Topic: Unlawful (Haram)

5:4; 6:146; 16:116.

Important Words:

المیتة (that which dies of itself) is derived from مات i.e. he died. میتة means: (1) an animal that has died a natural death (Aqrab); (2) an animal that has not been slaughtered in a manner prescribed by Law (Lane & Mufradat).

الخنزیر (swine). Authorities differ as to the derivation of this word, some deriving it from خنزر and others from خزر. The word الخنزرة means, hard and rugged land; or a clumsy, badly-finished axe. خزر الرجل means, the man looked with the hinder parts or outer angles of his eyes (Lisan). خزرت العین means, the eye was or became narrow and small. خزر الرجل means, the man looked from the outer angle of the eye; or he had a distortion of one of his eyes. The Arabs say: کل خنزیراخزر i.e. all swine look from the outer angles of their eyes. خزر المرء means the man affected or pretended to be cunning. الخنزیر means, the swine, the hog, the pig; a certain well-known foul animal the eating of whose flesh is said to be forbidden by every Prophet (Lane). The Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement says of the word خنزیر: "The very name of this foul animal contains an allusion to the prohibition of its flesh. It is a combination of خنز and ار, the first part meaning, 'very foul' and the second, 'I see'. The word thus literally means, 'I see it very foul'…What is yet more remarkable is that in Hindi this animal is known by the name سؤر which is similarly composed of two words, i.e. سوء and ار, the latter part being identical with the latter part of the Arabic word and the former being the exact equivalent of the first part of the Arabic form. The Hindi word, therefore, exactly means the same as the Arabic, viz. 'I see it very foul'…In Hindi this animal is also known as بد meaning bad or foul which is probably a translation of the original Arabic word" (Teachings of Islam).

أھل (invoked) is derived from ھل meaning, it (the moon) made its appearance; he (the man) cried aloud. اھل also means, it made its appearance; he called or cried aloud. اھل بالتسمیة علی الذبیحة means, he invoked or pronounced the name of God while slaughtering an animal. اھل السیف بفلان means, the sword cut into him ( Aqrab). اھلال which is the infinitive-noun from اھل means, to raise one’s voice aloud by way of exclamation, on seeing the ھلال or the moon of the first night (Mufradat). Thus اھل به لغیر الله would mean, on which the name of anything besides God has been invoked at the time of slaughter; or which has been cut or slaughtered for a being other than God.

اضطر (driven by necessity) is derived from ضر which means, it did harm. ضرہ الی کذا means, it forced him to resort to that. اضطره means, he compelled him against his will. اضطره الی کذا means, he compelled him against his will to have recourse to that (Aqrab).

باغ (disobedient) is derived from بغی meaning, he rebelled; he disobeyed; he committed a wrong. باغ is really باغی being the active participle from بغی meaning, one who disobeys; one who is rebellious (Aqrab).

عاد (exceeding the limit) is the active participle from عدا i.e. he exceeded the proper or the prescribed limit. عدی علیهmeans, he transgressed against him. عاد is really عادی meaning, one who exceeds the limit (Aqrab).

اثم (sin). The verb اثم means, he did a thing which was unlawful for him; he did a thing which made him deserving of punishment. Thus the noun اثم means: (1) anything unlawful, i.e. a sin; (2) anything which makes a person deserving of punishment (Aqrab); (3) anything that pricks the mind as something evil (Mufradat).

Commentary:

This verse speaks only of food that is حرام or unlawful. It makes no mention of طیبات or pure and wholesome things to which reference has already been made in the preceding verse. It should not be supposed that the four things mentioned in this verse are the only things prohibited in Islam. As a matter of fact, Islam prohibits the use of many things; but they are divided into grades or classes, some of them being حرام or unlawful and others being ممنوع or simply forbidden. The verse under comment mentions only the former class. The forbidden things have been stated by the Holy Prophet and are mentioned in Hadith. They must not be used by the Faithful but they cannot be called حرام or unlawful. In fact, there is a great difference between unlawful (حرام) and forbidden (ممنوع) things. Islam recognizes due difference in the importance of different things, and so all prohibitions cannot be classed together and treated as of equal importance. The use of حرام or an unlawful thing has a great and direct bearing on the moral and spiritual development of man but it is not so with a ممنوع or forbidden thing which stands on a lower level of importance, though both are prohibited.

Among the things declared حرام or unlawful in this verse, the injuriousness of consuming blood and the flesh of a dead animal as food has been recognized by most authorities on medicine. The use of the flesh of swine has also proved to be injurious not only to the physical health of man, but also to his moral and spiritual health. The swine eats filth and takes delight in living in dirty places. It has indecent habits and possesses the evil trait of sex-perversion. Tape-worms, scrofula, cancer and encysted trichina are known to be more prevalent among pork-eating peoples. The use of pork also causes trichinosis.

