أَنْعَمَ

4:14; 8:25.

1:7; 5:21; 19:59; 57:20.

Important Words:

مع (among) is a common word of the Arabic language denoting concomitance. It means "with" or "among", etc. signifying the being together of two or more persons both literally and figuratively. The word مع thus denotes (1) concomitance of two or more persons in one place; or (2) concomitance of two or more persons at one time; or (3) concomitance of two or more persons in position, rank or status.

The word also implies the sense of assistance, as in the verse إن الله معنا i.e. Allah is with us, which means, God is our Helper (Mufradat).

Commentary:

The verse is important inasmuch as it describes the avenues of spiritual progress open to Muslims. The four spiritual ranks: (1) the Prophets (2) the Truthful (3) the Martyrs and (4) the Righteous can be attained only by following the Holy Prophet. This is an honour reserved for the Holy Prophet alone. No other Prophet shares it with him. The inference is further supported by the verse which speaks of Prophets generally and says, And those who believe in Allah and His Messengers, they are the Truthful and the Martyrs in the presence of their Lord (57:20). When read together these two verses purport to mean that whereas the followers of other Prophets could only rise to the rank of the Truthful and the Martyrs, and no higher, the followers of the Holy Prophet can achieve even higher ranks; viz. they can rise to the rank of a Prophet also.

Some critics take exception to the particle مع rendered as "among" but generally taken to mean "with" and allege that a follower of the Holy Prophet will only be placed "with" the Prophets and not "among" them. Apart from what has been said under Important Words, if the particle مع be taken to denote that a follower of the Holy Prophet is merely joined to and placed with these four classes of men, without actually becoming one of them and without attaining their rank, it will follow from the construction of the verse that not only no person, by following in the footsteps of the Holy Prophet, can attain to the rank of a Prophet but also that he cannot even attain the rank of a Siddiq (Truthful) or a Shahid (Martyr) or a Salih (Righteous) but that he can only be joined to and placed with the people holding these ranks without himself attaining to their spiritual status, which is simply absurd. It is evident that the preposition مع rendered as "among" governs all the four nouns equally viz. the Salihin, the Shuhada’, the Siddiqin and the Nabiyyin, the four having been linked together in one chain. So what holds good in one case should hold good in the other cases as well. Hence, if according to this verse a person can attain the rank of a Salih (Righteous) by following the Holy Prophet of Islam, he can also attain the rank of a Prophet. If we deny the rank of a Prophet to the followers of the Holy Prophet, we will have to deny to them the rank of the Righteous also.

Besides, as shown under Important Words, it is wrong to say that the preposition مع always denotes merely being physically joined to or placed with a class of people physically without attaining to their position or rank. The word has been used at several places in the Quran in the sense of فی i.e. "among" or "from among" (see 3:194 and 4:147). In the latter verse, i.e. 4:147, God says that those of the hypocrites, who repent and amend, will be مع المؤمنین i.e. "among the believers". Now by no stretch of imagination can it be presumed that these people will only "be placed with the believers" and will not form part of them. The verse thus definitely proves that the word مع has been used here in the sense of فی or "among" and in no other sense. So is the case with 3:194. It is exactly in this sense that it has been used in the present verse. If, in the above-mentioned verses in which the word مع occurs, it is taken to give the sense of mere companionship, these verses would become meaningless. Certainly, it can give no comfort to a believer to be told that as a reward of his submission to God and the Holy Prophet, he would be merely made to sit in the company of the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Righteous, without attaining the spiritual rank they attained. That the preposition مع is not always used in the sense of companionship finds a further illustration in the words which the Holy Prophet is reported to have uttered just before his death viz. ألحقنی بالرفیق الاعلی i.e. "O God, join me with the exalted companions" (meaning the class of the Prophets in Heaven). Now does this prayer of the Holy Prophet offered at the time of his death mean that he only wished to live in the company of these exalted personages and that he himself was not a Prophet of God?

Support for the above-mentioned wrong inference is sometimes sought from the words, this grace is from Allah, occurring in the succeeding verse. The word "grace", it is alleged, indicates that what these people will get will be purely through God’s grace and not as any reward or result of their own works and deeds. But the question: Did the Prophets, the Truthful, the Martyrs and the Righteous attain their high spiritual stations independently of the "grace" of God? Did not the Holy Prophet himself, when asked whether he would get salvation by his deeds, say that he, too, would receive it through the "grace" of God? (Bukhari, ch. on Marda). Does this reply of the Prophet mean that he did not "deserve" salvation? In fact, the truth is that every blessing that one receives is a "grace" of God, in spite of the fact that it is the actions of man that draw this grace.

