إِنْ

2:235; 65:5.

4:35.

Important Words:

قروء (courses) is the plural of قرء which is derived from قرأ. They say قرأ الشیء i.e. he collected or put together the thing. قرأت الناقة means, the she-camel became pregnant. قرأت الحامل means, the pregnant woman gave birth to a child. قرات المرأة or اقرأت المرأة means, the woman became pure from menstrual discharge. اقرأت المرأة also means, she menstruated, thus giving contrary meanings. قرء (Qur’un or Qar’un), means: (1) a time, and this is the primary significance of the word, as we say ھبت الریح لقرئھا i.e. the wind blew at its fixed time; (2) menstruation; (3) period or state of purity preceding and following a menstrual discharge, i.e. the period between two menstruations; thus the word gives contrary meanings; (4) termination of a menstruation (Aqrab & Lane). The word قرء is also sometimes applied to the period of menstruation and that of purity taken together, i.e. the whole month (Muhit). According to Raghib قرء means the time or state when a woman leaves her state of purity and enters that of menstruation (Mufradat).

ارحام (wombs) is the plural of رحم (rihm or rahim) which is from the verb رحم. They say رحمه i.e. he showed him mercy, he was tender towards him. رحمت المرأة means, the woman had complaint of the womb after childbirth. رحم (rahim) or رحم(rihm) means, (1) womb; (2) relationship, particularly by the female side. The expression اولواالارحام or ذوالارحام means, relatives or kinsmen. In Muslim jurisprudence the expression signifies such relations as are not direct heirs (Lane).

بعولة (husbands), like بعول, is the plural of بعل. They say بعل الرجل i.e. the man became a husband. بعلت المرأة means, the woman married and had a husband. بعل is like زوج meaning, both a husband and a wife, i.e. a partner in life; but the significance of husband is more common. The word also means, lord, master or owner of a thing; or a person in authority. The Arabs sometimes gave the name بعل to their idols also (Lane & Mufradat).

المعروف (equity) is a common Arabic word which has been freely used in the Quran as well as the Hadith. The word is derived from عرف. They say عرفه i.e. he knew it either by means of the five senses or by mental perception, as by reflection, or by consideration of the effect of a thing on the mind; he recognized it. المعروف means, (1) a known or commonly known thing; (2) an action or thing the goodness of which is known by reason, i.e. equity; (3) an action or thing the goodness of which is known by the law of Shari‘ah; (4) goodness, kindness and beneficence; (5) liberality coupled with moderation; (6) good fellowship with one’s family and others; (7) sincere and honest word of advice, etc. (Lane). It may be noted here that while taking the oath of allegiance from would-be Muslims, the Holy Prophet always used the word المعروف asking them to solemnly affirm that they would obey him in all معروف things, i.e. not only in such things as formed part of the divine law of Shari‘ah but also in those which the Prophet held to be good by his own reason.

درجة (rank) means, (1) the various steps forming a set of stairs; (2) rank; (3) eminence (4) degree (Aqrab).

Commentary:

In view of the fact that divorce is the most hateful of all lawful things in the sight of God (Dawud), it has been hedged round by many checks and limitations. One of these checks is that a husband can divorce his wife only when she is clean i.e. in a state of purity, and he has had no sexual knowledge of her in her period of purity. After the pronouncement of divorce the wife must wait for three menstruations, i.e. about three months, which period is called عدة(‘iddah) or the period of waiting. This is another check, because this period of waiting gives to the husband sufficient time to consider the pros and cons of his action and to allow his love for her, if there is yet a dormant spark lying smouldering somewhere, to reassert itself. The third check laid down in this verse is that a divorced woman, if pregnant, must not conceal this fact from her husband, for the expected birth of a child is calculated to go a long way in bringing about reconciliation between the couple. The fourth check, as mentioned in the succeeding verses, is that for complete and irrevocable separation there should be three divorces. After the pronouncement of the first as well as the second divorce, and before the expiry of the period of waiting, the husband enjoys the privilege of taking his wife back, if he so desires. Even after the period of waiting is over, the couple can become reunited in the case of the first and second divorce by renewing the marriage tie.

The verse adds that as far as personal rights are concerned, the husband and the wife stand on a par, but in matters relating to discipline, the husband has superiority over the wife, i.e. in case of difference, the final authority is vested in him. The reasons for this are given in 4:35.