The clause, and that on which the name of any other than Allah has been invoked, refers to that animal at the time of whose slaughter the name of any deity other than Allah is invoked or that animal which is slaughtered with a view to winning the pleasure of an idol or a saint etc., even though the name of Allah may have been mentioned while slaughtering it. Hence, all such animals as are sacrificed in order to propitiate a false deity or a saint, or any food that is cooked as an offering to a deceased person have been condemned as unlawful. Such foods are spiritually harmful. The incentive to these offerings is شرك (i.e. idolatry) and شرك is tantamount to rebellion against God.

In spite of the fact that the above mentioned things have been declared to be unlawful, the verse goes on to say that if for want of food the very life of a person should be in danger, considerations of the preservation of human life must temporarily prevail over other considerations. This is a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. Hence the verse very wisely makes an exception in case of a real and urgent necessity when no other food is available and one is in real danger of losing one’s life if one does not use the unlawful food. In fact, of the four unlawful things, the first three have been declared unlawful mostly on the basis of the fact that they are injurious to physical and moral health, and it is certainly wise to permit their use in case of urgent necessity when there is real danger to life. As for the fourth thing, i.e. a food consecrated to any other being beside Allah, it is evident that it is not injurious intrinsically. It is injurious only from the point of view of faith. Therefore when such a thing is used merely to save one’s life, which may be so usefully employed in the service of religion, there can be no real objection in eating it, because this extremely rare act cannot be considered as involving شرك or idolatry, particularly when it is performed with the sanction of God.

Permission for the exceptional use of such things is, however, qualified by two important conditions: (1) that one who resorts to this use must not be باغی (i.e. disobedient). There should be no lurking spirit of revolt or disobedience behind the act. The circumstances must be real and the condition genuine, and nothing should be done out of design and wilfulness; (2) that the user of unlawful food under exceptional circumstances should not become عاد i.e. he should not exceed the limit. He should confine himself to such quantity only as is absolutely essential to save life. Thus the exceptional use is permissible only at a time when one is under bona fide constraint and is in real danger, and then only to the extent which is absolutely necessary for saving life.

Though it has been declared in this verse that there is no sin in partaking of a prohibited food when no revolt or transgression is intended, yet as one might err in judging what is revolt or transgression and what is not, and thus be unconsciously guilty of breaking a divine commandment, the Quran adds the words: surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful, meaning that an unintentional deviation will be forgiven by the Merciful God. The clause also reminds a Muslim that though it has been made permissible for him to take unlawful food in exceptional circumstances, yet such circumstances may be due to certain hidden shortcomings of his own for which he should seek God’s forgiveness, and that if he does so he will find God Forgiving and Merciful. In this connection see also 5:4; 6:146 & 16:116.

3:131; 30:40.

Important Words:

ربوا (interest) is derived from ربا. They say رباالمال i.e. the money or property increased and became augmented. ربواmeans, an excess and an addition; an addition over and above the principal sum; interest. The hadith defines ربوا as کل قرض جرمنفعة فھوربا i.e. every loan advanced to draw profit comes under the definition of interest (Saghir).

یتخبطه (has smitten) is derived from خبطه i.e. he struck or beat him violently; he trod him under his feet vehemently. خبط اللیل means, he walked about in the darkness of the night without finding the true way. تخبطه means, he struck or beat him violently. تخبطه الشیطان means, Satan struck him and afflicted him with hurt or injury; Satan prostrated him (Aqrab).

المس (insanity) is derived from مس. They say مسه i.e. he touched it; or he touched it with his hand. من المرض اوالکبر فلانا means, disease or old age touched him, i.e. came on him. مسه الشیطان بنصب وعذاب means, Satan brought pain and trouble on him. المسmeans, any pain or trouble, etc. that comes to a man by coming in contact with someone or something; it also signifies madness or insanity (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

The prohibition against lending money on interest is preceded by a long exhortation to exercise charity. When a person becomes accustomed to spending his wealth in charity and alms, it becomes easier for him to lend money free of interest.

The Quran prohibits all kinds of interest. In modern times, however, business has become so inseparably mixed up with interest that it appears impossible to avoid interest altogether. But if a change of system as well as of surroundings and circumstances were brought about, business without interest would establish itself in the world as was the case in the days when Islam was in ascendancy.

The clause, those who devour interest do not rise except as rises one whom Satan has smitten with insanity, means that just as a madman does not see the consequences of his actions, similarly those who lend money at interest become careless of consequences. They keep in view only their own immediate interests and do not care, and in fact generally become incapable of caring, for the great harm which they do to society and the world at large. Interest also encourages a person or a government to incur debt beyond his or its capacity and in this way also blinds them to consequences. Another way in which interest causes a touch of insanity is to weaken the sense of goodness and beneficence in man by making him over-engrossed in money-making. Interest also leads to war. Money-lenders are always creating circumstances which may cause conflict between one nation and another so that war may break out and the belligerent nations may be compelled to borrow money from them. Interest also helps to prolong war by encouraging belligerent nations to borrow money beyond their capacity. Again, interest helps the accumulation of wealth in a few hands and thereby most injuriously affects the distribution of wealth and the balance of society. Yet another manifestation of madness caused by interest is that those who pay interest have their sense of dignity lowered and they contract the habit of carelessness and hastiness, thus acquiring a resemblance to one stricken by madness. See also 2:280 below.

