. The verse does not refer to Adam or for that matter to any particular man but speaks of men generally. See also 4:2.

The verse describes one of the objects of marriage, which is that man and woman may be a source of comfort and solace to each other. Man is highly social by nature, and it is his natural craving for a close companion that is supplied by marriage. Without the institution of marriage man, in most cases, would have vainly spent his whole life in search of a true and loyal companion.

14:12; 40:79.

Commentary:

Disbelievers objected that the Holy Prophet had come without any worldly resources. The verse under comment replies to this objection by stating that earlier Prophets were also without any worldly resources. They, like him, had their physical needs and requirements. They, too, had wives and children whom they had to support and look after and had their duties to perform. Yet in spite of all the impediments and obstacles in their way and in spite of their physical needs and requirements and of the absence of material resources, they succeeded and triumphed. So shall the Holy Prophet.

The verse also makes it clear that signs of punishment are certainly shown to disbelievers but not at the time and in the form in which they demand them. The form and time of signs are determined by God alone, for they are shown only "by the command of Allah."

It may be asked here what, if God raised Messengers for the reformation of man, prevented Him from delegating to these Messengers the power of punishment, particularly when He knew that Signs would be demanded of them by their opponents and also when even earthly governments invest their officials with certain magisterial powers? Again, if God had invested His Prophets with the power to punish the people, it would have at least this advantage that the people would have feared and respected them and dared not oppose them. The Quran answers this question in the words, For every term there is a divine decree, which means that, as it is God Who determines the nature and form of each punishment and the time of its occurrence and He alone, being All-Knowing, knows in what form and at what time the sending down of a certain punishment will prove beneficial to the people, the power of punishing cannot be delegated to any other person. For if that delegation can at all be fair and useful, it must be accompanied by the delegation of many other divine powers, which is simply unthinkable. The infliction of punishment, therefore, could not be entrusted to the Prophets or to anybody else.

4:2; 7:190; 30:22; 39:7.

29:68.

Important Words:

حفدة (grandsons) is derived from حفد which means, he was quick or went quickly; was continuous in his course or pace. حفد فی العمل means, he was quick and active, agile or prompt, in work. حفدہ means, he served him. حفدة means, assistants, helpers, or auxiliaries and servants; a man’s grandchildren or sons’ children or a son’s children; children or daughters who serve their parents in the house or a man’s children or grandchildren who serve him (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

In this and the adjoining verses the two themes of the need of a revealed Law and the Unity of Godhead have been dealt with from various points of view, not at random, but in support of each other, and it has been made clear that while on the one hand man is apt to fall a victim to polytheistic beliefs and practices without a revealed Law, on the other the Unity of God requires that God should make provision for man’s guidance. As there is no other god except Him, He Himself must provide for the guidance of His creatures. The Oneness of God implies His perfection and that perfection demands that the creation of man must have a purpose, for a purposeless creation suggests a defective Creator. Again, if man were considered to have been created with a purpose, the fulfilment of that purpose would necessarily require an afterlife, for evidently such a purpose is incapable of being fulfilled in the brief span of man’s terrestrial existence. Now the purpose which requires limitless and infinite life for its fulfilment must be highly noble and sublime and so the Law which is intended to accomplish it must also proceed from God Himself. Thus the subjects of the Unity of God and the need of revealed guidance have been mentioned in support of each other in different forms in these verses and just as in the physical world we see that things receive support from one another, similarly in the spiritual realm various parts of the spiritual edifice support one another in order to establish the one supreme truth of the Oneness of God and the Unity and uniformity of creation.

The verse adduces another argument in support of the Unity of Godhead, viz. the human instinct of private possession. It was pointed out in the previous verse that the exclusive possession of wealth and power by certain individuals makes it necessary that there should be a revealed Law to maintain equality and justice between different classes. In this verse it is stated that the instinct of private possession prompts man to transmit his property to his natural heirs and not to strangers. How then can he, in fairness to God, dare set up 'partners' who should share Godhead with Him and thus set the seal on his ingratitude to Him? The way in which man displays his ingratitude to God is dealt with in the next verse.

7:23; 18:51.

Commentary:

الجنة (the garden) does not refer to Heaven or Paradise but only to the garden-like place where Adam was first made to live. The word cannot refer to heaven; first, because it was on the earth that Adam was made to live, as the words: "I am about to place a vicegerent in the earth" (2:31) indicate; and secondly, because heaven is a place from where no one having once entered it can ever be expelled (15:49), whereas Adam was compelled to leave the جنة referred to in this verse. Recent archaeological researches show that the place where Adam was made to dwell was the garden of Eden which lay near Babylon in Iraq, and which was given this name on account of the great fertility of its soil (Enc. Brit. under "Ur"). See also 2:35, 36.

The Bible also lends support to this view. It says: "And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom He had formed" (Gen. 2:8).

The verse means to warn Adam that if he succumbed to the blandishments held out to him by Iblis and accepted his advice, he would become deprived of جنة i.e. the life of bliss, comfort and spiritual contentment which he had formerly enjoyed.

32:17.

Commentary:

The verse shows that from a spiritual point of view Zachariah’s family was an ideal one.

