Topic: Good Things, (Tayyibat)

7:161.

7:161; 20:81.

Important Words:

من (Manna). The infinitive من signifies bestowing favour on or doing good to. They say من علیه i.e. he bestowed a favour on him without his labouring for it. من means: (1) a favour; (2) anything obtained without trouble or difficulty; (3) honey-dew (Aqrab).

سلوی (Salwa) is derived from سلا. They say سلا عن الشیء i.e. he was satisfied with it سلاه عن الشیء means, he satisfied him with it; he removed his grief and worry through it. سلوی is (1) a whitish bird resembling a quail and found in some parts of Arabia and the neighbouring countries. It also means, (2) whatever renders a person contented and happy; (3) honey (Aqrab).

Commentary:

As the Israelites were camping in hot and open country, God speaks of the clouds having been sent to give them shade. We learn from Exod. 40:34-38, that clouds spread and shaded the spot where the Israelites encamped, and that they dispersed on the day when it was time for them to resume their journey. But the verse under comment shows that the clouds meant not only shadow but also rainfall because, firstly, it is rain-clouds that are generally dark and dense; and, secondly, along with the "clouds," the Quran also mentions two eatables, Manna and Salwa, which served as complement to the favour mentioned in the shadowing clouds. In fact, there was scarcity of both water and food in that arid country, and God used to quench their thirst by sending clouds, and satisfy their hunger by providing Manna and Salwa. And, no wonder, for God shows special favours to His servants in order to remove their difficulties and promote their comfort.

The sending down of Manna and Salwa has been mentioned in Exod. 16:11-15, where we read: "And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God. And it came to pass that at even the quails came up, and covered the camp: and in the morning the dew lay round about the host. And when the dew that lay was gone up, behold, upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round thing, as small as the hoar frost on the ground. And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna: for they wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the Lord hath given you to eat."

When the children of Israel got no food in the wilderness and death stared them in the face, they began to murmur against Moses and Aaron. They said to them: "Would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger" (Exod. 16:3). These murmurings of the Israelites were answered in the passage quoted above.

The Holy Prophet refers to the Manna bestowed on the Israelites in the following, hadith. Says he: "The mushroom is one of the things included in the Manna, and the sap of it heals the eye" (Bukhari). He is also reported to have said: "The mushroom is among the things which God bestowed upon Moses, as a free gift" (Muhit). This shows that God provided the Israelites with a number of things in the wilderness, sometimes with one thing and sometimes with another.

The verse does not mention how the Israelites "wronged themselves". But as God speaks here of the favours bestowed upon them, it is evident that they wronged themselves by showing ingratitude and by murmuring and complaining of their lot in spite of God’s special favours. By doing so, however, they did no harm to God or His Messenger, but only harmed their own souls.

5:6; 16:115; 23:52; 40:65.

Commentary:

The injunction contained in the words, "eat of طیبات i.e. good, pure and wholesome things", indicates that Muslims are not allowed to use things which may, in any way, injure their physical or moral or spiritual health, though they may be حلال i.e. allowed by Law. The injunction is thus very important and far-reaching in its effect. The words, We have provided for you, further imply that Muslims are also not allowed to make use of things acquired by unfair and unlawful means. Only the things bestowed by God, i.e. those lawfully earned, are to be used.

Important Words:

تیمموا (seek) is derived from یم or ام. They say یمه i.e. he sought it. یمم فلانابرمح means, he sought and singled out that person for attacking with his spear. تیمم الامر means, he sought and singled out the affair. تیمم للصلوة means, he performed what is termed تیمم for his Prayers, i.e. instead of performing the prescribed ablution with water he sought dust and touching it with his hands passed them over his face, etc. (Aqrab & Mufradat).

خبیث (bad) is derived from خبث i.e. he or it was or became bad or foul or abominable or wicked or filthy or impure (Lane).

تغمضوا (connive) is derived from اغمض which again is derived from غمض i.e. it became hidden and concealed. غمض فی الکلامmeans, he made his speech obscure, and abstained from making it clear in meaning. اغمض means, he closed, or shut his eyes; he connived at something so as to practically treat it as something unseen or hidden. اغمض فی البیع means, he demanded a lowering of the price of a thing owing to its badness. اغمض عنه فی البیع means, he connived at the bad quality of the thing and was not strict settling its price (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

The verse implies that believers should not only spend in the cause of Allah but should spend what is good and pure; for even a lawfully-earned property might include things that are bad. They should not deliberately select worthless and worn out things for the purpose of charity. Old and second-hand things may indeed be given to the poor, but such things should not be specially selected or singled out for this purpose. Indeed, a believer can be said to have properly discharged his duty for "spending" in the cause of Allah only if he spends "good things".