The words, trade also is like interest, represent the pet argument of the supporters of interest. They say interest is nothing but a form of trade. Just as in trade one invests money with a view to increasing and multiplying it, so does one in lending money at interest. But deeper thinking would reveal that there is a world of difference between the two. While interest is attended by all the evil consequences briefly referred to above, trade is not.

The words, then will that which he received in the past be his, mean that if one accepts guidance from God and desists from charging interest in future, the past will be forgiven him and God will make good the loss he may thus suffer by other means.

It should be remembered that any sum stipulated to be received or given over and above what one advances or receives as a loan is interest, whether the dealing is with an individual or a bank or a society or a post office or any other organisation. Interest is not confined to money. It extends to any commodity which is given as a loan with the condition that it will be returned with an agreed excess.

Finally, it may be noted that in view of the peculiar conditions of the present times, when there is a vicious network of the interest system surrounding us and Islam is in a greatly weakened condition, the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement has declared that if a person is forced to accept interest, he may do so and then spend the money thus received on (a) the propagation of Islam, and (b) paying off any interest that he may similarly be forced to pay. He should, however, scrupulously avoid spending such money on himself or his family or using it in any other way (Fatawa & Al-Fadl).

Important Words:

ربائب (step-daughters) is derived from رب and is the plural of ربیبة meaning the daughter of a woman’s husband by another wife or the daughter of a man’s wife by another husband, because he or she rears her in spite of her being not a real daughter; or it means the wife of a man having child by another wife; also a woman who has the charge of a child, who rears or fosters it (Lane & Aqrab).

حجور (wards) is the plural of حجر which is derived from حجر meaning, he prevented or hindered it. حجر means, bosom or breast or the part beneath the armpit; custody, care or guardianship. They say, نشأ زید فی حجر عمرو i.e. Zaid grew up in the care and protection of ‘Amr. The expression التی فی حجور کم would, therefore, mean, those who are under your care or guardianship, i.e. your wards (Lane Aqrab & Mufradat).

حلائل (wives) is the plural of حلیلand حلیلة which are both derived from حل i.e. he alighted or took up his abode; or he or it became lawful; or he untied a knot, etc. حلیل means, husband and حلیلةwife. حلیل also means, a fellow-lodger or fellow-resident of another in one house (Aqrab). It also means a neighbour and a guest (Lane).

ارضعنکم (have given you suck) is derived from رضع. They say رضع امه i.e. he sucked the breast of his mother. ھذا اخی من الرضاعةmeans, he is my foster-brother, we both having sucked the breast of the same woman. ارضعته امه means, his mother suckled him; and استرضعت المرأة ولدی means, I sought or demanded of the woman that she should suckle my child (Lane).

Commentary:

The prohibition about marrying mothers, sisters and daughters may look superfluous; but there are certain people (e.g. certain sects among the Hindus) who regard such marriages as not only permissible, but even meritorious. The Quran, being a perfect code of Law, contains everything essential for man’s physical, moral and spiritual well-being. The Quranic laws are in perfect harmony with human nature; in fact, they only remind us of what is writ large on the book of human nature by God’s own hand. Human nature responds to what is taught by the Quran and the Qurancommands that which human nature demands, and it prohibits what human nature revolts against. The Holy Prophet is reported to have said that the relatives of foster mothers are as forbidden as those within prohibited degree of relationship of real mothers. It is not lawful to marry foster-sisters and foster-daughters and so on. There exists, however, a difference of opinion among Muslim theologians as to what amount of suckling makes the marriage of foster mothers and foster-sisters and their relations (within prohibited degree of marriage) unlawful. Some hold the view that the prohibition comes into operation in all cases even when a woman has given suck to a child only once. According to others who derive their authority from a saying of the Holy Prophet, reported by ‘A’ishah, viz. لا تحرم المصة ولا المصتان i.e. "A suck or two do not make marriage unlawful" (Tirmidhi, ch. on Rida’), the least number of sucks to render marriage unlawful is three. But there is yet another saying of the Holy Prophet, also reported by ‘A’ishah, that mentionsخمس رضعات معلومات (five distinctly known sucks) as necessary to make marriage unlawful (Muslim), and this appears to be the correct view. One suck amounts to the quantity taken by a child at one stretch, i.e. when for the time being it should leave off sucking of its own accord and before returning to it. The age of the child must be within two years at the time of sucking.

