Topic: Vision

266

Important Word:

خاویة (fallen) is derived from خوی. They say خوی البیت i.e. (1) the house fell down in ruins; (2) the house became empty and untenanted (Aqrab).

عروش (roofs) is the plural of عرش (roof). They say عرش i.e. he built a house. عرش البیت means, he raised the roof of the house. عرش means: (1) the roof of a house; (2) the throne or the ceremonious chair of a king; (3) the pillar, etc. supporting a thing; (4) honour and prowess; (5) leaders and chiefs among men; (6) tent, canopy, shed etc. affordingshade; (7) trellis supporting vines (Aqrab & Lane).

یتسنه (have rotted) is derived from سنه i.e. (1) it passed through a time extending over years; (2) it (food, etc.) became altered and rotten by the lapse of years or absolutely. تسنه gives the same meaning as سنه (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The preceding verse contained one illustration of how Allah brings His friends out of darkness into light. The present verse cites, as hinted in the words, or like him, another illustration of how He breathes new life into a people after they have fallen and become degraded.

The ruined town referred to in the verse is Jerusalem which was laid waste by Nebuchadnezzar. The person who, as the verse says, passed by it was Ezekiel, the Prophet; and the words which had fallen down upon its roofs hint that it was soon after its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar that Ezekiel passed by the town. Ezekiel was among the Israelite captives whom Nebuchadnezzar carried away to Babylon and who, in accordance with an ancient custom, were made to pass by the ruins of the town so that they might witness with their own eyes how their city had been laid in ruins by the conqueror. Ezekiel, who was a great well-wisher of his people, was immensely pained to see the ruins of the sacred city and pathetically asked God when the time would come when the ruined city would be restored to life, i.e. when its inhabitants, the children of Israel, would come back to it, rebuild it and make it prosperous once more. This prayer, it appears, was heard by God Who showed him in a vision that the restoration asked for would come in a hundred years.

The clause then Allah caused him to die for a hundred years does not mean that Ezekiel was actually made to die and then raised to life again. It was, in fact, a vision which Ezekiel saw (Ezek. 37). The Quran sometimes mentions scenes seen in a vision as if they had actually happened, without stating that they were witnessed in a vision or a dream (e.g. 12:5). What actually happened was that Ezekiel saw in a vision that he had died and remained dead for a hundred years and then had come back to life. As he was the representative of his people, his death signified the death of the Israelites. Thus God informed him through this vision that the children of Israel would remain in their state of captivity and lifelessness for a hundred years, after which a new life would be given them and they would return to inhabit their sacred city. And this dream or vision actually turned out to be true. For Jerusalem was first invaded by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C. and again in 587 B.C., when after a long siege the city was totally destroyed by his general in 586 B.C. Ezekiel probably saw the vision in 586 B.C. The city was rebuilt about 100 years after its destruction and thus the vision came true.

It is wrong to think that God actually caused Ezekiel to die and that he remained dead for a hundred years and was then brought back to life; for that would have been no answer to his prayer, which did not pertain to the death and resurrection of any individual but to that of a town which was lying in ruins.

The words, which had fallen down upon its roofs; point out that Ezekiel saw the ruins soon after the destruction (not necessarily the complete and final destruction) of the town when the fallen roofs were still to be seen under the debris of the walls.

The words, I have remained a day or part of a day, are intended to express indefiniteness of time and mean, according to the Quranic usage, that Ezekiel did not know how long he had remained in that state. The words have been used in this sense in another passage of the Quran as well: They said, We have tarried a day or part of a day. Others said, Your Lord knows best the time you have tarried (18:20). Again, They will say, We tarried a day or part of a day, but ask those who keep count (23:114). In fact, یوم (day) here does not mean a day of 24 or 12 hours but time absolutely (see 1:4). The clause, I have remained a day or part of a day, may also refer to the time for which Ezekiel slept or the time he took in seeing the vision or the dream. Apparently Ezekiel thought that he was being asked about the duration of the time of the vision.

The clause, Nay, thou hast remained in this state for a hundred years, points out that although in one sense he had remained in that state for a hundred years (for he had dreamt that he had been dead for a hundred years), yet the statement that he had tarried for a day or part of a day, was also correct, for the time spent in seeing the vision was naturally very short. To bring home this fact to the mind of Ezekiel, God directed his attention to his food and drink and to the ass. That his food and drink had not become stale and that his ass was still alive, showed that he had really tarried only for a short time. The words and look at thy ass also indicate that Ezekiel saw the vision while sleeping in his fields with his ass by his side, for while in captivity the Israelites were made to work in the fields as farmers.

The words that We may make thee a Sign unto men show that Ezekiel was to be made a Sign to men inasmuch as his vision, according to which Jerusalem was to become re-inhabited by the children of Israel, was to come true. The words, look at the bones, are intended to echo the words used by the children of Israel in those days of misery, viz. that they had become like dry bones and there was no hope of their being ever endued with new life (Ezek. 37:11, 12). The words along with the accompanying clause meant that God had power to clothe the bones with flesh and to breathe new life into them. The bones were first to be set or placed in position and thereafter clothed with flesh, i.e. the Israelites, then like dead bones, were first to be brought back to their town and then the process of the clothing of the bones with flesh, i.e. the rebuilding of the town, etc. was to be completed.

The vision of Ezekiel has been mentioned in the Bible in chapter 37 of his book.

267

Important Words:

تحی الموتی (Thou givest life to the dead). For the meaning of حیاة (life) and موت (death) and میت (dead person) see 2:20; 2:29; 2:57 and 2:74.

یطمئن (be at rest) is derived from طمئن. They say طمئن ظھرہ i.e. he bent his back low. طمئن الشیء means, he made the thing calm and set it at rest. اطمأن means, it or he was at rest; it or he became calm after being agitated; it or he became docile and submissive. المطمئن means, (1) one who is calm and tranquil or in a state of rest or ease; that which is motionless and stationary; (2) if used in connection with some piece of land, it means a low-lying, soft piece of land (Aqrab).

صرھن الیك (make them attached to thyself). صرھن is derived from صار with واو as the central root letter. They say صار الشیء الی نفسه i.e. he inclined the thing to himself. صار وجھه الی means, he inclined his face towards me. صرت الغصن لاجتنی الثمر means, I inclined the branch towards myself in order to pluck the fruit. صار with ی as the central root letter, means, he cut a thing, etc. into pieces (Aqrab). The Quran uses here صار with واو as the central root letter as the dammah in صرھن indicates. Moreover, the preposition الی (to) determines the significance of the word in the sense of inclining or attaching and not cutting.

جزء (each) is derived from جزاء. They say جزأ الشیء i.e. he divided the thing into parts. So جزء means, part or portion or division of a thing (Lane). Thus, if a thing consists of, and comprises, a group, the word part or division would signify each member of it.

Commentary:

This verse provides yet another illustration of the process of life and death arranged by God in this world. In other words, the rise of a fallen nation is further discussed. Abraham asked God to show him how He caused a people to come to life after they had become fallen and degraded.

The difference between إیمان (belief) and اطمینان (heart being at rest) is that in the former state one simply believes that God can do a thing, while in the latter one receives the assurance that the thing would be done in his case also. Abraham did indeed believe that God could bring a dead people to life, but what he desired was the personal satisfaction of knowing that He would do so in the case of his own posterity as well; hence the words, so that my heart may be at rest.

The verse proceeds to describe a vision of Abraham. By asking him to take four birds, God hinted that his posterity would rise and fall four times. This rise and fall was witnessed twice among the Israelites, and the same phenomenon was to be repeated among the followers of the Holy Prophet of Islam who was descended from Abraham through Ishmael. The power of the Jews, the progeny of Abraham through Isaac, was crushed twice, first by Nebuchadnezzar and then by Titus (the Quran, 17:5-8; the Bible, II Kings ch. 25 and Enc. Brit. under Jews); and each time God raised them after their fall, the second revival having been brought about by the acceptance of Christianity by the Roman Emperors. As to the power of Islam, it was first rudely shaken when Baghdad fell to the arms of the Tartars, after which it again revived owing to the conquerors being won over to Islam. The second fall came later when there was a general and wholesale decline of Muslims both in the spiritual and the political field. The final rise is being arranged by God through the Ahmadiyya Movement founded by Ahmad, the Promised Messiah.

Referring to the verse under comment, the Holy Prophet is reported to have said, "We are more deserving of entertaining شك than Abraham" (Muslim). Here شك does not mean "doubt" but an intense hidden desire anxiously awaiting fulfilment, for the Holy Prophet never entertained any doubt. This shows that Abraham also never doubted and his question was not prompted by doubt but simply by an anxious desire. He had firm faith in the power of God and fully believed that He could restore a fallen people to prosperity; what he wanted was simply the satisfaction of his hidden desire, i.e. an assurance that God would do so in the case of his people also. The word شك therefore here only means the feeling of anxiety in the mind, or the state of commotion or disturbance of the heart and mind (Lane).

The double fall and subsequent rise of the Israelites and of the posterity of Ishmael making the total number of such phenomena four may be interpreted in another way also. The Israelites were a fallen people before Moses and God raised them through him. They fell again before the time of Jesus and were again given new life through him. Similarly, the Ishmaelites were a fallen people before the advent of the Holy Prophet who gave them new life, and they are again a fallen people now when they are being given a new life by Ahmad, the Promised Messiah.