4:11, 128; 6:153; 17:35.

Important Words:

حوبا (sin) is derived from حاب meaning, he sinned; he did what was unlawful. حوب means: (1) a great sin or simply sin or crime; (2) wrong or injustice; (3) perdition, destruction or death; (4) disease; (5) a trial, trouble or affliction (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

After mentioning two favours of God in the previous verse, viz. the multiplying of many men and women from a "single soul", and preserving them from destruction by instituting ties of relationship, the Quran proceeds to emphasize the need of protecting posterity by safeguarding the rights and interests of orphans.

The expression, and exchange not the bad for the good, means that if you do not give the orphans their property, the result will be that your own pure possessions will become impure and you yourselves will suffer in the long run.

The words, devour not their property with your own, contain a warning to guardians not to mix up the property of orphans with their own with the intention of misappropriating it. The clause also hints that if the guardian of an orphan possesses sufficient means of subsistence, he should not take anything out of the property of his ward as a compensation for his guardianship.

Important Words:

سکاری (not in full possession of your senses) is the plural of سکران which is derived from سکر i.e. he was or became intoxicated, inebriated or drunken. They say سکر علی فلان i.e. such a one became angry or violently angry with him. سکرت الریح means, the wind, became still after blowing. سکر الباب means, he closed or stopped up the door. سکرة الموت means, the intoxication or agony of death which causes confusion of intellect and deprives the sufferer of reason. سکرة الھم والنومmeans, the oppressive sensation, etc. attendant upon anxiety and upon sleep. سکر (sukrun) which is the noun-infinitive from the verb سکر means, the state of intoxication, inebriation or drunkenness; a state that intervenes as an obstruction between a man and his intellect, mostly used in relation to intoxicating drinks but sometimes as meaning such a state arising from anger or from the passion of love, etc. (Lane). For further explanation see 15:73; 22:3. In view of the different meanings of this word a person would be called سکران (intoxicated) when he is drunk; or is in a fit of anger; or in raptures of love; or has received a great and sudden shock; or is stricken with fear; or is overpowered by sleep or some other disturbing element which may distract his attention or obscure his reason, etc.

جنبا (unclean) is derived from جنب. They say جنبه i.e. he led him or it by his side; he put him or it at a distance. جنب الیهmeans he was or became disquieted by a vehement desire to see or meet him. جنابة means distance; the stage of being unclean owing to sexual intercourse or discharge of semen, when it becomes obligatory for one to perform total ablution by bathing. جنب means, stranger; one who is distant and remote; or ( who is under the obligation of performing total ablution (bathing) by reason of sexual intercourse or discharge of semen. The word is used both as masculine and feminine, singular and plural (Lane).

عابری سبیل (are travelling along a way) عابری is really عابرین which is the plural of عابر which is derived from عبر. They say عبرہ i.e. he crossed it, went across it, or passed over it from one side to another. عبر السبیل means, he travelled or passed along the way or road. عبر also means, he died, as though he had travelled the road of life (Lane). The expression عابری سبیل signifies one who is actually travelling. Every person away from home cannot be called عابری سبیل. Again, if a person is away from home on a journey but halts at a place or decides to stay in a town or village for a few days, he will not be reckoner as one of the عابری سبیل (those travelling along a way); but if, while travelling, he halts for a night on the roadside, for example in a inn or at a rest-house or at a railway station, etc., he will be regarded as one.

غائط (privy) is derived from غاط which means, he or it became hidden in the ground; he dug, excavated or hollowed out in the earth; it sank or became depressed in the ground; it descended or sloped downwards in the ground. غائط therefore means:(1) a wide and depressed piece of ground having acclivities bordering it; (2) a place in which one satisfies one’s want of nature, the custom being to do so in a depressed place where one may remain hidden; (3) human excrement or ordure because it is cast away in a غائط (a depressed place). The expression اتی الغائط means, he responded to the call of nature; he satisfied the want of nature; he voided excrement or ordure (Lane).