The qualifying clause, who are your wards, is only added to draw our attention to the fact that we should bring up our wards with the same care and tenderness that we bestow upon our own children; otherwise marriage with the daughters of women with whom conjugal relations have been established is unlawful, whether or not they are brought up as wards. The daughters of those women with whom such relations have not been established can be taken into marriage and this is the meaning of the words, but if you have not gone in unto them, there shall be no sin upon you.

The expression, of your sons that are from your loins, is added to exclude wife’s sons as well as adopted ones. Islam does not recognize the system of adoption. It wants us to look upon all Muslims as brothers; and as the adoption of certain individuals as sons conflicts with this principle of universal brotherhood, it has been prohibited by Islam. The system of adoption also leads to contention and litigation.

In conformity with the command contained in the words, it is forbidden to you to have two sisters together in marriage, the Holy Prophet is reported to have ordered one of the two sisters who were together the wives of one man to be divorced by him after this injunction was revealed (Tirmidhi, ch. on Nikah). The injunction is based on sentiments of deference to near relationship and is meant to exclude possibility of dissensions in the close family circle.

For similar reasons the Holy Prophet has forbidden to unite in marriage a maternal aunt and her sister’s daughter, or a paternal aunt and her brother’s daughter.

4:26; 5:6.

4:5; 60:11.

Important Words:

المحصنات (married) is the plural of محصنة and is derived from حصن meaning, he or it was or became inaccessible, fortified or protected against attack. حصن المرأة means, the woman was chaste, i.e. protected against moral or sexual sinfulness. احصنت المرأة means, the woman got married. محصنة therefore, means a married woman; a chaste woman who abstains from what is unlawful; a free or noble woman as opposed to a bondwoman. Similarly محصن means, a married man; chaste man who abstains from what is unlawful: a free or noble man. حصن means, a fort or a fortress. The word محصنات would, therefore, mean, women who have protected themselves by entering, as it were, the fortress of marriage. The word has been used in the Quran in all the different senses, i.e. (1) married women, (2) chaste women and (3) free women; but in the present verse it has been used in the sense of married women (Lane & Aqrab).

مسافحین (committing fornication) is the active participle from سافح which is derived from سفح. They say سفح الدم i.e. he shed blood or made it flow. سفح الدمع means, tears began to flow. Thus the word is both transitive and intransitive. سافحة means, he vied with the other party in shedding blood; he committed fornication. مسافحة means, a fornicator and مسافحة means, a fornicatress (Lane & Aqrab).

اجور (dowries) is the plural of اجر which means, reward or wages. اجر المرأة means, dowry of a woman (Taj). Also, in 33:51 the word has been used in the sense of dowry.

استمتعتم (the benefit you receive) is formed from متع. They say متعھا بکذا i.e. he gave her (his wife) such a thing. تمتع بالمرأةmeans, he benefited by the woman temporarily. استمتع بکذا means, he benefited by it for a long time. The Arabic idiom does not countenance the use of استمتاع with regard to a woman in the sense of temporary connection (Lisan). It must also be noted that whenever the noun تمتع (tamattu‘) is used to denote temporary connection with a woman, it is followed by the preposition با (ba) put before the word standing for the woman, as in the above example. But in the expression فما استمتعم به منھن to pronoun ھن referring to women is preceded by the preposition من.

ماملکت ایمانکم (what your right hands possess). The Arabs 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 and I can deal with him or it as I like (Lisan & Aqrab). The expression ما ملکت ایمانکمgenerally signifies, men or women taken prisoner in war and being in the custody and control of their Muslim captors. In this verse, the expression means women prisoners only. The term has been used by the Quran in preference to عباد or اماء (slaves and bondwomen) to point to just and rightful possession, the word ایمان (right hands) also pointing to the same fact.

Commentary:

The expression, such as your right hands possess, has been used in the Quran with regard to those men or women who took part in aggressive wars against Islam and fell prisoners into the hands of Muslims. The context, however, shows that the expression used in the present verse means female prisoners of war. Islam does not allow women taken prisoner in ordinary wars to be taken as wives. This exceptional injunction becomes operative only when a hostile nation wages a religious war against Islam with a view to extirpating it and compelling Muslims to abandon their religion at the point of the sword, and treats their prisoners as slaves, as was done in the days of the Holy Prophet when the enemy took away Muslim women as prisoners and treated them as slaves. The Islamic injunction was thus only a retaliatory measure and also served the additional purpose of protecting the morals of captive women who were generally in large numbers and whom war separated from their kith and kin. A people who seek to compel others to forsake their religion at the point of the sword and reduce them to slavery are mere brutes and not respectable human beings. They must be paid back in their own coin in order to bring them to their senses. For a fuller exposition of this subject see General Introduction.

It may be noted that it is not permitted to take into marriage such female relations of a bondwoman who is treated as wife, as correspond to the relations of a free woman within the prohibited degree. For instance, the mothers, sisters, daughters etc. of such bondwomen cannot be taken in marriage.