The divine attribute Mighty added at the end of the verse contains a reminder and a warning to the husband that he must not misuse the authority he has been given in household affairs, for there is the Almighty God over his head to Whom he is responsible for his actions. The attribute also provides a reason for vesting authority in the husband, who is the stronger of the parties. The attribute Wise brings home to the husband the fact that the vesting of the final authority in him is based on just and wise considerations, because wherever two or more persons live together, it is necessary that the wisest among them be appointed the Amir or the chief for the efficient running of their affairs and the uniformity of their actions.

A word here about the significance of قرء seems essential. As explained under Important Words, this word gives two distinct and contrary meanings, i.e. (1) menstruation; and (2) the period of purity between two menstruations. This has given rise to much difference of opinion among scholars of Muslim jurisprudence; Abu Bakr and ‘Umar among the Companions of the Holy Prophet and Abu Hanifah and Ahmad bin Hanbal the Imams of jurisprudence have held the view that by using the word قرء

the Quran means menstruation and not the period of purity. On the contrary, ‘A’ishah (wife of the Holy Prophet) and Ibn ‘Umar among the Companions, and Malik and Shafi‘i among the Imams of jurisprudence have held the opposite view (Muhit). Opinions being so balanced, it would be open to a Muslim to take either of the two views, but a collective survey of relevant arguments, which need not be stated here, leads one to the conclusion that the first-mentioned view is perhaps the more reasonable of the two. If, however, one should desire to be on the perfectly safe side, it is open to him to take the word قرء to signify the periods of menstruation and purity taken together, i.e. the whole month.

Important Words:

توفیقا (reconciliation) is noun-infinitive from وفق (waffaqa) which is derived from وفق (wafiqa). They say وفق امرہ i.e. his affair or case was right or agreeable with what was desired. وفقه لامر means, he disposed or adapted him to a thing or made him fit for it.

وفق بین الشیئین means, he effected an agreement or harmony or reconciliation or adjustment between the two things. وفقت بین القوم means, I effected an agreement or harmony between the people; made peace between them (Lane).

Commentary:

This verse may also be taken as generally applying to the case of hypocrites generally. An incident, however, is related in traditions in connection with this verse which, though not reliable, may be mentioned here. There was some dispute between a Jew and one who hypocritically professed to be a Muslim. The latter, thinking that the Holy Prophet would decide the case in his favour, proposed to the Jew that they should go to him for decision. The Holy Prophet, however, contrary to the expectation of the hypocrite, decided the case in favour of the Jew who happened to be in the right. Being disappointed there, the hypocrite proposed to the Jew that they should go to Abu Bakr, hoping that though the Holy Prophet had shown him no favour, Abu Bakr at least would favour him. But Abu Bakr also decided in favour of the Jew. Being disappointed a second time, the hypocrite thought that ‘Umar, who was a jealous Muslim, would never decide in favour of a Jew. So he proposed to his rival that they should go to ‘Umar for decision.

But ‘Umar, says the tradition, on learning from the Jew that the case had already been decided in his favour by the Holy Prophet, cut off the head of the hypocrite, because he professed Islam and yet would not accept the Prophet’s verdict. Thereupon the hypocrites gathered together and went to the Holy Prophet and told him that in going to ‘Umar the object was only to bring about a compromise and reconciliation (Muhit, iii. 279).

The words, We meant nothing but the doing of good and reconciliation, reported to have been uttered by the hypocrites, show that there was an intrigue. The incident, however, is highly improbable and lacks proper authority.

2:240.

Commentary:

The subject how Prayers are to be performed when one is on a journey or when there is fear of an attack from the enemy has been incidentally introduced here in connection with the subject of migration dealt with in the previous verses. At the conclusion of this subject, which has been incidentally brought in, the Quran will again refer to the main theme dealing with hypocrites and the weak of faith.

The subject of Prayers in time of fear has been dealt with in the Quran in three separate verses viz. (1) in 2:240 which deals with Prayers performed in times of extreme fear when no formal prayer is possible; (2) in 4:102, i.e. the present verse which deals with Prayers performed individually in times of ordinary fear; and (3) in 4:103, i.e. the following verse which deals with Prayers performed in congregation.