It may here be pointed out that the interpretation we have put on the verse under comment is not a new one. AbuHayyan, the well-known author of Bahrul-Muhit and Ar-Raghib, the great lexicographer, agree with this view. The Bahrul-Muhit (vol. iii, p. 287) quotes Ar-Raghib as saying: "God has divided the believers into four classes in this verse, and has appointed for them four stages, some of which are lower than the others, and He has exhorted true believers not to remain behind any of these stages." This explanation shows that both these commentators of the Quranheld that, as hinted in this verse, the rank of prophethood was attainable by following the Holy Prophet. Similarly, the author of the well-known commentary Ruhul-Ma‘ani in explanation of this verse, writes as follows: "Prophethood is of two kinds, general and special. The special prophethood, viz. the Law-bearing prophethood is now unattainable; but the general prophethood still continues." In fact, it is only the prophethood with a new Law that has now ceased, the Quran being the final Law of God, but prophethood without a new Law continues and is certainly attainable by the followers of the Holy Prophet who has himself said: "If my son Ibrahim had lived, he would have become a Prophet" (Majah, ch. on Jana’iz).

It may also be noted that even if the word مع is rendered as "with" and not as "among", it will not make much difference, for the word "with" very often gives the sense of being one of the party. When you are with a people, you are one of them. Even in English the word "with" is used in that sense. For fuller discussion of the subject of prophethood, see 33:41.

Finally, the word "companions" occurring at the end of the verse should not be construed to mean that mere companionship is meant here; for the expression has been used to hint at an additional significance, viz. that those who sincerely and truly follow God and His Messenger will not only rank among the Prophets, etc., but will also form a sort of company or brotherhood with them.

Important Words:

لیبطئن (tarries behind) is derived from بطؤ meaning, he was or became slow, late or backward. بطأ means, it made him slow, late or backward. But بطأ is also used intransitively, as in the tradition من بطأبه عمله i.e. he whom his evil deeds hold back (lit. he whose evil deeds keep back along with him). So بطأ would mean, (1) he held back or tarried behind, and (2) he made others hold back and tarry behind (Aqrab, Lane, Mufradat & Kashshaf).

Commentary:

This verse refers to the internal enemies of Islam. It gives two characteristics of hypocrites: (1) they fail to march out with Muslims and are glad to do so; (2) they do not share with Muslims their joys and sorrows. They are more anxious about their own selves than about the success of Islam. If Muslims meet with trouble, they rejoice that they themselves escaped it by remaining behind, and exultingly remind Muslims of the advice which they gave them and by acting against which the Muslims came to grief, as they did after the Battle of Uhud.

It is worthy of note here that though in connection with the Battle of Uhud, the Holy Prophet himself was at first in favour of fighting the enemy by staying in Medina, he did not rebuke the Muslims when they suffered a reverse by telling them that they had met with a disaster by going against his wish. But the hypocrites did taunt the Muslims that they had suffered defeat by defying their advice. It is for this taunting that the hypocrites have been reprimanded in this verse, because such a course, if allowed, is calculated to prove detrimental to the cause of communal unity and concord.

3:161; 5:12; 9:51.

Important Words:

علیھم (against them). The word علی as a particle has several meanings. Here it gives the meaning of "against" (Lane). The Quran says: ولھم علی ذنب i.e. and they have a crime or offence standing against me (26:15). In his Arabic Grammar, Wright says that the particle علی is sometimes used in "a hostile sense in which case it can be generally rendered as 'against' or 'upon', as in خرج علیه i.e. he went out against him or he rebelled against him."

Commentary:

The two "men" spoken of here are generally supposed to be Joshua, the son of Nun, and Caleb, the son of Jephunneh (Num. 14:6). But from the context Moses and Aaron appear more likely to be the two "men" here referred to.

The word رجل (man) is thus here expressive of manliness and courage. By using this word, the Quran means to say that of that big host of cowardly people there were only two men who were truly brave and courageous. That these two brave men were Moses and Aaron themselves may also be inferred from the fact that when these two "men" spoke to their people, and urged them to "enter" the land, the latter, in reply, addressed none other but Moses, saying, O Moses, we will never enter it so long as they remain in it (5:25), thus making it clear that it was Moses himself who had spoken to them the words contained in this verse. Again, when the people refused to obey Moses, he is reported to have prayed to God, saying, My Lord, I have power over none but myself and my brother, therefore make Thou a distinction between us and the rebellious people (5:26). Now, if the two "men" had been other than Moses and Aaron, they should have certainly been included in his prayer by Moses, because they had deserved it by boldly offering to enter the land in spite of resistance, exhorting others also to do so. But Moses prayed only for himself and his brother, which shows that the two men whom God praises as "men", (i.e. brave men) and of whom He speaks as His favoured ones were Moses and Aaron themselves. God does not name them but simply speaks of them as رجلان i.e. "two brave men" in order to praise their manliness and courage and at the same time to condemn by implication the cowardice of the other Israelites who were with them.