The advocates of mut‘a (temporary marriage) have endeavoured in vain to infer its legality from this verse. The Quran and the Arabic language both contradict this manifestly unfounded inference. The misunderstanding about mut‘aseems to have arisen from the failure to understand the difference between the meanings of تمتع and استمتاع given under Important Words. The author of Lisanul-‘Arab quotes Zajjaj as saying: "This is a verse in the interpretation of which some men have committed a great blunder, owing to their ignorance of the Arabic language. They have inferred from it the legality of mut‘a which, by the consensus of opinion among Muslim theologians, has been declared to be unlawful, whereas the words simply mean marriage performed in accordance with the conditions mentioned above."

According to Arabic usage, the legality of mut‘a, as asserted by some people, cannot, therefore, be inferred from this verse. If there had been any reference to mut‘a, the preposition used ought to have been با (ba) and not من (min). Moreover, the expression used here is not تمتع but استمتع which possesses a sense different from that of the former word.

Nor can any inference in favour of mut‘a be drawn from the expression اجورھن which, as explained under Important Words, means "their dowries", in which sense it has been used in the Quran elsewhere also (33:51).

On principle, the dowry must be paid immediately at marriage; but with the wife’s consent the payment can be suitably deferred. The husband can increase the amount of the dowry later, if he so desires; but he cannot decrease it except with the permission of the wife or the qadi.

2:174; 6:146.

5:91.

3:20, 86.

2:174; 6:146; 16:116.

Important Words:

المیتة (an animal which dies of itself). Though generally speaking everything that is dead is میتة in its specific sense, the word signifies an animal that has died of itself without being properly slaughtered (Lane). See also 2:174.

المنخنقة (that which has been strangled) is derived from خنق. They say خنقه i.e. he squeezed his or its throat that he or it might die; he squeezed his or its throat so that he or it died; he strangled or throttled or choked him or it. اختنق or انخنقmeans, he or it became throttled or strangled or choked. شاة منخنقة means, a goat or sheep strangled or throttled (Lane).

الموقوذة (that which has been beaten to death) is derived from وقذه. They say وقذه i.e. he beat or struck him or it violently till he or it became relaxed and was at the point of death; he broke his or its skull, wounding the brain; he beat him or it till he or it died. شاة موقوذة means, a goat or sheep beaten to death either with a stick or staff or stones, etc. (Lane).

المتردیة (that which has been killed by a fall) is derived from ردی. They say ردی الرجل i.e. the man perished. رداه بحجر means, he threw stones at him and hit him. تردی means, he or it fell or tumbled down into a well or a pit. It also means, he or it fell down from a mountain, or a height and died. المتردیة means, that (a goat, etc.) which falls from a mountain or a height, or falls down a well, or a pit and dies (Lane).

النطیحة (that which has been gored to death) is derived from نطح. They say نطحه i.e. he (a ram, etc.) smote him or it with his horn. النطیحة means, a sheep or goat smitten with the horn and so killed (Lane).

ماذکیتم (that which you have properly slaughtered). ذکی (dhakka) is derived from ذکی (dhaka). They say ذکت النار i.e. the fire blazed or burned brightly. ذکت الارض means, the land was or became clean and pure. ذکی النار (dhakka) means, he made the fire blaze or burn brightly. ذکی العقل means, it (medicine, etc.) sharpened the intellect. ذکی الشاة means, he slaughtered the goat in the manner prescribed by the Law of Islam (Lane).

النصب (idols) is derived from نصب which means, he set up or he fixed. النصب according to some is singular, the plural of which is انصاب; and according to others, it is plural, of which the singular is نصاب. The word means, signs or marks set up to show the way; stones set up and worshipped to the exclusion of, or in preference to, God; anything that is so worshipped; stones which the pagan Arabs set to sacrifice or slay animals before them, the name of some deity being pronounced in the killing of such animals; idol or idols; but whereas idols were generally carved and had some form or shape, النصب were simple uncarved stones (Lane & Aqrab).

ازلام (divining arrows) is the plural of زلم and is derived from the verb زلم (zalama), meaning, he cut off the protruding part of a thing, such as the nose; he made his gift small in quantity as though he had cut off something from it. زلم السھم means, he cut or pared the arrow to make it proportionate and good-looking. زلم means, an arrow without a head and without feathers. ازلام (the plural of زلم) were those divining arrows by means of which pre-Islamic Arabs sought to know what was allotted to them. On some of these arrows the word "command" and on others "prohibition" were written, while others were left blank, and all these were kept together in a suitable vessel. When anyone wanted to do a certain thing or go on a journey, he would take out one of the arrows without looking at them and then act according to the instruction of "command" or "prohibition" as the case might be. If the blank arrow came out, the experiment was repeated, till an arrow bearing the word "command" or "prohibition" was taken out (Lane).