The "shortening of Prayer" as mentioned in the present verse, which relates to the saying of Prayers individually, does not here signify the lessening of the number of Rak‘ats which has from the very beginning been fixed at two in a state of journey. It signifies the saying of the prescribed Prayers quickly and hurriedly when there is danger of an attack from the enemy. Ordinarily, a Muslim is enjoined to say his Prayers slowly and attentively, but he may say them quickly and hurriedly when an attack from the enemy is apprehended. The number of Rak‘ats to be said when a man is on a journey has ever been two, in the case of those Prayers which are ordinarily performed in four Rak‘ats; but in time of danger when one has to say one’s Prayers individually, even these two Rak‘ats may be gone through quickly. This is what is meant by the "shortening of Prayer" in the verse under comment. Ibn Kathir says: "Some of the learned theologians hold that by the "shortening of Prayer" here is meant not the shortening of the quantity, i.e. the number of Rak‘ats, but of the quality, i.e. time passed in Prayer, which, in other words, means saying the Prayers quickly without lessening the number of Rak‘ats or reducing the additional prayers which one ordinarily offers in the prescribed Prayers in one’s own words." This view is endorsed by Mujahid, Dahhak, and other authorities; and Imam Muhammad bin Isma‘il also expresses the same view, for in Bukhari he couples this verse with the next one, which deals with the subject of congregational Prayers in time of fear, under the common heading of Salatul-Khauf, (i.e. Prayers in time of fear).

The above view is further supported by the following traditions: ‘A’ishah is reported to have said, "At first the number of Rak‘ats enjoined was two, whether one was on a journey or at home. Later on, however, the number was increased to four for those staying at home, but the number of Rak‘ats said on a journey continued to be the same as before" (Bukhari, ch. on Salat). Again ‘Umar says, "The Prayer to be said on a journey is two Rak‘ats; the Prayer of the two ‘Ids is also two Rak‘ats each; similarly, the Friday Prayer is two Rak‘ats; this is the full number of Rak‘ats without having undergone any curtailment. We learnt this from the very lips of the Holy Prophet" (Musnad, Nasa’i, & Majah).

The number of Rak‘ats whether the Prayer is performed in a state of fear or when one is on a journey is not expressly dealt with in the Quran. It is found detailed in Sunnah or Hadith, which confine the number of Rak‘ats to two in the case of those Prayers which ordinarily have four Rak‘ats. For instance, there is a saying to the effect that Khalid bin Sa‘id once asked Ibn ‘Umar where was صلوة المسافر (Prayer of the wayfarer) mentioned in the Quran, which prescribes only the صلوة الخوف (Prayer in time of fear). To this Ibn ‘Umar replied that in this respect they did what they saw the Holy Prophet doing, i.e. saying two Rak‘ats of Prayer while on a journey (Jarir, v. 144, also see Nasa’i, ch. on Salat).

5:73, 74.

See 3:190.

Important Words:

یھلك (bring to naught) is derived from اھلك which is the causative form of ھلك which means, he or it perished or came to naught; or he or it came to an end and became non-existent. اھلكه means, he caused him or it to perish, or he destroyed him or it, or he brought him or it to naught (Lane). اھلكه also means, he punished him (Mufradat). The Holy Prophet is reported to have said: اذاقال الرجل ھلك الناس فھواھلکھم i.e. "When a man says, such and such people have perished (viz. they have become morally and spiritually ruined and their state is past recovery), it is he himself who causes them to perish by saying so, for he makes them despair of recovery and of salvation" (Muslim, ch. on Birr Was-Silah). The word is used in this sense also elsewhere in the Quran (67:29; 8:43).

Commentary:

The expression یھلك (bring to naught) is used here not simply in the sense of destroying but in that of destroying by punishment. It is indeed a jealous and indignant God that speaks in this verse. He condemns Christians in a tone of strong indignation and vehement reproach at their preposterous claims about the Godhead of Jesus; and as Jesus and his mother, Mary, have become the means and object of this highly sinful doctrine, the verse fittingly refers to the divine power of punishing them also if God should so desire. It will be noted that a section of Christians looks upon Mary also as Divine and superhuman.