Many commentators have translated the word صرھن as, "cut them into pieces and mince them", but this is clearly wrong; for as explained under Important Words above صار یصور (with واو as the central root letter) means "inclining" and not "cutting", particularly when it is used with the preposition الی. So the expression صرھن would mean "make them inclined towards thyself", so that they may become attached to thee. In this case the placing of a جزء of the four birds each on a hill would mean, putting each separate bird on a separate hill, and not placing portions of the minced meat thereon. The commandment to place the four birds separately on separate hills is to point to the fact that the rise and fall of the progeny of Abraham would take place at four distinct and separate times. The word جزء has been used in this sense elsewhere also (15:45).

327

Important Words:

مریم (Mary) was the mother of Jesus. She was probably named after the sister of Moses and Aaron, known as Mariam (later pronunciation Miriam). The word, which is probably a compound one consisting of مر and یم it possesses, in Hebrew, a variety of interpretations, some of them being "bitter sea"; "drop of the sea"; "star of the sea"; "bitterness"; "mistress" or "lady". From two alternative roots Mariam might also mean, "the rebellious", or "the corpulent" (Enc. Bib. under Mary). It also means "exalted" (Cruden’s Concordance). Muslim traditionists ascribe to the word the meaning of "pious worshipper" (Kashshaf).

الرجیم (the rejected) is passive participle from رجم. They say رجمه i.e. he pelted him with stones; he smote and killed him; he drove him away; he cursed him; he boycotted or forsook him; he reviled or abused him. رجم الرجل means, the man said a thing on conjecture. رجم القبر means, he put up a stone at the tomb to serve as a sign. الرجیم means: (1) one whom God has driven away from His presence and mercy, i.e. the one rejected; (2) one whom God has cursed; (3) one who has been forsaken and abandoned; and (4) one who has been pelted with stones (Aqrab & Lane). It also means, one driven away or deprived of all goodness and virtue (Mufradat).

Commentary:

Mary’s mother had made the vow in the hope that she would be blessed with a son whom she would dedicate to the service of God. Instead a daughter was born to her. So she was naturally perplexed.

The words, Allah knew best what she had brought forth, form a parenthetical clause spoken by God whereas the following words, the male was not like the female, may be taken to have been either spoken by God or by Mary’s mother. Most probably they are God’s words and mean as rendered in the text, that the female child she had brought forth was superior to the male child she desired to have. If taken to have been spoken by Mary’s mother, they would mean that the female child she had given birth to could not be like the male child she desired, inasmuch as only a boy was fit to do the special service to which she desired to dedicate him.

The clause, I have named her Mary, contains an implied prayer to God to make the girl as exalted and as good and virtuous as the name Mary, meaning exalted or a pious worshipper, signified.

The words, I commit her and her offspring to Thy protection from Satan, the rejected, offer some difficulty. If Mary’s mother intended her child to be dedicated to the service of God, she must have known that the child would remain unmarried for life. What is, then, the sense in offering prayer for the child’s offspring? The most probable explanation is that God had told her in a vision that her daughter would grow up to womanhood and would have a child, whereupon she prayed that Mary and her child might both be granted God’s protection from Satan, the rejected. In spite of this, however, she appears to have left the future of Mary in God’s hand and dedicated her, as she had originally intended, to the service of God (3:38; 3:45; also Gospel of the Birth of Mary). This must have been an exceptional case, for ordinarily only males were eligible for such dedication. The assumption that Mary’s mother had a vision that her daughter would have a son is not unfounded. It finds mention in the Gospel of Mary (3:5) though perhaps in a somewhat different form.

There was nothing unusual about the prayer of Hanna, Mary’s mother, that Mary and her offspring might be protected from satanic influences. All pious parents are actuated by such a desire for their children and pray that they should grow up to lead good and virtuous lives. But unfortunately this simple and natural prayer of Mary’s mother, coupled with a saying of the Holy Prophet to the effect that Mary and her son Jesus were free from the touch of Satan, has given rise to widespread misunderstanding and has been made the basis of an entirely erroneous and misleading belief among a section of Muslims, besides affording to Christians a welcome excuse for attacking Islam. A section among the latter-day Muslims has come to believe that of all men and women, Jesus and his mother, Mary, alone were immune from the evil influences of Satan.

As hinted above, this doctrine is based on a tradition of the Holy Prophet which says: "No child is born but Satan touches it at the time of its birth and makes it cry, except Jesus and his mother Mary" (Bukhari). Unfortunately, this saying of the Holy Prophet has been shorn of its true setting and utterly misunderstood. These words of the Prophet, besides being not strictly relevant as they refer only to the touch of Satan at the time of the birth of a child and not absolutely, were necessitated by the fact that the Jews, out of their enmity towards Jesus, charged him and his mother with the infamous accusation that, God forbid, Mary led an immoral life, and conceived out of legal wedlock, and that consequently Jesus, her son, had an illegal birth. It was to refute this filthy charge that the Holy Prophet uttered the above-quoted words. So this saying of the Prophet is not intended to be general but has only a particular significance with a specific setting. In fact this hadith mentions the names of Jesus and his mother Mary only by way of citing an instance and what is meant is that all mortals born of a woman are likely to come under the influence of Satan except such as possess moral and spiritual qualities like unto those possessed by Mary and her son. The Arabic language is not wanting in instances where a person is named not in his individual capacity, but as representing a class of people (Kashshaf & Manawi). The names of Jesus and Mary have been specifically chosen because of the aspersion upon them by the wicked Jews. Another equally good interpretation is that the words "no child is born" occurring in this hadith are, as hinted above not general but have been used in a restricted sense, signifying not all children absolutely but only such children as were born out of wedlock in the days of Jesus, and the name of Mary has been added because it was her abnormal conception that occasioned such birth of Jesus. Another saying of the Holy Prophet supports this interpretation. Says he, "every child is born in the likeness of Islam; it is only his parents that make him a Christian, a Jew or a Fire-Worshipper" (Bukhari). So the "touch" of Satan referred to in the foregoing hadith cannot be general; it must be taken in a restricted sense.

That Jesus and his mother are not alone in being free from the touch of Satan is clear from a number of Quranic verses and several sayings of the Holy Prophet. To quote only one instance from each, the Quran says: (O Satan,) surely thou shalt have no power over My servants, except such of the erring ones as choose to follow thee (15:43). And the Holy Prophet says: "If a person goes in unto his wife praying, 'O my Lord, keep me away from Satan and so too, keep away the child you grant me', and the wife conceives on such an occasion, the child born will be free from the touch of Satan" (Bukhari).

As for himself personally the Holy Prophet says, "Every one of you has a satan attached to him (who tries to lead him astray) but God has helped me against my satan who has turned Muslim, i.e. obedient and submissive" (Musnad). This means that so far as the Holy Prophet was concerned, Satan had become virtually non-existent. This is certainly a much more exalted position than mere protection against the attack of Satan. Truly has the Prophet remarked, "If Moses and Jesus had been alive, they would have found themselves forced to follow me" (Kathir).

Finally, it may be noted that though Islam declares all Prophets of God to be virtually safe from the influence of Satan, the Bible does not ascribe this protection to Jesus for the New Testament clearly states at a number of places that he was tempted by the Devil for no less than forty days (e.g. Mark 1:12, 13).

337

Commentary:

The news of a son, however happy in ordinary circumstances, greatly perplexed Mary who was not only as yet unmarried but was also meant to remain so for life. The verse reflects her justified perplexity. It also shows that Jesus had no father, as hinted in Mary’s words, no man has touched me. Having been dedicated to the service of the Temple, Mary could not, consistently with her vow of celibacy, marry. If she was to marry and have children in due course there was no occasion for her to be surprised when the birth of a child was announced to her by the angel in a vision. No normal girl would be surprised if she were told in a vision that a son would be born to her; for she would naturally infer that the promised child would be born to her after marriage. In the Gospel of Mary, the vow of celibacy is clearly referred to. In chapter 5 of the said Gospel we read that when the high priest made a public order that all the virgins living in the temple who had reached their fourteenth year should return home, all the other virgins yielded obed-ience to this command, but "Mary the virgin of the Lord" alone answered that she could not comply with it; and for this refusal of hers she assigned the reason that both she and her parents had devoted her to the service of the Lord, and that she had vowed virginity to the Lord, which vow she was resolved never to break (Gospel of Mary, 5: 4, 5, 6).

Mary’s subsequent marriage with Joseph was thus contrary to the vow and against her own wish. She was, however, compelled by circumstances to marry when found with child. The priests had to arrange her marriage with Joseph in order to avoid scandal. It does not, however, appear from the Gospels how Joseph was prevailed upon to consent, for he was obviously in the dark about her being pregnant at the time of marriage (Matt. 1:18, 19). Presumably some plausible excuse was found to justify the breaking of the vow.

Christians and Jews are both agreed that the birth of Jesus was something out of the ordinary–the Christians holding it as supernatural and the Jews as illegitimate (Jew. Enc.). Even in the family birth register, Jesus’ birth was recorded as such (Talmud). This fact alone should constitute a sufficient proof of Jesus’ birth being out of the ordinary. But it was neither supernatural nor illegitimate. To quote only one medical authority: "Medical men have not ruled out altogether the possibility of natural parthenogenesis of the production of a child by a female, without any relation to a male. Such a statement off-hand appears ridiculous, yet its possibility, from a purely biological standpoint, under certain conditions cannot be disregarded. Dr. Timme calls attention to this possibility as the result of a certain type of tumours, known as arrhenoblastoma (from the Greek words for "male" and "germ") which are occasionally found in the female pelvis or lower body. These tumours are capable of generating male sperm cells. Naturally, if these male sperm cells were alive and active and came in contact with the female’s own egg cell or ovum, conception might occur. There is nothing illogical in this process of reasoning…Dr. Timme states that there are twenty authentic cases reported in Europe in which an arrhenoblastoma had been found to develop male sperm cells…The arrhenoblastoma is a tumour that contains blastodermic cells...These cells are creative structures and are capable of development at any time and the fact, therefore, that arrhenoblas-tomacontaining these "embryonic cells" might create testicular tissue, capable of producing male sperm cells seems scientifically not impossible. If living male sperm cells are produced in a female body by arrhenoblastoma, the possibility of self-fertilization of a woman, even though a virgin, cannot be denied. That is to say, her own body would produce the same result as though sperm cells from a man’s body had been transferred to hers in the more usual way, or by a physician’s aid" (American Medical Journal).