الیوم (this day) here really signifies "now". See 1:4.

مخمصة (hunger) is derived from مخمص. They say خمص البطن i.e. the belly was or became empty, i.e. hungry. خمصت القدم means, the foot rose from the ground or was hollow in the middle of the sole, so that it did not touch it. خمصه الجوع means, hunger rendered him lank in the belly. مخمصة therefore, means, emptiness of the belly; hunger (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse shows that the Quran does not consider the prosperity and predominance of Islam to be dependent on territorial conquest and the extension of material power, but on its being a perfect and complete religion. it draws the attention of Muslims to the fact that now that all the teachings needed for the moral and spiritual regeneration of man have been embodied in the Quran, it is up to them to win the premier place in the comity of nations by acting upon them and holding fast to them.

The words ikmal (perfecting) and itmam (completing) which are noun-infinitives from اکملت and اتممت (have I perfected and completed) occurring in the clause, This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour upon you, are full of meaning and convey two different and distinct senses. The former, (i.e. perfection) relates to quality, and the latter, (i.e. completion) to quantity. The use of the word اکملت (I have perfected) with regard to the teaching of the Quran thus shows that doctrines and commandments affecting the physical, moral and spiritual development of man have been embodied in the Quran in their most perfect form; while the word اتممت (I have completed) shows that nothing which was needed by man has been left out. Again, the former, i.e. perfection, pertains to command-ments relating to the physical side of man or his external self, while the latter, i.e. completion, relates to his spiritual side or his inner self, viz. the completion of the spiritual blessings which follow the observance of the outward Law.

Thus, the verse hints that as the Divine Law has been perfected and completed in the Quran it shall not be superseded by any other Law. The Laws that preceded the Quran were meant for particular peoples and limited periods, being suited to their special requirements only. Similarly, the Prophets that preceded the Holy. Prophet of Islam were only sent to particular nations. This was quite in the fitness of things. The means of communication between different countries were then in a very undeveloped state and people living in one country knew little or nothing of the countries that lay far off from them. Moreover, nations of the earth were then in different stages of development, some being very backward and others only partially developed and the mind of man had not attained its full growth and development. Hence, the circumstances then obtaining required that separate Messengers be sent to separate nations who should give them such teachings as suited their particular needs and requirements. This state of things, however, was not to last forever, the Oneness of God presupposed oneness of mankind and it was quite natural that, when the God-given faculties of man became fully developed and the means of communication also improved so that intercourse between different nations became easier and more common, God should raise a Prophet for the whole of mankind and give him a perfect Law which should fulfil all the needs and meet all the problems of humanity

But the mere existence of a perfect Law cannot prevent the moral degeneration of humanity. So in spite of the presence of the Quran, it was necessary that heavenly Reformers should continue to appear in the world in times of degeneration, and, being inspired of God, should give new life to corrupt and degenerate humanity. In fact, the promise about the appearance of such Reformers is implied even in the words, This day have I completed My favour upon you, for if religion has been completed, it does not stand to reason that when mankind should consign God to oblivion and forget the object of their creation, God should make no provision for their regeneration. In that case, His favour upon them cannot be said to have been "completed". Thus, the very comple-tion of God’s favour upon Muslims requires that He should raise among them such Reformers as should breathe a new life into them, whenever their spiritual and moral degeneration demands it. Says the Holy Prophet, "God will raise among the Muslims at the head of each century a Reformer who would regenerate their religion for them" (Dawud, ch. on Malahim).

It may also be noted here that the perfection and completion of God’s religion and favour has been mentioned side by side with the law relating to eatables in order to point out that the use of lawful food forms one of the most important bases of good morals which in time provide a pedestal for spiritual progress.

4:172; 5:18; 9:30.

5:118; 19:37.

Commentary:

That Jesus taught the Israelites to worship God alone is apparent even from the Gospels in their present distorted form (e.g. Matt. 4:10; Luke 4:8). Also see 5:18.

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".

2:174; 5:4-5; 6:146; 16:116.

Commentary:

In this verse the objection of disbelievers has been answered in the very words in which it was made. Their objection was that Muslims profess to be devoted to the name of Allah, yet they do not eat of the flesh of the animal killed by God, i.e. the animal that dies of itself. The answer given in the present verse is, "when we are devoted to Allah, why should we not eat of the food on which the name of our Lord is pronounced?" But the name of God is not pronounced on an animal that dies of itself. Its death takes place under the general law of nature.

The words, He has already explained, refer to 16:116, which was revealed earlier.

The word "mislead" signifies that man-made teachings, which are given by most men in opposition to the teachings of God, only lead people astray.

The word "transgressors" at the end of the verse indicates that the objections raised against the teachings of God have their source in malice and enmity and those who bring forward such objections are indeed transgressors.

5:4; 6:146.