The words, those that are in the earth, obviously refer to those who deify Jesus. God’s purpose in using such strong language is to expose the monstrosity of the doctrine that Jesus was God or the Son of God. Elsewhere also in the Quran strong language has been used about those who hold such blasphemous beliefs and they are threatened with exemplary punishment (19:89-92).

The words, what is between them, corroborate and add force and strength to the argument given in the earlier part of the verse at the same time hinting at the final dissolution of Christian empires as a result of the most blasphemous doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. See also 3:27.

What the Christians say is, "The Messiah, son of Mary, is God," and not "God is none but the Messiah" as the verse puts it. The assertion has been inverted in order to bring home to Christians their great error; for, to say that "The Messiah is God" is really tantamount to saying that "God is none but the Messiah," But Christians, being too conscious of the weaknesses of their Messiah, dare not accept the latter proposition, which thus goes to prove the hollowness of their claim that the Messiah, son of Mary, is God.

9:47.

2:76; 3:79; 4:47.

Commentary:

The expression سماعون للکذب (who would fondly listen to any lie) is capable of bearing two meanings: (1) they listen to you in order to lie, i.e. they come to you so that they may listen to your words, and then go out and distort and twist your words and their meanings before their own people and ascribe to you things which you did not say or mean; (2) they hearken to lies and accept them, i.e. they believe the lies which others utter about you and accept them as true. Similarly, the clause سماعون لقوم آخرین (who listen for conveying it to another people) means: (1) they listen (to you) for the sake of another people; i.e. they come and listen to what you say in order to report it to another people; (2) they believe what others say about you and take it as true.

2:141, 284.

Commentary:

See collective note on 5:109 below.

2:88; 2:254.

3:47.

3:49.

3:50.

5:12.

Commentary:

In the clause, thou didst speak to the people in the cradle and when of middle age, the act of speaking in the cradle signifies speaking words of wisdom and piety in childhood. This sort of speaking on the part of Jesus reflected great credit on his mother, who, herself being wise and pious, brought him up as a wise and pious child. And the speaking of good words in middle age shows that not only was Mary a pious woman, but Jesus, too, was a righteous man so that even when he was of middle age and was no longer under the direct influence of his mother, he spoke words of piety and wisdom to men. See also 3:47 & 3:49, 50, where similar works of Jesus, i.e. the creation of birds and the quickening of the dead, etc. have been discussed.

Protection similar to that alluded to in the latter part of this verse in the words, I restrained the Children of Israel from putting thee to death, was promised to the Holy Prophet as well (5:68). This promise met with a remarkable fulfilment. Though, even at Mecca, his life was in constant danger, at Medina that danger very much increased. The Holy Prophet led many expeditions in person and several attempts were made on his life. At Uhud, he was severely wounded and at Hunain he was left alone among a large host of bloodthirsty archers. Yet amidst all these dangers he remained safe, and after having triumphed over his enemies, passed away peacefully in his house at Medina. The reference in the present verse is to the attempts of the Jews to kill Jesus on the cross, from which—accursed death—God delivered him. The words, I restrained the Children of Israel, should not, however, be understood to mean that Jesus suffered even no persecution at the hands of his enemies. A similar expression has been used with regard to early Muslims in the Quran (5:12), but it is a well-known fact that they had to pass through grievous trials and tribulations. The expression thus only means that the enemy will fail to kill Jesus, whom God will protect from being destroyed.

Important Words:

قرطاس (parchment) means paper; a roll or scroll of paper; anything one writes upon; a writing or book; a butt or target (Lane).

Commentary:

The words, and they had felt it with their hands, mean, "and they had made sure that it was a heavenly thing and not an earthly one". The words also embody a beautiful allusion to the spiritual blindness of the people. Being blind, they cannot see; so they have to feel with their hands.

The verse signifies that when a man gives himself up to doubting, nothing, however clear and manifest, can convince him.

10:16; 39:14.

Commentary:

This verse is an expression of the supreme independence of God. The Holy Prophet is made to say, "O men, it is indeed strange that you should not fear the punishment of God while I, who am a Prophet of God, fear His punishment if I disobey Him." This is an emphatic way of exhorting men to avoid disobedience of God. The expression does not imply that the Holy Prophet is likely to disobey God or even that it is possible for him to do so. It is simply meant to convince disbelievers that God is above all and none can dare disobey Him with impunity.