There are cases on record of children having been born without fathers: "A young girl of great moral purity became pregnant without the slightest knowledge of the source… There is a case of pregnancy in an unmarried woman, who successfully resisted an attempt at criminal connection and yet became impreg-nated and gave birth to a perfectly formed female child" (Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine by George M. Gould, A.M., M.D., and Walter L. Payle, A.M., M.D., published by W. B. Saunders & Co., London).

1001

Important Words:

ثعبان (serpent) is derived from ثعب. They say ثعبه i.e. he gave vent to it; or he made it (water, etc.) to flow or run or stream. ثعبان means, a kind of long serpent; a great serpent, whether male or female, but particularly the male; or the serpent in general whether male or female, great or small; also applied to an enormous fabulous serpent (Lane).

Commentary:

The Quran has used three different words for describing the turning of the rod of Moses into a serpent; (1) ثعبان as in the verse under comment and in 26:33; (2) حیة as in 20:21, and (3) جان as in 28:32 and 27:11. The words ثعبان and حیة are applied both to a large or a small serpent, while the word جان signifies only a small serpent. Thus, there is no conflict or contradiction in using these three different words for the same thing, as all of them may be used to give the same meaning, i.e. a small serpent.

Moreover, on carefully pondering over the verses in which these words occur, we find that different words have been used to suit different occasions. The word جان has been used on the occasion when the rod is made to appear as a serpent to Moses alone (27:11) while the words ثعبان and حیة have been used in connection with the occasion when the miracle was wrought in public. This shows that to Moses the rod appeared as only a small serpent. While in the presence of Pharaoh and other men, it was made to appear like a big serpent. Thus the use of three different words for different occasions was not haphazard and casual, but deliberate and evidently intended to serve a definite purpose.

Moreover, in the verses in which the word جان is used, it is not said that the rod actually turned into a جان (small serpent) but that it moved as though it were a جان. This does not mean that the rod necessarily turned into a small serpent but that it only moved quickly like a small serpent, though it may have been a large serpent. So the different words used by the Quran do not conflict with each other, whether the rod be taken as turning into a small serpent or a large one.

It should also be noted here that this miracle did not really contradict any law of nature. If the existence of a thing is proved beyond doubt, it must be admitted, even if we are unable to explain it in the light of the laws of nature, as we know them. Our knowledge of the laws of nature is evidently very limited and so we cannot deny a fact on the basis of our limited and imperfect knowledge. Moreover, the said miracle did not take place in the manner in which it is popularly understood to have occurred. Indeed, miracles shown by God’s Prophets are not like the performance of jugglers. They are meant to serve some great moral or spiritual purpose. One of their primary objects is to bring about certainty of faith and engender feelings of piety and fear of God in the minds of those who witness them. If the rod had actually turned into a serpent, the whole performance must have looked more like the hand-tricks of a juggler than the miracle of a Prophet. In spite of what the Bible might say about this miracle, the Quran lends no support whatever to the view that the rod actually turned into a real and living serpent. No such thing ever took place. The rod only appeared like a moving serpent. It was a sort of a vision in which God either exercised special control over the sight of the onlookers in order to make them see the rod in the form of a serpent or the rod itself was made to appear like a serpent; and this vision was shared by Pharaoh and his courtiers and the enchanters along with Moses. The rod remained a rod, only it appeared to Moses and others as a serpent. It is a spiritual phenomenon of common occurrence that in a vision when man rises above the encumbrances of the flesh and becomes temporarily transported to a spiritual sphere, he can see things taking place which are beyond his ken and are quite invisible to his physical eyes. The miracle of the rod turning into a serpent was one such spiritual experience.

A similar spiritual phenomenon took place when in the time of the Holy Prophet the moon was seen as rent asunder not only by the Holy Prophet but by some of his followers and opponents as well (Bukhari, ch. on Tafsir). Such visions, which constitute a peculiar state between sleep and wakefulness, are a common spiritual experience of God’s Prophets and His Elect, but sometimes they are shared by ordinary men and by even disbelievers. Tradition tells us that Gabriel whom the Holy Prophet often saw in his visions, was also once seen by his Companions, who were sitting with him (Bukhari, ch. on Iman). Similarly, some angels were seen even by some of the disbelievers at the Battle of Badr (Jarir, vi.47). Another instance of this kind occurred when a Muslim army under the well-known Muslim general, Sariyah, was fighting the enemy in Iraq at a distance of hundreds of miles from Medina. ‘Umar, the Second Khalifah, while delivering his Friday sermon at Medina, saw in a vision that the Muslim army was being over-whelmed by the superior numbers of the enemy and that a disastrous defeat was imminent. Thereupon, ‘Umar suddenly discontinued his sermon and cried out from the pulpit, saying, "O Sariyah, take to the mountain, take to the mountain." Sariyah, hundreds of miles away and surrounded by the deafening noise of the battlefield, heard the voice of ‘Umar and obeyed it; and the Muslim army was saved from destruction (Khamis, ii. 270).

The miracle of Moses mentioned in the verse under comment possessed a special significance. It may be interpreted something like this. God told Moses to throw down his rod which then appeared to him like a serpent; and when subsequently on God’s bidding he took it up, lo! the rod was a mere piece of wood. Now a serpent, in the language of visions and dreams, is a symbol of the enemy, while a rod is emblematic of one’s community (Ta‘tirul-Anam). Thus, by means of this vision, God made Moses understand that if He cast away his people from him, they would become veritable serpents. But if he kept them under his care, they would grow into a strong and well-knit community of righteous and God-fearing men. Moses had in the beginning begged to be excused from being entrusted with the onerous task of reclaiming a morally depraved people, but God told him by means of this vision that the well-being of his people depended upon his taking them in his charge, failing which they would turn into veritable serpents.

Abu Jahl, the arch-enemy of Islam, was also once made to see a similar vision. It is reported that the Holy Prophetone day went to him and asked him to pay a certain sum of money which he owed to a poor man, a stranger in Mecca, but which he had so far declined to pay. On the Holy Prophet’s demand, Abu Jahl, in spite of his great enmity to the Prophet, made the payment at once, and when asked by his friends the reason for his doing so, he said he saw two enraged camels on both sides of Muhammad about to tear him to pieces if he refused to comply with his demand (Hisham). Arabia is a land of camels, so Abu Jahl was made to see camels, while Egypt being a land of magic serpents, Pharaoh was made to see a serpent.

1509

Important Words:

یوسف (Joseph) was the eleventh son of the Prophet Jacob, otherwise known as Israel, and the elder of the two sons of Rachel. The meaning given to the name is "shall add" i.e. "The Lord shall add to me another son" (Gen. 30:24). A somewhat detailed account of his life is given in the present Surah. It should, however, be added that Joseph possesses the unique characteristic among all Prophets of God that not only was he himself a Prophet of God but his father, Jacob, his grandfather, Isaac, and his great-grandfather, Abraham, were all God’s chosen Messengers. The Holy Prophetreferred to this characteristic of Joseph in one of his well-known sayings when, on being asked by some of his Companions as to who was the noblest of men, he is reported to have replied, "Truly the noblest of men is the Prophet Joseph who was the son, grandson and great-grandson of a Prophet of God" (Bukhari, Kitab Bad’ul-Khalq). It may also be noted here that, though Joseph was buried in Egypt, his remains were later removed by Moses to Palestine when the Israelites were commanded by God to leave Egypt (Enc. Bib.).

کوکبا (stars) is derived from کوکب (kaukaba) which means, it (iron) glistened; was lustrous, or bright. کوکب (kaukabun) of which the plural is کواکب means, a star; an asterism; a constellation; the source or spring of a well; the lustre or brightness of iron, etc.; a sword; a whiteness in the eye; a tract which differs in colour from the land in which it lies; a youth nearly of the age of puberty; also a youth who has attained the period of adolescence and whose face has become beautiful; the chief or lord, or prince and horseman, or cavalier of a people; an armed man; a mountain; a troop of horses; the greater or chief part of a thing; the flower or flowers of a garden, etc. (Lane).

Commentary:

With this verse begins the story of Joseph, and in this very verse two important differences in the accounts of the Bible and the Quran and in the manner of their narration have been brought to light. Firstly, the Biblical account begins with a description of the pedigree of Joseph, while the Quran leaves this unimportant detail to be filled up by historians and begins the actual narration with the dream of Joseph, which constitutes its pivot. The whole life of Joseph revolves round this dream. Thus the Quran has opened the narrative with a much better and more appropriate beginning than the Bible. Secondly, while describing the dream of Joseph, the Bible mentions the sun and the moon first and the eleven stars afterwards, as making obeisance to Joseph (Gen. 37:9), but the Quran reverses the order; and actual facts of history support the order followed by the Quran, for it was the brethren of Joseph (the eleven stars) who met him first and made obeisance to him and his parents came afterwards. The vision as given in the Quran was literally fulfilled in actual life.