تیمموا (betake yourselves to) is derived from یممه. They say یممه i.e. he aimed at it or desired it, or he betook himself to it. تیمم المریض means, the sick man, instead of performing the usual ablution for Prayer, betook himself to pure dust and wiped his face and hands therewith. تیمم (tayammum) is technically the process of striking the palms of the hands on the surface of pure earth and then wiping or passing them over the face, etc., in the prescribed manner (Taj).

Commentary:

According to this verse, Prayer cannot be considered to have been properly performed if the devotee simply repeats the words of Prayer without understanding what he says. It is also implicit in the verse that a non-Arab Muslim, besides praying in the prescribed Arabic words, should also pray to God and supplicate to Him in his own tongue, in the language which he usually speaks and in which he can best express his thoughts and feelings.

The word سکاری though primarily meaning "intoxicated" is, as shown under Important Words, much wider in its significance. Any state or condition in which one is not in full possession of oneself, either through anger or love or hunger or sleep, etc. is included in this expression. The Holy Prophet is reported to have said: "If a man is sleepy, then he should not say his Prayers till the state of sleepiness has left him" (Bukhari, ch. on Wudu’). Again: "A man should not say his Prayers when he is hungry and the food has been placed before him (Bukhari, ch. on Salat), or when the call of nature demands his attention" (Dawud, ch. on Taharat).

The expression, nor when you are unclean, means that just as a man cannot perform Prayers when he is in a state of سکر (not in full possession of his senses). Similarly, he cannot perform Prayers in a state of being جنبا (for the meaning of which see Important Words above), until he performs total ablution by bathing. Sexual intercourse creates a sort of uncleanness in the body which must be removed by bathing in order to ensure proper state of purity, cheerfulness and readiness necessary for worship.

The clause, except when you are travelling along a way, means that though ordinarily a person who is in a state of "uncleanness" cannot perform his Prayers except after properly bathing, yet if he becomes "unclean" when he is actually travelling on the way, bathing is not obligatory on him for the performance of Prayers. He can in this case perform tayammum as ordered in the concluding part of the verse.

The sentence, if you are ill or you are on a journey (while unclean) or if one of you comes from the privy or you have touched women and you find no water, then betake yourselves to pure dust, mentions four classes of persons on whom وضوء (ablution) or غسل (total ablution) is not obligatory for the performance of Prayer, they being required to perform what is known as tayammum, i.e. betaking to pure dust and wiping therewith the face and the hands, as detailed in Hadith and Sunnah. These four classes are: (1) the sick; (2) those on a journey; (3) those coming from the privy; (4) those touching women, (i.e. having carnal knowledge of them). Out of these four classes only the last two are such as produce a state of uncleanness, necessitating the performance of وضوء (ablution) or غسل (total ablution), as the case may be. So the clause, and you find no water, only relates to them. The verse thus purports to say that if the last-mentioned two classes of men do not find water, they can perform tayammum, i.e. wipe their faces and hands with pure dust before saying their Prayers.

In the case of the former two clauses no condition as to water is necessary. These two classes of men may resort to تیمم (tayammum) even if they find water. This is why the words, "and you are unclean" have been supplied after the words, if you are ill or you are on a journey. It must be noted that the expression علی سفر (on a journey), in the present verse, is the same as the expression عابری سبیل (travelling along a way), both signifying the state of actual travelling when one is, as it were, on the wing.

Finally, it must be noted that dust has been chosen as a substitute for water because, just as water reminds a person of his origin (77:21), thus creating in him a sense of humility, similarly, dust calls to his mind the other humble substance from which he was created (He created you from dust, 30:21). But the dust used must be pure, which is a necessary condition for the performance of Prayers. Any excess should be blown away before it is used in order to ensure just the minimum quantity for the performance of تیمم.

From the verse it is clear that though performing proper ablution is ordinarily necessary for Prayers yet, Islam being a perfect religion, one is allowed to substitute tayammum in place of ablution in certain exceptional cases.

6:147.

Commentary:

The expression, We forbade them pure things which had been allowed to them, refers to the blessings and favours of God of which the Jews had become deprived by reason of their transgressions. The verse does not refer to any material thing which was forbidden to them after being allowed before, because no Law-giving Prophet appeared among the Israelites after Moses to forbid them things that had been allowed to them by the Torah. It was also to the spiritual blessings which the Jews had lost that Jesus referred when he said, (I come) to allow you some of that which had been forbidden to you (3:51), i.e. I come to restore to you some of the divine blessings of which you have been deprived on account of your misdeeds.