10:43; 17:48.

17:47; 41:6.

Commentary:

For an explanation of "veils" and "deafness", see 2:8.

What the Quran calls "signs" are described by disbelievers as mere "fables of the ancients," which saying of theirs is condemned by God. This shows that in the sight of God the stories of past Prophets and past nations given in the Quran are not meant as "tales" or "stories" but as "signs", being prophecies of future events which, when fulfilled, will serve as "signs".

23:38; 44:36; 45:25.

Commentary:

The things of this world and the enjoyments of the present life are, in the sight of most men, so engrossing that they never pause to think of death or of the Hereafter. Would that man could realize the object of his creation and see the everlasting life beyond the grave!

6:48; 12:108; 43:67.

Commentary:

The word "Hour" refers to the Hour of the decisive victory of Islam, or, in other words, the Fall of Mecca. Thus, whereas "punishment" refers to ordinary afflictions, "Hour" refers to the final and decisive event of the struggle. The question put in this verse is answered in the next.

2:8; 16:109; 45:24.

Commentary:

The preceding verse spoke of the punishment that cuts at the root. But there is a stage when only a part is affected, or even if the whole body is affected the disease is not deep-rooted and there is yet time to prevent the total loss of the body. In its early stages, a disease is generally curable; but if it is not attended to in time, it may be aggravated and become incurable. It is against such negligence that men are warned in the present verse. Some men delay acceptance of Divine Messengers. They wait for more and more signs, and go on postponing the tendering of allegiance to the heavenly Messengers until it is too late. The punishment of God descends on the enemies of the Prophets; and those who do not make use of their inward light and prefer to wait for more and more evidence of the truth of the Divine Messengers also perish with their enemies. So this verse warns those who are in the habit of delaying and postponing, and exhorts them to use their inward light for the recognition of the Divine Messenger, and expedite their acceptance of him, lest delay should result in the total extinction of their God-given faculties and they should perish with the rest. They should be prompt to make use of their hearing, and their eyes, and their hearts; for if they fail to make use of these faculties in time, they will gradually become impaired and will finally be lost; then no power will be able to restore these faculties to them after they have been completely lost.

The words, how We vary the Signs, signify that in order to make things perfectly clear, God brings the different aspects of signs before the people, sometimes showing one kind of sign and sometimes another, so that all kinds of people may be satisfied.

6:41; 10:51; 12:108; 43:67.

Commentary:

The word "suddenly" signifies the coming of the Divine punishment without warning or previous indication. The Fall of Mecca belonged to this class of signs.

The word "openly" implies giving a warning beforehand so that such people as still retain inward light and have a desire to follow the guidance may become warned and may accept the truth without further delay, lest they should also perish along with the wrongdoers.

11:32.

10:16; 46:10.

Commentary:

The words, I do not say to you, I possess the treasures of Allah, imply that when the Quran says that the Messengers of God are the announcers of glad tidings, this should not be construed to mean that as soon as a person believes in a Prophet of God, he acquires wealth. He will have to wait for the favours of God to come at their appointed time.

The words, nor do I say to you, I am an angel, here imply that it is not in the power of the Prophet to bring down punishment, for he is not "an angel of punishment."

After the above declarations it might be asked what good there was in following the Prophet when worldly favours took time in coming and when the Prophet was so powerless against his enemies. The Quran answers this implied question by saying that the getting of a treasure was not the only boon which one could desire. The perfect guidance which was received through the Prophet was a great blessing in itself for those who accepted the guidance were like one who possessed eyes, while those who rejected it were like one who had no eyes, and the blind and the seeing could never be alike. These are matters to be reflected upon and pondered over.

Commentary:

The words, so follow thou their guidance, may be taken to be addressed either to the Holy Prophet or to every Muslim. The fundamental teaching of all Prophets is the same.

22:26.

10:63, 64.

Commentary:

The verse purports to say that when the Quraish did not enjoy either of the two basic protections against Divine punishment (see preceding verse), they were being rightly punished for their false beliefs and wicked deeds. The verse also says that the Quraish have no right to act as guardians of the Sacred Mosque. As guardians thereof, they ought to have been worshippers of the One True God; but they have put idols even in the Sacred Mosque; hence, far from having any right to act as its guardians, they deserve to be expelled therefrom and punished for the sacrilege.