The word ساجدین (making obeisance) in the verse does not mean that the brothers and parents of Joseph actually fell prostrate before him. The root-meaning of this word being "obedience" and "submission" (for which see 2:35), the expression signified only that they would become obedient to the authority of Joseph and so it actually came to pass, for the parents and brothers of Joseph came to reside in the land where Joseph held sway as a Minister of State. Thus it was that they became ساجد or obedient to him. The names of the eleven brothers of Joseph, as given in the Bible, are:Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun, Benjamin, Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher.

The incident of the vision related by Joseph to his father furnishes two points of resemblance between him and the Holy Prophet. Just as Joseph’s vision, which was his first revelation, foretold his future greatness; so the first revelation of the Holy Prophet in the Cave of Hira predicted that he was to become the most honoured man of the human race. In 96:2-5, containing the first revelation which the Holy Prophet received, he was told that God would make him the most honoured among mankind and through him would teach men things which they did not know before, and that he would be the most honoured man not only among his contemporaries but also among those who had gone before him as well as those who would come after him. In this way, he would not only be the chief among his own brethren or followers, but also among his spiritual forefathers, the Prophets of yore. This is why the Holy Prophet is reported to have said لوکان موسی و عیسی حیین لما وسعھما الااتباعی i.e. even if Moses and Jesus had been living, they could not have helped tendering their allegiance to me (Kathir. vol. 2, p. 246). He also said انا سید ولد آدم i.e. I am the chief of all the children of Adam (Tirmidhi, ch. on Manaqib).

The second point of resemblance between the Holy Prophet and Joseph mentioned in this verse is that, whereas Joseph related his vision to his father, the Holy Prophet, at the instance of his wife, Khadijah, related his first revelation to Waraqah bin Naufal, who was one of the elders of the family (Bukhari).

1931

Important Words:

اسری (carried) is derived from سری. They say سری باللیل او سری اللیل i.e. he journeyed or travelled by night or in the night. اسراهاو اسری به means, he made him journey or travel, or he transported him by night or in the night; he journeyed or travelled with him, by night or in the night, or simply, he carried him. The Quranic expression سبحان الذی اسری بعبدہ لیلا means, Glory be to Him Who transported His servant by night. According to some lexicologists اسری is used for journey in the first part of the night and سری for the last part of it. According to others, the verb اسری is from سراة which means, a wide tract of land. According to this meaning the expression اسری بعبدہ means, Who transported His servant over a wide tract of land (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).

المسجد الاقصی (the Distant Mosque). اقصی is derived from قصی. They say قصی المکان i.e. the place was or became distant. اقصیmeans, distant or very distant (Aqrab). المسجد الاقصی may signify the Prophet Solomon’s Temple at Jerusalem, the Holy Prophet’s Mosque at Medina or the Promised Messiah’s Mosque at Qadian.

Commentary:

The verse is supposed by almost all commentators of the Quran to refer to the معراج (Spiritual Ascension of the Holy Prophet). The subject of Mi‘raj has become much complicated and confused on account of the many divergent traditions that deal with it. Contrary to popular view we are, however, inclined towards the opinion that the present verse deals with the اسراء (Night Journey) of the Holy Prophet while his Mi‘raj (Spiritual Ascension) has been dealt with in Surah An-Najm. That Surah removes all the obscurities and ambiguities that have confused the popular mind in regard to this important subject. In Surah An-Najm we have:

It is nothing but a revelation that is revealed. The One of mighty powers has taught him (this knowledge): the One Possessor of strength. So He manifested His ascendance (over everything) and He revealed His Word when he was on the uppermost horizon. Then he drew nearer (to God); then he came down to (His creatures), so that he became, as it were, the one chord of two bows or closer still. And He revealed to His servant that which He revealed. The heart (of the Prophet) was not untrue to that which he saw. Will you then dispute with him concerning that which he saw? And certainly he saw Him a second time, near the Lote-tree beyond which none may pass, near which is the Garden of Abode. This was when a wonderful and glorious Divine manifestation covered the Lote-tree. The eye deviated not nor did it wander. Surely, he saw the greatest of the Signs of his Lord. (53:5-19).

These verses give a graphic description of the Mi‘raj, for the facts mentioned in them all relate to it, e.g. the Holy Prophet went up to the Lote-tree; (2) the Lote-tree was covered with "something"; (3) the Prophet saw the Paradise (the Garden of Abode) near the Lote-tree; (4) he became, as it were, the one chord of two bows; (5) he saw God (and the heart of the Prophet was not untrue to that which he saw); and (6) the word of God descended on the Lote-tree.

All these details have also been mentioned in the traditions which deal with the Mi‘raj. As for the Lote-tree, AbuHurairah (as reported by Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abu Hatim, Ibn Merdawaih, Abu Ya‘la and Baihaqi) says, "In the night of Mi‘raj, after having seen other Prophets of God in heaven, the Holy Prophet proceeded further till he reached the Lote-tree." The same fact has been mentioned in the tradition quoted on the authority of Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri by Ibn Jarir, Ibn Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Merdawaih, Baihaqi, and Ibn ‘Asakir, and in the tradition quoted on the authority of Malik Ibn Sa‘sa’ by Ahmad bin Hanbal, Bukhari, Muslim and Ibn Jarir and in the tradition quoted on the authority of Anas by Bukhari (Bukhari, chapter on Mi‘raj, & Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. 1, pp. 153, 167 & 174).

The second important detail mentioned in Surah An-Najm is that when the Prophet reached the Lote-tree, he saw it covered with some extraordinary thing (53:17). This has also been mentioned in the traditions that deal with Mi‘raj. In the tradition reported by Abu Hurairah to which reference has been made above we read فغشیھا نور الخلاق عزوجل i.e. when the Holy Prophet reached the Lote-tree, the light of the Powerful and Glorious Creator covered it (Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 174). Similarly, in the tradition reported by Anas we have: "Then the Lote-tree became covered with a special Divine grace so much so that in its newly changed condition its beauty defied all description" (Muslim, Kitabul-Iman)

The third incident referred to in chapter 53 (An-Najm) is that the Holy Prophet saw Paradise near the Lote-tree. This has also found mention in traditions which deal with Mi‘raj. In the tradition quoted on the authority of Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri by Ibn Jarir and mentioned in some other books of Hadith we read: ثم انی رفعت الی الجنة i.e. after I had seen the Prophets in the heavens I was taken up to Paradise. This is followed by the words ثم انی رفعت الی سدرة المنتھی i.e. after paradise I was led up to the Lote-tree (Ibn Jarir, vol. 15, p. 11).

The fourth important detail mentioned in chapter 53 is that when the Holy Prophet had a vision of those celestial scenes he was transported into a highly spiritual state which has been described in the words, So that he became, as it were, the one chord of two bows or closer still.

This fact has also been mentioned in the traditions about Mi‘raj. In the tradition reported by Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri and referred to above we find the words: فکان قاب قوسین او ادنی i.e. between God and the Prophet there was the one chord of two bows or closer still.

The fifth important and relevant incident mentioned in chapter 53 is that during the Mi‘raj the Prophet had a vision of God Himself (53:12). This fact has also been mentioned in the traditions quoted by Ibn Merdawaih on the authority of Asma’, daughter of Abu Bakr (Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 177), and by Muslim on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas (Muslim, Kitabul-Iman). In the latter tradition we read راٰہ بفؤادہ مرتین i.e. twice the Prophet saw God with the eyes of his heart.

The sixth notable detail mentioned in chapter 53 is that God spoke to the Holy Prophet near the Lote-tree (53:11). This fact has also found a mention in the traditions. For instance, in the tradition reported by Abu Hurairah we have فکلمهاللّٰه تعالی عند ذالک i.e. so God spoke to him near it—the Lote-tree (Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 174). Similarly, Ibn Abu Hatim has reported on the authority of Anas bin Malik that when the Prophet arrived near the Lote-tree, God addressed him by name saying یا محمد i.e. O Muhammad, and then Anas continues to finish the hadith. These very striking similarities and resemblances between the subject matter of Surah An-Najm and the traditions about Mi‘raj leave no doubt that it is the Mi‘raj of the Holy Prophet which has been described in that Surah.

After having established the fact that Surah An-Najm contains a description of the Mi‘raj it is important to point out that this Surah has been admitted by the consensus of scholarly opinion to have been revealed in the fifth year of the Call or even earlier. The following very well-known historical event proves it. A party of early Muslims had sought refuge in Abyssinia. They left Mecca in the seventh month of the fifth year of the Call (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, 1923, p. 69). Now the traditions agree that three months had hardly elapsed since this little band of the Faithful had left for Abyssinia when they returned to Mecca (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, 1923, p. 80). The reason which, according to traditions, led to their early return was this. The Holy Prophet was one day reciting chapter 53. When he came to the words, Rather prostrate yourselves before Allah, and worship Him (53:63), the Prophet and the Muslims with him fell prostrate on the ground. The disbelievers present on the occasion, being overwhelmed with the grand theme of the Surah and the solemnity of the occasion, also joined the Prophet in prostration. This gave rise to the rumour that the Quraish had converted to Islam. When this rumour reached Abyssinia, Muslim refugees hastened back to Mecca. This shows that the recitation of the Surah which led to this incident having taken place, must have been revealed in the fifth year of the Call or sometime prior to it.