70:30.

Important Words:

فروجھم (their chastity) is the plural of فرج (farjun) which is derived from فرج (faraja). فرج الشیء means, he opened the thing so as to make a gap or breach. فرج means, the pudendum or pudenda; the part or parts of a person which it is indecent to expose; or the external portion of the organs of generation of a man or a woman; an open, wide space; the part between the two sides of a valley, i.e. entrance; a frontier of access to a country (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse refers to the fourth stage in the spiritual development of man. It indeed marks a very high stage. The lesson is writ large on the pages of history that many a nation has gone to rack and ruin because they abandoned themselves to immoral practices. Sexual morality plays a very important part in the building up of the national character of a people. Islam is very keen on this point. It regards the guarding of sexual chastity as one of the most sacred duties of a believer. It has closed the door to all those avenues which lead to moral laxity. The word فرج signifies those avenues through which evil thoughts find access to the human heart. It covers all parts and organs of the body, i.e. eyes, ears, tongue, hands, feet etc. Islam looks with extreme disfavour upon all those practices which are calculated to excite human passions and which are so popular in the west or among people enamoured of western ways of life.

The verse marks a still higher stage in the spiritual development of man than the one mentioned in v. 5 above. It seems much easier to spend one’s money and property in the way of God, to which reference has been made in the preceding verse, than to overcome one’s carnal passions when they once get excited. Man has suffered more from the gratification of his sensual appetites than perhaps from any other evil. The curbing of carnal desires requires a greater mental discipline than the spending of wealth in good causes.

70:31.

Important Words:

ما ملکت أیمانھم (what their right hands possess). أیمان is the plural of یمین which is derived from یمن یمین. They say یمن الرجل i.e. he came from the right hand of the man. یمن اللّٰه فلاناً means, God blessed such a one.

یمین means, good luck; the right hand; power and strength; a covenant confirmed by an oath; a good position. They say فلان عندنا بالیمین i.e. such a one possesses high position with us. An Arab would say ھذا ملک یمینی i.e. he or it is in the possession of my right hand, meaning, he or it is in my possession (Lisan & Aqrab). The expression ما ملکت ایمانھم generally signifies prisoners of war whether men or women, who are in the custody and control of their Muslim captors because they had taken part in a war which was waged to destroy Islam. The term has been used in the Quran in preference to عباد and اماء (slaves and bondwomen) to point to a just and rightful possession. It includes both slaves and bondwomen, but it is only the context which determines what the expression signifies in a particular place. See also 4:25.

Commentary:

Much misunderstanding prevails as to what the expression "their right hands possess" signifies, and what are the rights and status of the persons to whom it applies.

It should be clearly understood that Islam has condemned slavery in unequivocal terms. According to it, it is a mortal sin to deprive a person of his liberty by kidnapping him, i.e. to make him a slave, unless, of course, he renders himself liable to deprivation of it by taking part in a war waged to destroy Islam or an Islamic state. It is also a grievous sin to buy or sell slaves. All human beings as such are equal in the sight of God and enjoy equal human rights. Islamic teaching on this point is quite clear, unequivocal and emphatic. According to it a person who makes another person his slave commits a grave sin against God and man (Bukhari, Kitabul-Bai’ & Abu Dawud as quoted by Fathul-Bari). It is also worthy of note that when Islam came into the world slavery was a part and parcel of the human social system and there existed large number of slaves in every country. It was therefore not feasible, nor even wise, to abolish with a stroke of the pen, an institution which had become so inextricably interwoven into the whole texture of human society, without doing serious injury to its moral tone. Islam, therefore, sought to abolish it gradually but effectively and surely. The Quran has laid down the following very sound principles for the speedy and complete abolition of slavery:

(1) Prisoners of war (i.e. ما ملکت أیمانھم) can only be taken after a regular battle.

(2) They cannot be retained after the war is over.

(3) They are to be set free either as a mark of favour or by exchange of prisoners.

The Quran says:

And when you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks; and when you have overcome them; bind fast the fetters—then afterwards either release them as a favour or by taking ransom—until the war lays down its arms. That is the ordinance (47:5).

Those unfortunate persons however, who, may fail to gain their freedom through any of these means, or should choose to remain with their Muslim masters can purchase it by entering into a contract called mukatabat (24:34). Now if a woman is taken prisoner in a war of the nature mentioned above and thus loses her liberty and becomes ملک یمین and she fails to get her release by exchange of prisoners of war, and the exigencies of government also do not justify her immediate release as a mark of favour, nor do her own people or government get her ransomed and she does not even seek to buy her freedom by entering into mukatabat and her master, in the interest of morality marries her, whether she likes it or not, in what way, it may be asked, can this arrangement be regarded as objectionable and the great hue and cry raised over it as justified or justifiable?