The words, Its true guardians are only those who are righteous, contain a prophecy to the effect that Muslims would soon become guardians of the Sacred Mosque, the words, most of them know not, signifying that although most of the disbelievers do not at present think this announcement to be true, yet it would surely come to pass.

2:256; 40:8.

Commentary:

The argument of the followers of Shu‘aib for not renouncing their religion is continued in this verse. There could be only two reasons, they said, for giving up their faith; firstly if they had been false and insincere in their profession of faith; secondly, if their religion itself had been false. But as neither of these two things was true, therefore, it was impossible for them to give up their faith. They further reinforce their argument by the words, Our Lord comprehends all things in His knowledge, meaning that when they are fully convinced of their religion being the religion of God and of God being always in the right, it is impossible for them to recant their faith. There is only one possibility of their doing so, i.e. that Allah, our Lord, should so will, viz. that some hidden weakness or sin of theirs may move God to cut them asunder like a diseased limb. But they have faith in their Lord and trust in Him Who has given them the opportunity and the power to accept the truth. He would not let them go astray because His permitting them to forsake the path of rectitude would be inconsistent with His attribute of being their رب or Lord.

The words, In Allah have we put our trust, are also intended to imply that, as the votaries of truth have perfect faith in God, so no amount of persecution can intimidate them into giving it up. They are encouraged and strengthened by constantly praying to God to protect them from the plots and machinations of their enemies.

13:28.

Commentary:

This verse shows that the tablets were not broken as alleged by the Bible; for if they were broken, how could the very tablets have been taken up again. The word نسخة (writing) explained above also hints that Moses did not receive any written tablets from God but that he himself wrote them under divine inspiration.

The word سفھاء (the foolish) is used here not in the general sense but in the specific sense of the foolish in the ways of God, i.e. "ignorant", for every act of disobedience is born of ignorance, even if it is committed intentionally. Those, who were clever enough to render Aaron helpless, could not be called fools in the ordinary sense of the word. They are called سفھاء (fools) because they did not possess the sense and intelligence to understand the Word of God.

The incident of the calf proved to be the first occasion when the transgressors among the Israelites became distinguished from true believers, and the prophecy, Soon shall I show you the abode of the transgressors (7:146), was fulfilled.

23:26; 34:47; 52:30; 81:23.

Important Words:

صاحب (companion) is derived from صحب which means, he was or became his companion, associate, comrade, fellow or friend. صاحب of which the plural is اصحاب or صحابة means, a companion, associate, comrade, fellow or friend; owner or master; possessor; inmate; manager or disposer; one who keeps or adheres to a thing (Lane). Figuratively the word is also used in the sense of helper.

Commentary:

The word صاحب (companion) meaning both a companion and a helper is not intended as a plain reference to the Holy Prophet. The word has been specially chosen to imply a refutation of the charge of insanity brought by some of his enemies against the Holy Prophet, as well as a veiled rebuke to the Meccans. They are told that the Prophet was their companion and associate. He lived and moved among them and they knew him perfectly well and, therefore, they could easily see, and indeed in their heart of hearts they knew that there was nothing of insanity about him. He was also their helper and was constantly working for their good which constituted further proof of the fact that he was not insane. That he was نذیر مبین (a plain warner) and issued his warnings in a clear and reasoned manner also pointed to the same conclusion—that he was in full possession of his senses.

10:50; 72:22.

2:120; 5:20; 11:3.

Commentary:

By the word "good" in the sentence, I should have secured abundance of good, is meant no material good, but spiritual good. As for material good, it is well-known that it did come to the Holy Prophet, but he discarded it, praying to God in the words اللھم احیینی مسکیناوامتنی مسکینا i.e. "My God, make me live the life of a poor man and let death come to me when I am poor" (Tirmidhi). So by the word "good" is here meant, not worldly good or riches but spiritual good or the good of Islam, which the Holy Prophet so ardently desired.

The word "unseen" in the clause, If I had knowledge of the unseen, means the secret ways of purifying men’s hearts which are known to God alone (16:10). The Holy Prophet is thus represented as saying: "'If I had known the secret and hidden ways by which men’s hearts are turned to truth, I would have certainly used them and would have made all of you accept the true Faith."