After a brief description of the Mi‘raj or the Spiritual Ascension of the Holy Prophet and of the time when it took place, it may be noted here that the اسراء Isra’ or the Night Journey of the Holy Prophet from Mecca to Jerusalem, with which the present verse deals took place in the eleventh year of the Call (Zurqani, vol. 1, p. 306). Christian writers, however, put it in the twelfth year of the Call (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, 1923, p. 121). Traditions relating to this incident also corroborate the date referred to above. According to the traditions quoted by Ibn Merdawaih and Ibn Sa‘d, the Isra’ took place on the seventeenth of Rabi‘ul-Awwal, a year before the Hijrah (Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 162). Similarly, a tradition quoted by Baihaqi on the authority of Ibn Shihab, relates that the Isra’ took place a year before the Hijrah. Another tradition also quoted by Baihaqi places the Night Journey to Jerusalem six months before the Hijrah (Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 162).

All these traditions go to prove that the Isra’ took place six months or a year prior to the Hijrah and it has been shown above that the Mi‘raj took place about the fifth year of the Call. Thus the two incidents are separated from each other by an interval of six or seven years and therefore cannot be identical; the Mi‘raj must be regarded as quite distinct and separate from the Isra’.

Irrefutable evidence which shows that the Mi‘raj and the Isra’ were two separate incidents is the fact that it was during the fifth year of the Call that the five daily prayers were enjoined upon Muslims. If the Mi‘raj be considered as identical with the Isra’, then it will also have to be admitted that the five daily Prayers were enjoined upon Muslims in the eleventh or twelfth year of the Call which is evidently wrong because all traditionalists agree that the five Prayers were prescribed in the very early years of the Call.

It may incidentally be stated here that the Mi‘raj itself seems to have occurred twice. As it appears from the Hadith, the first Mi‘raj occurred in the beginning of the Holy Prophet’s ministry when the foundation of the Shari‘ah may be said to have been laid and Prayers were made obligatory, which seem to have taken place in the first year of the Call (Bukhari, chapter on Tauhid; Jarir, vol. 15, p. 4). The second or the better known Mi‘raj took place about the fifth year of the Call when the five prescribed Prayers were made obligatory and chapter 53, containing a description of it, was revealed (or it may have taken place even earlier and may have been subsequently referred to in Ch. 53). The Isra’, however, is quite a separate event which undoubtedly occurred in the eleventh or twelfth year of the Call when the Prophet was living in the house of his cousin, Ummi Hani, after the death of his wife, Khadijah, which took place in the tenth year of the Call after the Prophet had come out of the Valley (شعب) of Abu Talib.

In addition to this strong historical evidence, other relevant circumstances also lend support to the view that the two incidents are quite distinct and separate from each other:

(1) The first evidence in this connection is furnished by the Quran itself. It gives an account of the Prophet’s Mi‘raj(Spiritual Ascension) in chapter 53 but makes no reference to his Isra’ (Night Journey to Jerusalem), while in the present Surah it speaks of his Isra’ but omits all allusion to his Mi‘raj. This shows that the two incidents took place separately and, therefore, could not be mentioned together. It is inconceivable that the Quran should have mentioned the concluding portion of this incident in one Surah and the first portion of the selfsame incident in another Surah five years later.

(2) The second evidence which supports this inference is the fact that there was only one person, namely Ummi Hani, who was present with the Prophet during the night when the Isra’ (Spiritual Night Journey to Jerusalem) took place and she speaks only of his visit to Jerusalem and makes no mention of his journey to the heavens. She was the first person whom the Prophet informed of his Night Journey to Jerusalem and at least seven collectors of traditions have given her account of the incident on the authority of four different reporters who have reported the incident from her. All these four reporters concur in saying that the Prophet went to Jerusalem and returned to Mecca the same night. If the Prophet had spoken of his Ascension to the heavens also, Ummi Hani could not have failed to refer to it in one or other of her reports. But she does not do so in any of her reports, which conclusively shows that during the night in question the Holy Prophet made the Isra’ or the Spiritual Night Journey to Jerusalem only and that the Mi‘raj did not take place on that occasion. So the Isra’ or the Prophet’s Spiritual Night Journey to Jerusalem should not be confused with the Mi‘raj or his Spiritual Ascension to heaven.

(3) All the different reporters of this incident may be placed in three categories: (a) those who speak of the Prophet’s Ascension direct to heaven and make no mention of his Journey to Jerusalem; (b) those who speak first of his Journey to Jerusalem and then of his Ascension to heaven; and (c) those who only speak of His Journey to Jerusalem and make no mention at all of his Ascension to heaven. Of the reporters of this last group, there is a goodly number who say expressly that the Prophet returned to Mecca after his Journey to Jerusalem.

It is evident that the reports of the first group point to the Mi‘raj as being distinct from the Isra’ inasmuch as, according to them, the Holy Prophet was taken from his house direct to heaven, so Jerusalem could not lie in his way. The reporters of this group are Anas, Malik bin Sa‘sa’ and Abu Dharr, who was one of the earliest converts to Islam.

Similarly, the reports of those who speak only of the Prophet’s Journey to Jerusalem and make no mention of his Ascension to heaven also show that when he made his Night Journey to Jerusalem, he did not ascend to heaven, for if he had ascended to heaven after his visit to Jerusalem, it is inconceivable that the reporters, after mentioning the less important part of the vision, should have omitted to mention its more important part which related to his Ascension to heaven, and to his having seen God and having had communion with Him. The reporters of this group of traditions are Anas and ‘Abdullah bin Mas‘ud, the latter being one of the earliest and best-loved of the Prophet’s Companions.

Reports of the third group clearly state that the Prophet returned to Mecca after his visit to Jerusalem and did not ascend to heaven. These also demonstrate the two events to be distinct and separate from each other. The reporters of this group are ‘Abdullah bin Mas‘ud, ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas, ‘A’ishah and Ummi Salma and Ummi Hani. All of them with the exception of ‘Abdullah bin Mas‘ud, who, as stated above, was among the earliest converts to Islam, were the Prophet’s very near relatives and enjoyed his intimate and constant company. It is impossible to impugn their evidence.

Another argument in favour of Isra’ being distinct from Mi‘raj are the traditions which speak of the Prophet’s transportation to the heavens after his visit to Jerusalem and then of his return from the heavens to Jerusalem and from Jerusalem back to Mecca (Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. I, p. 154). Now, going to Jerusalem before ascending to heaven may be considered as reasonable, for it served for the Prophet the purpose of offering Prayers at the place where a large party of heavenly Messengers had delivered their Divine Message, but it is difficult to understand why the same route should have been followed during the return journey, when on his return from heaven the Prophet is not reported to have performed any specific act at Jerusalem. The only reasonable assumption is that the account of the Isra’ became mixed up with that of the Mi‘raj. Anas seems to have related the account of both the Isra’ and the Mi‘raj to some reporters who mixed up the two accounts and mistakenly thought that they formed the two parts of the same event and thus these reporters were led to believe that while coming back from his Mi‘raj the Prophet went to Jerusalem from where he returned to Mecca. In fact, the confusion seems to have arisen from the same word اسراء (which means a night journey) having been used for both the Holy Prophet’s اسراء (Spiritual Night Journey to Jerusalem) and his معراج (Spiritual Ascension to heaven); and the resemblance that existed in some of the details in the description of the اسراء (Isra’) and the معراج (Mi‘raj) heightened and confirmed it.

Internal evidence of the traditions also points to the fact that the Isra’ and the Mi‘raj were two distinct and separate events. The traditions which first give an account of the Prophet’s visit to Jerusalem and then of his transportation from Jerusalem to heaven also state that at Jerusalem he met the former Prophets, including Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, and that in the heavens he met the same Prophets again but could not recognize them. Now how did these Prophets whom he had met at Jerusalem reach the heavens before him and why could he not recognize them while he had seen them only a short while ago in the course of the same journey? If the two meetings had taken place separately and at a distance of long intervals, it was possible that he could not have recognized some of them at the time of the second meeting in a changed atmosphere. But it is inconceivable that he should have failed to recognize them when he had met them only a short while ago in the course of the same journey.

It having been established that the Isra’ and the Mi‘raj were two separate and distinct events, it is necessary to give a somewhat detailed account of Isra’ as given in the traditions as it forms the subject matter of the verse under comment. The most reliable account of it is to be found in the tradition quoted by Ibn Jarir on the authority of Anas bin Malik. It is briefly as follows:

'When the Archangel Gabriel brought the Buraq to the Holy Prophet, he mounted it, and had gone only a short distance, when he saw an old woman. The Prophet asked Gabriel who she was, but Gabriel gave no answer to his question; on the contrary he told him not to ask questions, just as Moses in his معراج (Spiritual Ascension) was told not to put unnecessary questions (18:71). After the Prophet had gone a little further he saw a man calling him by name from across the road in order to invite his attention to himself. But Gabriel asked him again not to heed his call. When the Prophet had proceeded a little further, he met a party of men who greeted him with the greeting of peace. Gabriel told him to return their greeting. After this, the Prophet reached the Holy House in Jerusalem. There Gabriel presented him with three cups containing water, milk and wine. The Prophet took the cup containing milk and drank it and refused to accept the other two. Upon this Gabriel said to him, "Thou hast, indeed, chosen the right course which is in perfect harmony with a pure, unsullied nature. If thou hadst accepted water or wine, thou and thine followers would have been lost." Then Adam and the other Prophets were presented to him, and the Holy Prophet led them in Prayers. After this Gabriel explained to him that the old woman he saw on the way was an embodied representation of the life of this world and only as much was left of the life of the world as was left of the life of that old woman. As for the person who called him from across the road, he was Iblis, the enemy of God. The party of men who greeted him were the Prophets Abraham, Moses and Jesus' (Ibn Jarir).