Let it be clearly understood that as regards establishing sexual relations with a female prisoner of war or a slave-wife, which is the real significance of the expression ما ملکت أیمانھم used in the present verse, without first marrying her, neither this nor any other verse of the Quran lends any support whatsoever. Not only does the Quran not give any sanction for the treatment of female prisoners of war as wives without first taking them into proper wedlock, but there are clear and positive injunctions to the effect that these prisoners of war, like free women, should be married if they are to be treated as wives, the only difference between the two being a difference of social status inasmuch as prior consent of prisoners of war to their marriage is not considered necessary as in the case of free women. The fact that the expression ما ملکت أیمانھم signifies female prisoners lends no support whatsoever to the untenable view that Islam has upheld and encouraged concubinage. Besides the present verse, at least in as many as four other verses of the Quran, the injunction has been laid down in clear and unambiguous terms that female prisoners of war should not remain unmarried. These verses are as follows:

1. And marry widows from among you and your male-slaves and female-slaves who are fit for marriage (24:33).

2. And those of you who cannot afford to marry free believing women, let them marry what your right hands possess, namely your believing handmaids—so marry them with the leave of their masters and give them their dowries according to what is fair (4:26).

3. And if you fear that you will not be fair in dealing with the orphans, then marry of women as may be agreeable to you, two or three or four; and if you fear you will not deal justly, then marry only one or (if you cannot afford to marry even one free wife then marry) what your right hands possess (4:4).

The verse may also be rendered as "then marry of women as may be agreeable to you two or three or four or what your right hands possess;" the words "and if you fear you will not deal justly, then marry only one," forming a parenthetical clause. According to this rendering also slave-girls are to be married before they are treated as wives.

4. And marry not idolatrous women until they believe; even a believing bondwoman is better than an idolatrous woman, although she may highly please you (2:222).

The sense being that a believing slave wife should be preferred to a non-believing free wife. The Holy Prophet is also very explicit on this point. He is reported to have said, "He who has a slave girl, and gives her proper education and brings her up in a becoming manner and then frees and marries her, for him is double reward" (Bukhari, Kitabul-‘Ilm). This hadith implies that if a Muslim wishes to have a slave girl as wife, he should first set her free and then marry her. The Holy Prophet’s own practice was quite in harmony with his precept. Two of the Holy Prophet’s wives, Juwairiyyah and Safiyyah, came to him as prisoners of war. They were his ملک یمین. But he married them according to Islamic Law. Mariyah was sent to him by the King of Egypt. He also married her and she enjoyed the status of a free wife like his other wives. She observed "purdah" and was included among "the Mothers of the Faithful."

Another verse of the Quran, viz. O Prophet We have made lawful to thee thy wives whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesses from among those whom Allah has given thee as gains of war, and the daughters of thy paternal uncle, and the daughters of thy paternal aunts, and the daughters of thy maternal uncle, and the daughters of thy maternal aunts who have migrated with thee (33:51), points to the fact that the commandment regarding marriage applies to ما ملکت أیمانکم (whom your right hands possess) as much as it does to daughters of the Holy Prophet’s paternal and maternal uncles and aunts. Both are to be legally wedded before they are treated as wives. All the three categories mentioned above were made lawful to the Holy Prophet through marriage.

The verse 4:25 viz. And forbidden to you are married women, except such as your right hands possess, seems to present some difficulty. But in reality there is no such difficulty. The verse along with its predecessor deals with women whom it is unlawful for a man to marry and among these are included married women. But it makes one exception. Those married women who are taken prisoner in a religious war and then choose to remain with Muslims, can be married to their masters. The fact that they choose not to go to their former husbands is considered as tantamount to the annulment of their former marriage.

It may also be noted in passing that it is not permitted to take in marriage such female relations of a slave as correspond to the relations of a free woman within the prohibited degree. For instance, the mothers, sisters, daughters etc., of a slave wife cannot be taken in marriage. This also shows that the Quranic commandments with regard to marriage and in-laws apply as much to bondwomen as they apply to free women.

It may further be stated here that in view of circumstances obtaining at the time of its revelation the Quran had to make a distinction between the social status of two classes of women. That distinction was expressed by the word زوج (a free woman taken in marriage) and ملک یمین (bondwoman taken in marriage). The former word connotes a sense of equality between husband and wife while the latter implies an inferior status of the wife. The Quran and the Holy Prophet, however, desired and encouraged that bondwomen should first be given full freedom and full status and then married as the Holy Prophet himself did.

Besides, Islam does not allow women taken prisoner in ordinary wars to be treated as wives. This exceptional injunction comes into operation only when a hostile nation wages a religious war against Islam in order to extirpate it and to compel Muslims to abandon their religion at the point of the sword and then treats their prisoners—men and women, as slaves, as was done in the time of the Holy Prophet. At that time the enemy took away Muslim women as prisoners and treated them as bondwomen. The Islamic injunction was thus only a retaliatory measure and served also the additional purpose of protecting the morals of captive women. Those conditions have ceased to exist now. There are no religious wars now and hence no prisoners of war to be treated as slaves and bondwomen. For a fuller note on slavery see 24:34.

Commentary:

As suspicion between husband and wife is likely to cast a severe strain on the whole family relations, a special regulation has been laid down in the verse under comment to meet such an unhappy situation if it ever happens to arise. If a husband accuses his wife of adultery he has to declare on oath four times that his allegation is true.