The expression, and evil should not have touched me, means that in the event of my having won over all men to Islam, there would have been no war.

6:26; 68:16; 83:14.

Commentary:

The disbelievers alleged that they could produce a composition like that of the Quran. It was, however, nothing but an empty boast on their part, which they never attempted to carry into effect; and the challenge of the Quran, which declared that they would never be able to produce even a short chapter like any chapter of the Quran, has ever remained unanswered. The disbelievers also thought that the Quran contained nothing but the tales of the ancients. The verse under comment contradicts this assertion by drawing their attention to the powerful prophecies contained in the Quran which unmistakably prove it to be the Word of God, it being beyond the power of man to produce a composition containing such powerful prophecies. The Battle of Badr, for instance, fulfilled many a mighty prophecy, foretold by the Quran (e.g 54:45-47; 34:30, 31)—a fact which rendered it impossible for man to imitate a production like it, and which fully exposed the absurdity of the assertion that the Quran was nothing but tales of the ancients.

63:2.

Important Words:

ارصادا (to prepare an ambush) is derived from. ارصد which again is derived from رصد. They say رصدہ i.e. he sat or lay in wait for him in the way; or he watched or waited for him. ارصد له الامر means, he prepared for him the thing or affair. ارصدہ علی کذاmeans, he charged him with the watching or guarding of such a thing. رصد or مرصد or مرصاد means, a place or way, etc. where one lies in wait, or watches, for an enemy. ارصاد therefore means, to prepare a place where one may wait, or lie in ambush, for the enemy (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The verse refers to a plot hatched by one Abu ‘Amir, a member of the Khazraj tribe of Medina and an arch-enemy of Islam. After the Battle of Badr, Abu ‘Amir fled to Mecca and there incited the Meccans and other Arabs to avenge the defeat of Badr. He was with the Meccan army at Uhud. Learning that there were certain hypocrites in Medina, he entered into correspondence with them, with a view to plotting against Islam. It was his accomplices who built the so-called mosque at Quba, a suburb of Medina, to carry on their secret and mischievous propaganda against Islam. The building was completed when the Holy Prophet was about to leave for Tabuk. The builders of the "mosque" requested him to consecrate it by saying Prayers therein. The Holy Prophet, who so far knew nothing of their evil designs, promised to do so on his return from the expedition. But in the meantime, the present verse was revealed to him, and on his return to Medina he ordered the "mosque" (which has come to be known as مسجد ضرار i.e. the Harmful Mosque) to be set on fire and razed to the ground.

The reference in the words, and prepare an ambush for him who warred against Allah and His Messenger, is to Abu ‘Amir, who, since the Battle of Badr, had been inciting the Arabs against the Muslims and had personally taken part in the Battle of Uhud. He is also said to have been present at the Battle of the Ditch and Hunain. At last, he fled to Syria, designing and hoping, to enlist the help of the Greeks against Islam, but he died at Kinnisrin, an exiled wretch. Abu ‘Amir is reported to have prayed for the death of the Holy Prophet in the words: امات اللّٰه الکاذب منا طریدا وحیدا غریبا i.e. "May God make him who is the liar of us two die, driven away, alone and in exile." When the Holy Prophet heard of this prayer of Abu ‘Amir, he calmly exclaimed, "Let it be so." The prayer met with wonderful acceptance, proving that it was Abu ‘Amir himself who was the liar and not the Holy Prophet (Khamis, ii.144).

See 10:8.

17:74.

6:51; 7:204; 46:10.

Important Words:

تلقاء (accord) is derived from لقی. They say لقیه i.e. he came face to face with him; he found or met him. توجه تلقاء النار means, he went in the direction of the fire, or towards the fire. جلس تلقاء فلان means, he sat facing him or opposite to him. فعله من تلقاء نفسه means, he did it himself; he did it of his own accord, i.e. without being led to it by someone else or without being forced to do it (Aqrab).