This tradition serves as a key to resolve this whole allegory. It gives the most reliable and correct account of the Isra’. It shows that the Journey to Jerusalem was no physical act but only a vision. This is clear from the following facts:

(a) It is stated in this tradition that during the Night Journey to Jerusalem, the Prophet saw an old woman, a person standing on one side of the road, and three cups full of water, wine and milk (of which the Prophet chose the last), and Gabriel told him what all these things signified. The explanation and interpretation by Gabriel of the things the Prophet saw shows that the Journey was only a vision, for it is only things seen in visions that need interpretation and explanation.

(b) The Night Journey has been spoken of as a vision in the present Surah (v. 61). Accordingly, we find that several Companions of the Prophet and some of the later scholars of Islam have, on the basis of this verse, declared the Isra’ to be a vision. For instance, Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Jarir report that when Mu‘awiyah was asked concerning the Isra’, he said that it was a vision which came out to be true (Manthur, vol. 4, p. 197). ‘A’isha is also reported to have held the same view. (Hisham and Mas‘ud, vol. 1).

(c) We learn from the hadith that when the Holy Prophet spoke of his Night Journey to Jerusalem he was asked to give a description of the Temple at Jerusalem. The Prophet is reported to have said that at that time God presented before his eyes an embodied representation of the Temple and he was thus able to describe it as demanded of him (Ibn Kathir, vol. 6, p. 18).

The Vision of the Prophet referred to in the present verse implied a great prophecy. His journey to the Distant Mosque (المسجد الاقصی) meant his Migration to Medina where he was to build a Mosque which was destined to become later the Centre of all Faiths and Dispensations and the Holy Prophet’s seeing himself in the Vision leading other Prophets of God in Prayers signified that the new Faith Islam was not to remain confined to the place of its birth but was to spread all over the world and the followers of all religions were to join its fold. His going to Jerusalem in the Vision may also be understood to mean that he was to be given dominion over the territory in which Jerusalem was situated. This prophecy was fulfilled in the Caliphate of Umar.

The words of the verse also lend support to the view that the Vision constituted a prophecy about the great future of Islam. The Distant Mosque (المسجد الاقصی) that the Prophet saw in the Vision represented his own Mosque at Medina, Jerusalem stood for Medina and his going to Jerusalem signified his Migration to Medina. The Vision begins with the words سبحان الذی (Glory be to Him) which indicated that the Migration of the Prophet would redound to the Glory of God. The word سبحان itself shows that the Vision embodied a prophecy; for a physical journey to the Temple at Jerusalem could not be regarded as evidence of the Glory of God. But as establishment of the Islamic State at Medina was to fulfil a prophecy, that event did serve as evidence of Divine glory. Thus the words, Glory be to Him Who carried His servant by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Distant Mosque, signified that God would take the Holy Prophet to a Mosque resembling المسجد الاقصی (the Distant Mosque) at Jerusalem so that His word might be fulfilled.

The words, We might show him some of Our Signs, pointed to the great possibilities of the Prophet’s journey to Medina. The Prophet’s Migration to Medina served as a prelude to the glorious future of Islam which was then hidden from the eyes of the world and thus God’s great signs were manifested. The reason why the Holy Prophet’s Mosque was called المسجد الاقصی (the Distant Mosque), and why Medina was shown to him in the Vision in the form of Jerusalem was that the blessings which God had conferred on the Mosque at Jerusalem were also in store in a greater measure for the Prophet’s Mosque at Medina.

The Prophecy implied in the words, Who carried His servant by night, was fulfilled when the Prophet left Mecca at dead of night. He did not undertake this journey of his own accord but in pursuance of God’s express command. And as in his Night Journey to Jerusalem in the Vision he was accompanied by the Archangel Gabriel, so in his Flight to Medina he was accompanied by his most faithful companion, Abu Bakr. The word "Gabriel", which means "Man of God", fitly applies to Abu Bakr and portrays his spiritual eminence.

The Vision may also be taken as referring to a spiritual journey of the Holy Prophet to a distant land in some future time. It meant that when spiritual darkness enveloped the entire world, the Prophet would appear in spirit a second time in the person of one of his followers, in a land far away from the scene of his first advent—in the Punjab. A pointed reference to this second advent of the Holy Prophet is to be found in 62:3-5.

1990

Important Words:

احاط بالناس (has encompassed the people). احاط is derived from حاط. They say احاط به العدو i.e. the enemy surrounded him. احیط بفلان means, such a one was destroyed or his destruction drew near. احاط به علما means, he had a comprehensive or complete knowledge thereof, or he attained the utmost knowledge thereof. The Quranic expression ان ربک احاط بالناسmeans, verily thy Lord hath men in His grasp or power or hath destroyed them (Lane & Aqrab).

الشجرة الملعونة (the cursed tree). شجرة is the noun infinitive from شجر. They say شجر الامر بینھم i.e. the affair was or became confused or complicated so as to be a subject of disagreement or difference between them. شجرہ means, he tied it. شجرةmeans, a tree; the stock or origin of a man. They say ھو من شجرة طیبة i.e. he is of good stock or origin (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The reference in the words, When We said to thee, is to the Vision mentioned under v. 2 of this Surah. In that Vision the Holy Prophet saw himself leading all other Prophets in Prayers. The Vision implied that at some future time, the followers of those Prophets would join the fold of Islam. This is what is meant by the words, Thy Lord has encompassed the people. This general spread of Islam would follow in the wake of the worldwide disasters of which mention has been made in v. 59. The object of these disasters was to open the way for the propagation of Islam, to induce all men to rally round its banner and to demonstrate the futility of the present materialistic Western civilization to stand in its way. Some of these disasters have already taken place and others are waiting to shake the present order of things to its foundation.

The signs of these impending disasters are already in evidence everywhere in the world. They will be followed by conditions favourable to the general and widespread acceptance and expansion of Islam.

Commentators of the Quran have greatly differed as to what the expression الشجرة الملعونة (the accursed tree) means. According to some of them it means شجرة خبیثة (evil tree) mentioned in 14:27. The word خبیث (evil) meaning a thing devoid of all good is synonymous with ملعون (accursed) which means, far removed from good. But the word شجرةas shown under Important Words, also means, a family. According to this meaning of the word the expression الشجرة الملعونةappears to apply more appropriately to a people—the Jewish people—who have been repeatedly mentioned in the Quran as having been cursed by God (5:14, 61, 65, 79). The curse of God has dogged the footsteps of these unfortunate people from the time of the Prophet David right down to the present time. This interpretation of the expression finds additional support from the fact that the present Surah particularly deals with the Israelites as its very name, BaniIsra’il, suggests. The fact that the verse begins with a mention of the Vision in which the Holy Prophet saw himself leading the Israelite Prophets in Prayers in Jerusalem, the Centre of the Jewish Faith, lends further support to the assumption that by الشجرة الملعونة (cursed tree) is meant the Jewish people.

The verse speaks both of "the vision" and the Jewish people (the accursed tree) to whom that Vision specially refers as "a trial for men". The Jews have, throughout the ages, proved a source of much misery and distress for mankind, particularly for Muslims, under whose benign rule they have enjoyed more freedom and security than under any other people. The two World Wars have been the result directly or indirectly of the plots and machinations of the Jews. They led an organized opposition to the German people in the First Great War and the Second Great War was also the result of their widespread and highly organized propaganda against Hitler. In the Russian Revolution which, too, forms a part of the Divine punishment (v. 59) the Jews took a prominent part and some of its foremost leaders are Jews by blood. The Jewish machinations have now extended to Palestine and have turned this "land of the Prophets" into a veritable hot-bed of intrigue, murder and arson. But all their intrigues and efforts to go back to, and take possession of, Palestine, will meet with only temporary success because this country has been divinely decreed to remain in Muslim hands.

2101

Important Words:

حقبا (ages) is the plural of حقب (huqbun) which is derived from حقب (haqiba). They say حقب المطر i.e. the rain was delayed. حقب الامر means, the affair became marred or impeded. حقب (huqbun) means, time; indefinite time; long time; an age; a year or years; seventy years; eighty years or more (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

With this verse begins the very important subject of the اسراء (Spiritual Night Journey) of Moses. As stated above, the followers of Jesus Christ achieved great material power and prosperity and in their chequered career left their imprint twice on world’s history. This double prosperity of Christian nations has been likened to "two gardens" in v. 33 above. The first of these two periods began with the conversion to Christianity of the Roman Emperor Constantine, when it became the religion of the State, and continued to the birth of the Holy Prophet of Islam. The second and more important of these two periods is represented by the present age when Christian nations of the west have acquired so much power and prestige that the nations of Asia and Africa have had to dance attendance upon them like serfs and slaves. Between these "two gardens" flowed a "stream" (v. 34). These "two gardens", as stated above, represent the two periods of Christian prosperity and progress. The "stream" denotes the birth and rise to power of the Prophet of Islam. He and his followers made their mark in human history during the interval between these two periods.

Now in order to provide a historical setting to the whole account and complete the connected whole, a somewhat detailed description of the Isra’ or the Spiritual Journey of Moses has been given in the present and following few verses. Moses had foretold the advent of a Prophet like unto him (Deut. 18:18). This prophecy has been referred to in the Quran in 73:16. By putting the account of Moses’ Spiritual Journey between that of the Dwellers of the Cave and of Dhul-Qarnain—the two periods representing Christian progress and advance—the Quran has pointed to the fact that the Prophet referred to in Moses’ prophecy, who was also to be his counterpart, was to appear during the interval between these two periods. Thus, these incidents have been mentioned in their historical order.