Commentary:

The verse points out that if believers eat of the flesh of those animals on which the name of God has not been pronounced, it will be an act of disobedience and transgression.

One sin leads to another. If a believer fails to pronounce the name of God on his food, his heart becomes devoid of reverence for Him and this gradually leads to شرك i.e. associating partners with God.

2:174; 5:4; 16:116.

6:122.

Commentary:

The verse points out that the laws made by pagan Arabs with regard to permissible and forbidden foods were arbitrary, without any wisdom underlying them; while the food-laws made by Islam were based on reason and deep wisdom. Fundamentally speaking, Islam forbids four things__ three on the basis of their being رجس i.e. unclean and impure, and one on the basis of its being فسق i.e. profane and irreligious. The three first-mentioned things are (1) carrion, (2) the blood which pours out when an animal is slaughtered or wounded and (3) the flesh of swine. All these are, as the verse says, رجسi.e. unclean and impure, i.e. they are harmful to the physical and moral health of man. The word رجس it must be noted, is to be read with each of the three first-mentioned forbidden things.

The fourth thing forbidden is that on which the name of one other than Allah is pronounced. The reason for the prohibition of this kind of food lies in the fact that such food is, as the verse calls it, فسق i.e. profane, viz. a source of disobedience or rebellion against God. The eating of such food will injure the spiritual health of man and will crush his feelings of love and jealousy for God. See also 2:174.

4:37; 17:24.

17:32.

6:121; 7:34.

Important Words:

املاق (poverty) is derived from ملق. They say ملق الشیء i.e. he erased the thing. ملقه بالعصا means, he beat him with a stick. ملق الولد امه means, the child sucked from the breasts of his mother. املق الرجل means, the man spent all his money and became poor. املاق means, poverty or destitution (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The Quran has already given the commandments and prohibitions of the Islamic Law with regard to the fruits of the earth and the flesh of animals, in opposition to the laws devised by men. Now it gives general commandments and prohibitions.

It should be noted that the injunctions which follow the word "forbidden" are what God requires us to do, and not what He forbids us to do. Thus, it is the contrary of the injunctions given in the verse that is forbidden. The injunctions have been expressly mentioned and the converse of them which is forbidden is implied. Thus, on the one hand, by using the word "forbidden" and, on the other, by following it up with positive commandments, the verse combines in itself both the direct injunctions and their converse, and the attention of the reader has been drawn to both.

The verse may also be construed in another way. The first sentence should be taken as having finished with the words ما حرم ربکم i.e. what your Lord has forbidden, and the next sentence should be taken as beginning with the words علیکمwhich would in this case mean, "it is enjoined upon you or it is incumbent on you." The verse will then read as follows:"Come, I will rehearse to you what your Lord has forbidden. It is incumbent on you that you associate not anything as partner with Him…"

The order in which the injunctions are given in this verse is noteworthy. The injunctions begin with the words, Come, I will rehearse to you what your Lord has forbidden. The Arabic word for "Lord" is رب which means "Creator, Sustainer, and Nourisher" (see 1:2), and it is the very idea of "sustaining and nourishing" that governs the order of the injunctions here given. The first injunction, i.e. associate not anything as partner with Him, pertains to the Great Nourisher, Allah. The second injunction pertains to the lesser nourishers, viz. parents. The word احسان (doing good) expresses the idea that the service of the parents enjoined in the words, do good to parents, is to be performed in the best way possible, for احسان literally signifies "doing a thing very well." Next come those who are nourished and sustained by the "lesser nourishers", viz. children. Parents are bidden to nourish and bring up their children well, as implied in the words, kill not your children for fear of poverty. Indeed, he who neglects to bring up his children properly for fear of poverty virtually "kills" them. If it is the duty of the children to serve their parents well, it is equally the duty of the parents to bring up their children well.

The pronoun "you" in the clause, it is We Who provide for you and for them, refers to parents and the pronoun "them" refers to children, the former being put before the latter in order to draw our attention to the fact that God’s providing for the parents is a proof of the fact that He will also provide for the children.

The next injunction is contained in the words, approach not foul deeds. The word فواحش (foul deeds) is the plural of فاحشه one meaning of which is "fornication or adultery" (see 4:16), which is another form of killing one’s children; for the man who forms immoral connection with a woman other than his wife, not only destroys his seed but also neglects his own wife, which cannot but affect his begetting children in lawful wedlock. Similarly, illegitimate children born of a woman other than one’s wife are not one’s own children, nor are they properly looked after.

The words, whether open or secret, used in connection with فواحش (foul deeds) refer respectively to openly going in to prostitutes and to forming secret connections with women other than one’s wife.