6:119.

Important Words:

جوارح (animals of prey) is the plural of جارحة which is derived from جرح. They say جرحه i.e. he wounded him; or he cut him; or he clove or rent his body. It also means, he gained, acquired or earned. جوارح means, beasts and birds of prey that catch game. The word also means, the limbs of a human being with which things are gained or earned (Lane).

مکلبین (training them for hunting) is the plural of مکلب which is the active participle from کلب Kallaba which is the transitive form of کلب (Kaliba) meaning, he thirsted; he ate voraciously; he was seized with the disease of dogs; he barked. کلب(Kallaba) means, he trained (a dog) to hunt; he trained any beast or bird of prey to take game. مکلب means, one who trains dogs to hunt; or one who trains any beast or bird of prey to take game. مکلب also means, one who possesses dogs trained to hunt and hunts with them. کلب means, a dog or any animal of prey (Lane).

Commentary:

The forbidden things having been described in the preceding verse, the rest are here declared lawful, provided they are طیبات i.e. good and pure, it being left to each individual to decide what is good for him and what is not, in view of his particular circumstances and the condition of his health. The Holy Prophet has definitely excluded beasts of prey and birds having claws from the category of lawful food. See also 2:174.

The training of animals or birds of prey for catching game has been made lawful. As for the eating of the flesh of the game so hunted, the injunction varies according to circumstances. The more accepted view is as follows: (1) If the hunter finds the game alive, the eating of its flesh is lawful in all circumstances, provided the hunter slaughters the game in the prescribed manner. (2) If the hunter finds the game dead, the eating of its flesh is lawful only in case (a) the animal of prey is trained, and (b) it does not itself eat of the game, and (c) the hunter sends the animal of prey after reciting thereon the name of Allah. (3) If the game dies of sheer fear, before the animal of prey has actually caught and wounded it, the eating of its flesh is unlawful.

Important Words:

For the meaning of the word محصنین (contracting valid marriage) and مسافحین (committing fornication) and اخدان (secret paramours). See 4:25, 26.

Commentary:

The verse declares that if a person from among the People of the Book invites a Muslim to dinner, it is lawful for the latter to accept the invitation and partake of the food of the former, provided, of course, the food does not include anything forbidden by Islam. Similarly, a Muslim is allowed to invite the People of the Book to dinner.

Some commentators have taken the word طعام (food) in the clause, the food of the People of the Book is lawful for you, in the sense of "flesh of animals used as food." In this sense, the verse would signify that Muslims are allowed to partake of the flesh of an animal slaughtered by one from among the People of the Book, provided, of course, the name of God has been pronounced on the slaughtered animal.

The words, And lawful for you are chaste believing women and chaste women from among those who were given the Book before you, are intended to hint that whereas Islam permits marriage of Muslim men with non-Muslim women from among the People of the Book, it certainly prefers that Muslim men should ordinarily marry only Muslim women.

The words یکفر بالایمان rendered as "rejects the faith" may either mean "turns apostate" which is its primary significance; or it may mean "is ungrateful respecting faith". For the meaning of the particle با see 1:1.

10:60.

Commentary:

Just as the making of a forbidden thing lawful is an act of excess and transgression, similarly the declaring of a good and lawful thing to be unlawful, or practically treating it as such, is an act of sin. Both these acts are acts of transgression. The verse may have a figurative sense also. In this case the expression, make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, would mean "do not shut the door of God’s favours on yourselves by rejecting the Prophet of Islam".

2:268.

Commentary:

Being naturally influenced by his environment, man is prone to follow and imitate what others do, particularly when they happen to be in the majority. This verse, however, is a warning against unthinking and blind following of the majority. The real criterion by which the worth of a thing is to be judged is not how many people do it, but what good it contains; and, God being the source of all good, the only true and unfailing test is, as the verse puts it, تقوی or God-fearingness.

2:169,173; 23:52.

Commentary:

Islam being not a religion of monasticism, the verse implies a rebuke for those who forbid the use of pure and good things.

The good and pure things of God’s provision, which are really meant for, and deserved by, believers only are also shared by disbelievers in this life; but in the life to come they will be enjoyed by believers only, to the exclusion of disbelievers.