Very fantastic stories have gained currency about the nature and purpose of the Isra’ or Spiritual Journey of Moses and the circumstances under which it took place. Commentators of the Quran differ as to the name and status of "the servant of God" whom Moses sought and met and about "the young man" who was with him in his "journey". Failing to comprehend the spiritual aspect of this seemingly physical journey most of them have indulged only in conjectures and guesses and consequently have grievously erred. The fact is that mention was made of the Isra’ or Spiritual Journey or as literally interpreted, the Migration of the Holy Prophet to Medina in v. 2 of the present Surah. Light was also thrown on the great results that were to ensue from this Migration and the wonderful success that Muslims were to achieve after it. They were also warned of the great dangers that lay in their way and of the unrelenting opposition of Jews and Christians, particularly of the grievous blows that Islam as a political force was to receive at the hands of the latter. The Isra’ of Moses has only been mentioned to lend support to the prophecies of ultimate success of Islam that were implied in the Isra’ of the Holy Prophet and also to make it clear beyond doubt that the seemingly dazzling power and prosperity of Christian nations will endure for a limited time and the cause of Islam will eventually triumph.

Similarly, the Isra’ of Moses was, like the Isra’ of the Holy Prophet, no physical journey but a spiritual experience by means of which Moses was transported from this body of flesh and blood to a spiritual tabernacle. The Bible and the Quran both support this contention. Some of the arguments advanced in its support are as follows:

(1) The Bible which is more or less a reliable record of Moses’ life has omitted all mention of this most unusual and wonderful incident and has failed even to make a passing reference to it.

(2) Before Moses was made a Prophet, he is known to have undertaken only one journey and that was to Midian. The Bible and the Quran have both referred to this journey, the latter at several places. The Bible and the Quran also both agree that Moses undertook this journey alone, while in the journey referred to in the present and the following verses of the Quran he is described as having been accompanied by "his companion."

(3) Even after he was made Prophet, Moses undertook no such journey. The Bible embodies a somewhat detailed record of Moses’ life but it contains no account of any such journey and even makes no reference to it.

(4) It is well known that after Moses had been away on Mount Tur for a few days his people took a calf for worship. When his absence from them for only forty days on Mount Tur caused such great spiritual havoc among them, which has been described in the Bible in detail, the depths of spiritual chaos to which these people of weak faith and fickle minds should have sunk in Moses’ absence on a journey of a much longer duration, as evidently the journey referred to in these verses was, can easily be imagined. The Bible could not have failed to mention it. But the Bible alludes to no such happening. Moreover, it would have cast a serious reflection on Moses’ wisdom and intelligence if, having had such a terrible experience once, he should have undertaken another journey which would have kept him away from his people for a much longer period.

(5) In his absence on Mount Tur for only forty days Moses appointed Aaron his vicegerent for his people. But apart from this solitary instance Moses is not known ever to have appointed anybody his vicegerent or Khalifah in his absence on any journey. The Bible contains no reference to any such appointment. It is inconceivable that if Moses had gone on such a long journey as mentioned in these verses he would have failed to appoint a Khalifah in his absence.

(6) It is against the established practice of all the Prophets of God to remain separated from their people for a long time. Some of them are known to have gone on short journeys but those were missionary expeditions and their scope did not extend beyond their own peoples. Jesus certainly did go to Kashmir after the Crucifixion but he left one section of his people in Palestine to live among another and a larger section in Kashmir. But Moses’ journey referred to above was not a journey undertaken with any missionary purpose nor was it confined to his own people. He left his people in search of a man who was more learned than himself.

(7) The expression مجمع البحرین (junction of two seas) occurring in the verse under comment also points to the fact that the Isra’ of Moses was a spiritual journey because there is no place in the world which is known by this name. The expression can have only one significance i.e. "the junction of two seas." Such junctions nearest to the place where Moses lived after he had left Egypt are Bab ul-Mandab which unites the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, the Straits of Dardanelles which joins the Mediterranean Sea with the Sea of Marmora and Al-Bahrain where the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean meet. Of all these places the Straits of Dardanelles alone can possibly be the point where such a meeting could have taken place because on its way lies Canaan which was the destination of Moses but which he could not reach in his life-time. All these three points were about one thousand miles distant from Moses’ place of living and considering the absence of good means of communication and transport in those days it would have taken him about a year’s time to cover such a long distance and Moses could not afford to remain absent from his people for such a long time without seriously jeopardising their spiritual well-being.

From this historical evidence it can be safely inferred without fear of contradiction that Moses’ Journey referred to in these verses was a spiritual journey undertaken with a spiritual body for a spiritual purpose.

Besides this external evidence there is also internal evidence in the Quran which clearly shows that this journey was no physical event but a spiritual experience of Moses.

(a) The "learned man" made a big hole in the boat to save it from being forcibly seized by the king. Now a quite natural question arises here, viz. was the boat navigable after it was damaged or was it not? If it was, why did not the king seize it; if it was not, why did it not sink? In this physical world no boat is ever known to have remained floating after a big hole had been made in its bottom. In the world of visions, however, such things are possible.

(b) The "slaying of the young boy" also shows that this incident happened in a vision because in this world of flesh and bones no sensible person, much less a Prophet of God, would take the life of another person without legitimate cause.

(c) The incident of the "repairing of the wall" also lends support to the above conclusion. How could a great Prophet of God and a most noble and broad-minded person like Moses have found fault with his learned companion for not demanding payment from two poor orphan boys for repairing their wall because the people of their town had refused to entertain him and his companion? What had the two orphan boys done to deserve Moses’ displeasure? It was the people of the town and not they who had refused to entertain them as their guests. What earthly connection was there between these two things? In this material world no sensible person could indulge in such talk, much less a great Prophet of God. Such things can happen only in visions and dreams.

(d) Ibn ‘Abbas is reported to have said that the word کنز (treasure) occurring in v. 83 below means "a treasure of knowledge". This shows that this word has been used in this verse in its metaphorical sense and needs to be interpreted and explained. Similarly, the repairing of the wall and the demanding of hospitality were not physical acts. Thus the whole journey was only a spiritual experience.

In short, even a casual and cursory glance over the relevant verses leaves no doubt about the fact that the whole affair was nothing more than a vision. It is simply inconceivable that a great Prophet of God like Moses should have undertaken a long and arduous journey in search of a "man of God" to learn from him how to break a hole in a boat or kill a young man or to repair a wall and demand no remuneration for it. Even an illiterate rustic would consider it below his dignity to do such a foolish thing, much less a Prophet of God.

Moreover, the Holy Prophet is reported to have said ودونا ان موسی کان صبر حتی یقص اللّٰه علینا من خبر ھما i.e. would that Moses had kept silent, so that God would have revealed to us many more secrets of the future (Bukhari, Kitabut-Tafsir). This saying of the Holy Prophet shows that the unusual acts which this "man of God" is stated to have performed were great secrets of the future which were communicated to Moses in his Vision in metaphorical language. If these acts are understood to have literally taken place, then they could not have excited the Holy Prophet’s curiosity and he could not possibly have wished Moses to have kept silent in order to learn more about similar acts. According to Mawardi, the person whom Moses had gone to see was no human being but an angel (Kathir).

All these facts taken together constitute very solid and weighty evidence, incapable of being doubted or contradicted, that the story of the journey of Moses is but a vision which needs to be interpreted and explained to understand its reality and significance.

The words "his young companion" may refer to Joshua, the son of Nun, but they apply more fittingly to Jesus. Jesus was the young companion of Moses i.e. he was the last great Prophet of the Mosaic Dispensation who came not to destroy but to fulfil the Law and the Prophets (Matt. 5:17).

The words, I will not stop until I reach the junction of the two seas, show that Moses’ young companion joined him towards the end of his journey. Moses did not seem to have taken the young man with him from the very outset of his journey. The words do not represent him as having started on his journey but only as pursuing it with a young companion. Strictly speaking these words can only be spoken by one who is about to reach his destination.

The expression مجمع البحرین i.e. junction of two seas, denotes the time when the Mosaic Dispensation was to have come to an end and the Islamic Dispensation to have commenced. According to Ta‘tirul-Anam بحر (sea), when seen in a vision, signifies a powerful, just and kind king. It also signifies praise and glorification of God. In the first sense of the word, بحر (sea) the expression مجمع البحرین would mean the meeting place of two powerful, just and kind kings i.e. Moses and the Holy Prophet Muhammad, and according to the second signification, the expression denotes the junction of the two seas of God’s glorification which means two religious Dispensations—Mosaic and Islamic.

The words, Or I will journey on for ages, signify that the Mosaic Dispensation would remain in force for many centuries. The period from the time of Moses to the advent of the Holy Prophet when the Mosaic Dispensation came to an end extends over 2000 years.

2102

Important Words:

سربا (going away swiftly) is derived from سرب. They say سرب الماء i.e. the water flowed. سرب الرجل means, the man went at random. سرب فی الارض means, he went away in the land. سرب (sarabun) means, going away swiftly, a subterranean excavation; a habitation beneath the earth having a passage through it; the burrow or hole of a wild animal; the den of a lion. The Quranic expression فاتخذ سبیله فی البحر سربا means, it (the fish) took its way into the sea swiftly, etc. (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

حوت (fish) when seen in a vision denotes the houses of worship of righteous people (Ta‘tirul-Anam). In this sense of the word the expression, when they reached the place where the two seas met, they forgot their fish, means that at the time when the Mosaic and the Islamic Dispensations met, i.e. when Mosaic Dispensation ceased to function and the Islamic Dispensation came into force, true righteousness would depart from among the followers of Moses and Jesus and would henceforward become the special mark of the followers of the new Dispensation (48:30). The verse under comment also shows that the Islamic Dispensation was, in fact, a continuation of the Mosaic Dispensation. Being two consecutive parts of God’s eternal guidance, no such thing as the "junction of two seas" existed in the time of Moses.