Next to the relations between parents and children come brotherly and friendly relations which are referred to in the words, kill not the life which Allah has made sacred. This injunction requires us to treat our brethren and friends as well as members of our society with fairness and justice. The word "killing," it will be noted, pertains not only to actually killing but to an attempt at killing as well as causing serious injury and boycotting etc. (see meaning of قتل i.e. killing under 2:62; 3:155 & 4:158). The expression, save by right, used with regard to "killing" means "except when a man has made himself deserving of the treatment to be meted out to him." For instance, in case of murder a person will be put to death only by order of proper authority. Similarly, in case of "boycotting" a person will be boycotted only under the orders of the person or the body that possesses that power. It will not be right for any man to take the law in his own hands.

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.

6:152.

3:152; 7:72; 22:72.

Commentary:

The verse draws our attention to the purity of Divine teachings by pointing out that all evil things are forbidden by Islam. But at the same time it reminds the reader that there are certain things the evil of which is generally hidden from men. These, too, are forbidden and most of them have been mentioned by the Holy Prophet.

The verse next proceeds to explain what it means by فواحش (foul deeds). It divides them into three classes: (1) اثم (the sin of disobedience or of falling short in the performance of a duty), and بغی (transgression, i.e. exceeding the proper bounds); (2) شرك (associating with God that for which He has sent down no authority). The فواحش (foul deeds) of this class mean idolatrous beliefs and polytheistic ideals. (3) "That you say against Allah what you do not know." By the فواحش of this class are meant the false and evil words we utter. Thus we are enjoined to be pure not only in thought but also in word and deed.

Important Words:

افیضوا (pour) is derived from افاض which again is derived from فاض which means, it (water, etc.) overflowed, or poured forth from fullness. افاض means, he filled (a vessel) so that it overflowed; he made it (water, etc.) to flow or run; he poured out water, etc. (Lane).

Commentary:

The use of the words افیضواعلینا (pour on us) by the inmates of Hell implies that they would in a way flatter the inmates of Heaven by saying to them that they had enjoyed God’s blessings (which were virtually overflowing) to their heart’s content, and would then beg of them to give them a little of the abundant good that God had bestowed upon them. This condition of the inmates of Hell is well illustrated by the parable of Abraham and Lazarus in Luke 16:23-24.

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.

2:174; 5:4; 6:146.

Commentary:

See notes on vv. 2:169,174; 5:4; 6:119,120 & 146.

6:152; 25:69.

Commentary:

In the preceding two verses reference was made to the two indirect ways of killing. The verse under comment, however, speaks of direct murder. It declares it unlawful to kill a soul, the killing of which has been forbidden by God.

The word نفس (soul) means anything which breathes and therefore includes all living things. So the words, which Allah has forbidden, have been added in order to restrict their application to man, it being lawful to kill other animals except under certain conditions when their killing also is forbidden.

The word ولی (heir) is applied to any person who is entitled to inherit another man’s property after the latter’s death. But one may nominate a person other than his legal heir as his ولی. If a person is murdered, his ولی (heir) has the right to demand satisfaction. But after the murderer is convicted by a properly constituted court, the heir of the murdered person has the right either to have the murderer legally executed or accept blood-money in lieu of the death of the murdered person. If, however, it is considered against the interests of public peace or morality to allow blood money to the heir or if the demand of the heir be found to be not bona fide, the court may refuse to accept the option of the heir and order the murderer’s execution. In fact, both the heir and the State equally share the right to pardon or punish the guilty person. This right of the State in regard to the punishment of the guilty person covers all matters to which the injunction of قصاص(retaliation) applies. The Caliph ‘Ali is reported to have punished a guilty person whom the aggrieved party had pardoned on the plea that the dictates of public peace demanded his punishment. ‘Ali was convinced that the fear of being harmed by the offender had made the aggrieved person pardon him. See also 2:179.

Whereas in the earlier part of the verse the rights of the party offended against have been safeguarded, the words, let him not exceed the prescribed bounds in slaying, safeguard the interests of the offender. They mean to say that the aggrieved party should not exceed legitimate bounds by adopting a cruel method of killing. In fact, these words imply a recommendation in favour of the murderer. They also show that although "life for life" is the general rule, the heirs of the murdered person may not always act upon this rule. The murderer is to suffer the extreme penalty of the law only when the dictates of equity, retaliation, public peace and morality absolutely demand it. His life should be spared if this act of grace is calculated to lead to his moral reformation. In the words, for therein he is helped by law, the aggrieved person is reminded of his responsibilities. He is told that he, too, is responsible for the maintenance of peace. As God has safeguarded his rights, he should have regard for the rights of others—he should not always insist upon his "pound of flesh".

6:152; 17:33, 34.

Important Words:

أثاماً (punishment of sin) is infinitive noun from أثم which means, he fell into or committed a sin or crime: he did what was unlawful. أثام means, the requital or recompense of a sin or crime or punishment thereof (Lane).

Commentary:

The verse deals with the three basic sins, i.e. idolatry, murder and adultery, the fountainheads of individual depravity and social and sexual immorality. The Quran has reverted to these three sins again and again.