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

48:30.

See 3:105.

Important Words:

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

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

Commentary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5:13.

2:61.

2:58; 20:81.

Commentary:

See notes on 2:58 & 61.

The words, And they wronged Us not, mean that they did not harm the cause of the religion revealed by God

7:87.

Commentary:

Muslims are here told that as God saved them when they were weak in the land and were surrounded by wicked and mischievous people, so they should strive to save those who are weak and surrounded by dangers. The verse also hints that as Muslims will soon prosper and attain power, they should never forget the days of hardships through which they have passed, i.e. in the days of their power, they should never oppress the weak creatures of God but should always treat them with justice and mercy.

8:42.

Commentary:

The conjunction "so", placed in the beginning of the verse, indicates that the commandment, that follows it, is connected with, and is the result of, what has been said in the previous verses. As the booty taken was obtained after regular fighting and the victory came as a result of God’s help, so the booty taken in the battle and the ransom-money realized from the enemy-prisoners are both "lawful and good". God has been here spoken of as "Forgiving" because He covered up the weaknesses of Muslims and made them appear strong in the sight of the enemy; and He has been spoken of as "Merciful" because He granted Muslims a decisive victory against overwhelming odds.

45:17.

45:18.

Commentary:

Among the "good things" mentioned in this verse as having been bestowed on the Israelites, Divine revelation occupied the foremost place, for it mostly pertains to the spirit and comes direct from God. The words "good things" may also be taken in their material sense. In Egypt the Israelites worked as labourers and lived an ignoble life. But after their deliverance from bondage, God provided them with the good things of this world.

By the word علم (knowledge) in the clause, until there came to them the knowledge, is here meant the Quran and not the Torah, for there passed no interval between the revelation of the Torah and the formation of the Israelites into an organized community. Thus they cannot be said to have disagreed among themselves after its revelation.

When the Holy Prophet of Islam was about to make his appearance, the Jews held the belief that a Prophet like unto Moses was to appear very soon; but when the Promised Prophet did actually appear, they differed and disagreed as to whom the prophecies about the Promised Prophet applied. Some Jews denied that the prophecies had found fulfilment in the Prophet of Islam, while others sought to deny the very existence of any such prophecies in the Bible.

That the disagreement referred to in this verse was the one which arose among the Israelites after the Quran was revealed is also clear from the next verse which says: And if thou, (O addressee) art in doubt concerning that which We have sent down to thee (viz. the Quran). This verse clearly shows that in the verse under comment the "knowledge" after the coming of which the Israelites differed among themselves refers to the Quran.

The Jews were so ardently expecting the Prophet who was to be the like of Moses (Deut. 18:18) and who was to appear in Arabia amongst the descendants of Ishmael, the brethren of the Israelites, that some of them had even migrated to Arabia and had settled in Medina that they might be among the first to believe in him when he made his appearance. It is a strange irony of fate that these very Jewish settlers of Arabia proved to be his bitterest enemies when the Promised Prophet actually made his appearance.

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.

Commentary:

The verse means to say that God has equally honoured all the children of Adam and has not favoured any particular nation or tribe. It seeks to demolish all foolish notions of superiority based on colour, creed, race or nationality. It further says that all avenues of progress and prosperity have been kept open, equally for all men and these avenues lie as much in travel by land as by sea. The laying of stress on travel by sea in the Quran seems strange. The fact that an Arab, and of all Arabs the Holy Prophet, who throughout his whole life never experienced a sea voyage, should have so much emphasized the importance of sea-voyaging does indeed show that the Quran could not be his composition. He did not and could not know the great benefits of sea-voyaging.

The words, and exalted them far above many, may seem to suggest that man is superior only to certain species of creation and not all creation. But a little deeper reflection over the expression makes such an inference appear quite unwarranted. The verse speaks of all mankind and it is true that all men are not superior to all other creatures. There are men morally so degraded as to be worse than animals and beasts. There are others who are superior even to the angels. There are others still who are so righteous as to occupy a higher spiritual position than even the most exalted angels. In short, all men are not superior to all other creatures, but some men do top the whole creation and man as such is superior to most of the creation, for the sun, the moon, the stars, and animals have been created for him and are engaged in his service. Hence, mankind as a class is superior to most of God’s creatures, while man in his perfect spiritual state is certainly superior to the whole creation.