The expression, enter the gate advancing against them, possesses a spiritual connotation as well. For every person there is a "holy land", which is his goal and paradise. Allah has "ordained" this "holy land" for man (5:22) because he has been created for it. But the cowardly and the low-spirited are always afraid of entering it. They are too timorous to face "the rebellious ones", i.e. the evil ones and their own evil inclinations. They desire to enter Heaven without deserving it, without any exertion on their part, without facing and fighting their evil passions and without fighting those who stand in their way. They tremble and quail before the trials and tribulations that confront them. But here, too, God has created for every person "two men", i.e. two wise counsellors who encourage him and exhort him not to be afraid of difficulties and to follow undauntedly the path that leads to eternal happiness and everlasting bliss. These two counsellors are (1) human reason and (2) man’s pure and unsullied nature. These two go on telling man and urging him that he need only be up and doing and God will help him. He should boldly face trials and God will make everything easy for him, and he will come out of the struggle victorious and triumphant. Most men, however, wish that the power of their enemies should break of itself, but it cannot break without their using the weapon of self-sacrifice. "Forty years", as hinted in 5:27 below, is the time required by man to attain to perfect manhood. This is a sufficiently long time. If he does not mend his ways during this period and defies the dictates of reason and conscience, he is lost, and there is little hope for him. But if he makes up his mind boldly to meet the evil influences, he may be saved. He need only take heart and make bold to enter the struggle, and what appears to him to be a thick jungle of difficulties will turn out to be a garden, the seeming "Hell" assuming the form of a veritable "Heaven".

1:7; 4:70; 5:21; 57:20.

17:108,110; 32:16.

Commentary:

This verse explains two things:(1) The Prophets whose names have been mentioned in it were righteous and holy men. But in spite of the very exalted position they held they were ordinary mortals. Jesus, like them, too, was a Prophet of God and like them a mere mortal. There was nothing in him that could entitle him to some special position. (2) These righteous and holy men were Divine Prophets and as such sinless. The Jews in the Old Testament (Gen. 9:21-23; 19:31-38; 20:2; Exod. 32:1-4); and Christians in the New Testament (John 10:8) hurled at these paragons of piety and righteousness very filthy charges, the former in order to screen their own crimes and the latter in order to establish the exclusive sinlessness of Jesus. Special stress has been laid on their holiness in the verse under comment and it is in order to clear them completely of the charges attributed to them and also to demolish the wrong notion of the exclusive sinlessness of Jesus that the words "whom We guided and chose" have been used about them.

Some commentators of the Quran think that the words 'of the posterity of Adam' refer to Idris, and whom we carried in the Ark with Noah to Abraham, and the words, of the posterity of Abraham, refer to Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob, and the words, of the posterity of, understood before the word Israel, to Moses, Aaron, Zachariah, Yahya and Jesus, all of whom have been mentioned in the preceding verses of the present Surah.

Important Words:

وطرا (want) has no verb. It means, a want, a need, an object of want or need; or that which one proposes to accomplish or of which one is desirous. They say قضی منه وطرہ i.e. he accomplished or obtained his want from him (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

As the verse deals with an incident of very great historical importance, it demands and deserves a somewhat detailed explanation. Zaid bin Harith, to whom the words "on whom Allah had bestowed favours and on whom thou also had bestowed favours" refer, belonged to the tribe of Kalb. In his childhood he was kidnapped and sold as a slave in Mecca where he was bought by Khadijah’s brother and given over to her. On her marriage with the Holy Prophet Khadijah presented Zaid to him who at once emancipated him. Zaid was so much attached to the Prophet that when later his father and uncle begged of the Holy Prophet to let him go with them as the grief of his separation from home had almost killed his mother, the Prophet readily gave his permission. But Zaid himself flatly refused to part company with the Holy Prophet, exclaiming that he was dearer to him than his father and mother. The Prophet was so deeply touched by Zaid’s fidelity and love for him that he at once declared him (Zaid) to be his son and henceforward Zaid came to be known as the Prophet’s son. Zaid remained throughout his life a most beloved and faithful disciple of the Holy Prophet and sealed his fidelity to Islam and the Prophet with his blood on the battlefield of Mu’tah.