2103

Commentary:

"Asking for breakfast" in a vision denotes "weariness" (Ta‘tirul-Anam) and the verse purports to say that at the "junction of the two seas" i.e. when the Holy Prophet comes, the followers of Moses and Jesus would not accept him. They would continue their journey alone and would refuse to admit that the span of life granted to their Dispensation had come to an end. Then after going on their separate way for a long time and being tired of vainly waiting for the Promised Prophet (Deut. 18:18) they would begin to wonder whether he had already come and they had failed to recognize him. In this verse Moses and his young companion (Jesus) stand for Jews and Christians respectively.

2104

Commentary:

The pronouns in the expressions, "their fish" (v. 62), "they had gone further" (v. 63) and "we betook ourselves" obviously do not refer to Moses and Jesus because they did not live in the time of the Holy Prophet but to their respective peoples.

صخرة (rock) in the language of dreams and visions denotes "a life of vice and sin." So the expression, when we betook ourselves to the rock, means that when the two seas met i.e. when the Mosaic Dispensation came to an end and a new Prophet and a new Dispensation appeared, then Jews and Christians would be sunk in a life of sin and iniquity.

The words, it took its way into the sea in a marvellous manner, signify that true piety and worship of God would take leave of these people and would become the special mark of another people (the followers of Islam) who would become heirs to Divine favours.

The incident of the fish unmistakably points to the whole affair being a vision because when Moses and his young companion were pursuing their journey with the fish as their guide it was not possible for them to forget it.

2105

Commentary:

Who is this عبد (servant of God) in search of whom Moses, in pursuance of Divine command, had undertaken such a long and difficult journey and who is the central figure and hero of the whole story? He is none other than the Holy Prophet Muhammad –his soul having taken an embodied form in Moses’ vision. The following arguments conclusively show that he was indeed the عبد (god’s servant) mentioned in this story:

(a) The Holy Prophet has been called عبد in the Quran at several places (2:24; 8:42; 17:2; 18:2; 25:2; 39:37; 53:11 & 72:20). In fact he is عبد الله (God’s servant) par excellence, because truly speaking the stage of عبد (servant of God) is the highest stage in the spiritual development of man and the Holy Prophet had attained that stage.

(b) The words, upon whom We had bestowed Our Mercy, also clearly refer to the Holy Prophet. He has been particularly spoken of as "a mercy to the whole world" (21:108), an epithet applied in the Quran to none other than the Holy Prophet.

(c) The words, whom We had taught knowledge from Ourselves, also refer to the Holy Prophet. At several places in the Quran it is stated that he was vouchsafed divine knowledge in a very large measure (4:114; 6:92; 20:115 & 27:7).

(d) The "servant of God" had told Moses that he (Moses) would not keep silent (v. 68 below), and the Holy Prophet is reported to have said, "Would that Moses had kept silent! If he had done so, we would have been vouchsafed more knowledge about the unseen" (Bukhari, Kitabut-Tafsir). This shows that the "servant of God" of Moses’ vision and the Holy Prophet were one and the same person.

As a matter of fact, Moses had seen a manifestation of God "in the fire" when travelling from Midian to Egypt (28:30). Later on, however, he was told that a Prophet would appear from among the brethren of the Israelites in whose mouth God would put His own word (Deut. 18:18-22). The words of the prophecy signified that the Promised Prophet would be the object of a greater manifestation of God than Moses. Moses therefore naturally wished to see who "that Prophet" could be. To satisfy his curiosity God made him see in his vision "that Prophet" of much higher spiritual powers. This learned "servant of God" of Moses’ vision who has been popularly known by the name of Khizr was the spirit of our Noble Master, the Holy Prophet Muhammad, which had assumed a physical tabernacle. See also 7:144.

2111

Important Words:

امرا (evil) is derived from امرا (amara). امرہ means, he commanded him. They say امرالقوم (amira) i.e. the people became many. امرالامر means, the affair or case became severe, distressful, grievous or wonderful. امر (imrun) means, a severe, distressful or grievous thing; or a terrible and foul or very foul, evil or abominable thing; or a wonderful thing. The Quranic words لقد جئت شیئا امرا mean, verily thou hast done a severe, distressful or grievous thing; or a terrible and foul or evil or abominable thing (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

The preceding several verses served only as an introduction to the subject of the Isra’ of Moses. With the present verse, however, begins an account of the incidents which Moses actually saw in his vision. Moses is here represented as having objected to the very first act of his learned companion, in spite of the fact that he had promised not to do so. The Holy Prophet, however, was shown in his own vision as having kept silent all the way. This contrast in the behaviour of these two great Prophets represented the attitude of their followers towards their respective religions. Whereas the Companions of the Holy Prophet remained loyal to their Faith under the severest persecution and difficulties, the followers of Moses ignored and defied theirs when it suited them. On the other hand the three incidents of both visions are identical in their interpretation and significance though the metaphors used to describe them are different.

سفینة (boat) in the language of dreams denotes "worldly riches" This interpretation is supported by the Quran also (17:67). In this sense of the word, the embarkation of both Moses and his learned companion who, as is explained above, was the embodied form of the Holy Prophet, signifies that the followers of both these Prophets will have worldly riches in plenty in their respective periods.

The words, he staved it in, when interpreted, signify that the Holy Prophet would lay down commandments which would, as it were, make a hole in the boat of the material prosperity and riches of his followers, i.e. he would see to it that wealth does not accumulate in the hands of a few but that it continues to change hands and is fairly distributed among all sections of Muslims. To effect this Islam has made the giving of Zakah obligatory, has totally prohibited all transactions based on interest and by its law of inheritance has sought to distribute the wealth of a dying person among all his children, parents, wives and other near relatives. It has also prohibited gambling and has laid down laws to better and improve the condition and status of labourers. The materialistic and wealthy Jews and Christians could not view such a division of wealth with favour and regarded it as reckless waste. All their economic laws tend to increase the wealth of the rich and to help it accumulate in a few hands. Whereas in his vision Moses objected to the hole being made in the boat by his learned companion which, interpreted in accordance with the language of dreams, meant that his people would be too much enamoured of material wealth to accept laws aiming at its equitable distribution, the Holy Prophet in his own Vision refused to accept the cup of water offered to him which signified that his followers would prefer religion to the world.

Just as Moses in his vision found fault with his learned companion when the latter made a hole in the boat, similarly his people found fault with the Holy Prophet when he called upon his followers to spend their money in the cause of God. They even taunted him for making such demands (5:65 & 36:48).

2162

Important Words:

روحنا (Our angel). For the different meanings of the word روح see 2:88; 4:172 & 16:3.

Commentary:

The expression فتمثل لھا بشرا سویا signifies that the Divine glad tidings about the birth of a great son was conveyed to Mary not in the form of spoken words which she could hear or which flowed from her mouth. The revelation to her took the form of a dream or vision. She saw in a vision that an angel came to her in the form of a healthy man and conveyed to her the Divine Message about the birth of a son. In fact, it is the Word of God which at the time of revelation takes different forms and which when it came to Mary took the form of a man appearing in a dream. So it was no spirit that had entered Mary’s body. The vision was but a manifestation of God’s great power.

Christians try to derive a false satisfaction from the words روحنا alleging that according to the Quran, the Divine Spirit or God Himself had entered Mary’s body and that as a result thereof she became pregnant and therefore Jesus who was born as the result of that conception was the son of God. The Quran lends no support whatsoever to this blasphemous and preposterous dogma but condemns and denounces it in the strongest possible terms (5:73-74; 19:89-91). What the verse says is only this that an angel of God (روح means an angel) appeared to Mary in a vision in the form of a man and gave to her the glad tidings of the birth of a son.

Even the Gospels repudiate this fantastic dogma. According to them Mary had conceived only of the Holy Ghost (Matt. 1:18-20; Luke, l:35). Thus according to Christians’ own admission Jesus, at best, was the son of the Holy Ghost. But if they believe that he was the son of God then they shall also have to admit that the Holy Ghost is God. But they accept neither of these propositions. So whereas the Quran strongly condemns and denounces the Christian dogma of sonship of Jesus, the Gospels too do not support it. What the Quran says is simply this that an angel appeared before Mary in the form of a man and gave her from God the glad tidings of the birth of a great son.

2163

Commentary:

It is worthy of note here that the Divine attribute الرحمن (Gracious), has been repeatedly used in this Surah. This Surah deals with all the basic dogmas of Christianity and it is this attribute of God which cuts at the root of these false doctrines and demolishes them. If God is Gracious, then He can forgive the sins of His servants and if He can forgive their sins, then there is no need for anybody to give his blood in order to save mankind. As is apparent from the previous verse it was a mere vision that Mary had seen, and it generally happens that when a person sees a thing in a vision which he does not like in his waking state, he does not like it when he sees it in a vision. When Mary saw the angel standing before her in the form of a man she, being a virtuous young woman, was naturally frightened and perplexed as she would have been frightened and perplexed if she had seen him in her state of wakefulness and it is therefore quite natural that she sought Divine protection from him.