Zainab was the daughter of the Holy Prophet’s aunt, hence a full-blooded Arab, intensely proud of her ancestry and exalted social status. Islam had envisaged and given to the world a civilization and culture in which there were to be no class divisions, no hereditary nobility, no vested interests. All men were to be free and equal in the sight of God. The Holy Prophet wanted to start with his own family the carrying into actual effect of this noble ideal of Islam. He wished to marry Zainab to Zaid, who in spite of having been liberated by the Prophet and called his son, unfortunately still carried the stigma of slavery in the minds of some people. It was exactly this stigma of slavery, this invidious distinction between 'free' and 'slave' which the Holy Prophet sought to remove by Zainab’s marriage to Zaid. In deference to the Holy Prophet’s wish Zainab agreed to the proposal. The purpose of the Holy Prophet was achieved. The marriage levelled to the ground all class distinctions and divisions. It was a practical demonstration of Islam’s noble ideal. The marriage, however, ended in failure, not so much due to a difference in the social status of Zainab and Zaid as to the incompatibility of their dispositions and temperaments and also due to a feeling of inferiority from which Zaid suffered. The failure of the marriage naturally grieved the Holy Prophet. But it also served a very useful purpose. In pursuance of Divine command, as mentioned in the latter part of the verse under comment, the Prophet himself married Zainab, thus cutting at the very root of another obnoxious and deep-seated Arab custom, viz. that it was a sacrilege to marry the wife of one’s adopted son. The custom of adoption was abolished and with it went also this foolish notion. Thus Zainab’s marriage with Zaid served one very noble object and its failure another highly useful purpose.

The words "fear Allah" signify that Zaid wanted to divorce Zainab, and as divorce according to Islam is very hateful in the sight of God, the Holy Prophet exhorted him not to do so.

The clause, "And then…thou shouldst fear Him," may apply to both Zaid and the Holy Prophet. Applying to Zaid it would mean that Zaid did not like that the cause of his separation from Zainab should come to light, perhaps because as the words "fear Allah," indicate the fault lay more with him than with Zainab. As, however, applying to the Holy Prophet, the words would signify that as the marriage between Zaid and Zainab was arranged at his instance and wish, he naturally did not like its breaking. The clause also shows that the Prophet feared that the break-down of the marriage which was arranged by him and which had been entered into in deference to his special wish, but which resulted in an ostensible failure of the experiment in Islamic brotherhood, would cause some mental confusion and uneasiness among people whose faith was weak. This was the anxiety that lay heavy on the Prophet’s heart. The words, "thou didst fear men," seem to point to this fear of his. But, as mentioned above, God had His own purpose in the failure of this marriage. He wanted to show that there was nothing in this failure to be afraid of. On the contrary, it was a blessing in disguise and was intended to serve a great purpose and therefore the Prophet’s fear was unfounded.

Christian and other hostile Critics of Islam pretend to find in the Holy Prophet’s marriage to Zainab a basis for mean attacks on him. It is stated that the Prophet, having by chance seen Zainab, became enamoured of her beauty and Zaid, having come to know of his desire to marry her, sought divorce from her. The fact that the Holy Prophet’s most inveterate enemies, before whose eyes the whole affair had actually taken place, dared not attribute the base motives ascribed to him by these critics after so many centuries, completely knocks the bottom from under this base and totally unfounded charge. Zainab was the Prophet’s own cousin and being so closely related to him he must have seen her many times, for "Purdah" had not as yet been enjoined. Besides, it was in deference to his own persistently expressed wish that Zainab had reluctantly agreed to marry Zaid. It is on record that she and her brother had desired before her marriage with Zaid that she should be taken in marriage by the Holy Prophet himself. What wasit that prevented the Holy Prophet from marrying her when she was a virgin and when she herself ardently desired to get married to him? The whole story evidently seems to be a figment of the "fertile" imagination of the Holy Prophet’s hostile critics and it is an insult to human intellect to give the least credence to it. But while there are some Christian critics like Muir and Margoliouth who find fault with the Holy Prophet for having married Zainab, there are others better informed and more honest like the good and noble Rev. Bosworth Smith who found nothing in this marriage to cavil at. The Rev, gentleman says:

"It should be remembered, however, that most of Mohammed’s marriages may be explained, at least, as much by his pity for the forlorn condition of the persons concerned, as by other motives. They were almost all of them widows who were not remarkable either for their beauty or their wealth, but quite the reverse. May not this fact, and his undoubted faithfulness to Khadijah till her dying day, and till he himself was fifty years of age, give us additional ground to hope that calumny or misconception has been at work in the story of Zainab" - ("Mohammed and Mohammedanism").