Commentary:

Signs (آیات) are of two kinds: (1) simple signs, and (2) clear or manifest signs. To the first class belong all things, even the smallest atom of the universe, because every one of these things points to the existence of a Creator, though it is our own faculty of reasoning that draws the inference that every created thing must have a Creator. But the signs shown at the hands of Prophets speak for themselves. They are shown to establish the truth of things hidden from our eyes, viz. the existence of God, the Day of Resurrection, the truth of the Prophets, and the nature of Divine attributes. As these signs serve as evidence for matters that concern belief, they have been spoken of as آیات بینات (clear signs), while the Signs from nature are spoken of simply as آیات (signs). All pestilences, for example, are آیات while a pestilence predicted by a Prophet of God to prove the truth of his claim is آیة بینة i.e. a clear and manifest sign, for such a pestilence serves its purpose much more clearly and definitely than a general one.

The words, those who look not for the meeting with Us say, Bring a Quran other than this or change it, show that when the leaders of disbelief saw that the hearts of their followers were becoming gradually inclined towards the truth and they were beginning to accept the new faith, they became anxious and, in order to incite their followers against the Prophet, assumed the garb of peacemakers. As men naturally love peace, the leaders of disbelief exploit this natural human desire and suggest a compromise, viz. that the Prophet should introduce no new teaching but should only assume the leadership of the people which would maintain the homogeneity of the community and save it from discord or dissension. If, however, this proposal should not meet with the Prophet’s acceptance, he should at least omit from his teachings such portions as offend against the cherished ideas of the people. When making these proposals, the ringleaders know full well that the Prophet would never accede to these unreasonable demands, which cut at the very root of his divine mission, and that in this way the people would come to think that he was too narrow-minded to give up even some of his ideas for the sake of national unity and concord. Thus they think they would succeed in making the people ignore the important fact that truth and the acceptance of a Divine Call were much more precious than mere patched-up unity and that the decline of nations was always due to the denial of divine truth. In reply to these demands of his opponents the Holy Prophet is commanded to say in this verse that he could not change a teaching which was revealed by God and which was the only means of their regeneration, for such change, instead of proving useful, was sure to prove ruinous.

The expression "of my own accord" occurring in the words, It is not for me to change it of my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me, contains a subtle hint that Divine teachings are always in accordance with the condition of the people for whom they are sent, and hence nobody can change them of his own accord. If the Holy Prophet should himself change the teachings revealed to him, it would lead to the ruin of the people because Divine teachings, being in fitness of prevailing circumstances, can alone bring about a real spiritual and moral reformation among people and any change in these teachings would certainly be not to their good. The words, Bring a Quran other than this or change it, may also refer to the prophecies of punishment and destruction contained in the Quran. Disbelievers naturally did not like these prophecies and wanted them to be changed. The verse tells them that they could have these warnings changed only if they changed their own condition, because if a change takes place in them, the nature of the warnings would automatically change.

The words, I only follow what is revealed to me, may also mean, "In respect of the Quran I follow nothing but what is revealed to me" i.e. not only are all the words of the Quran divine but its divisions into verses and Surahs as well as the arrangement thereof are also divine. Incidentally this also does away with the objection raised by certain critics of Islam that the opening verse of each Surah, viz. بسم الله was not of Divine origin but was placed there by the Prophet himself.

Some Christian writers pretend to see this verse as an effort by the Holy Prophet to justify the alleged abrogation of certain verses of the Quran. By the words, It is not for me to change it of my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me, the Holy Prophet is supposed by these writers to have disclaimed all responsibility for abrogation in the Quran. But this assumption is absurd. Far from justifying abrogation, the verse shows that not a single verse of the Quran has ever been abrogated. When disbelievers demanded that the Holy Prophet should make some alteration in the Quran, they did not mean that they would accept it after the demanded changes had been made. Their object in making such a demand was that, if the Holy Prophet agreed to make any change in the Quran, in compliance with their demand, they would at once say that it was not the word of God but his own composition which he altered at will to meet their wishes. But if he refused to accede to their demand, they would get a ready tool to incite the masses against him, condemning him as one who had no regard for national peace and harmony. Christian writers seem to forget the fact that if, as alleged by them, certain verses of the Quran had already been replaced by others, disbelievers had no need to resort to the above device, but could justify their objection on the basis of the abrogation that had already taken place in the Quran and could seize on it as evidence of the Quran not being the word of God. Thus the verse under comment incidentally furnishes evidence that there has been no abrogation in the Quran.

The words, the punishment of an awful day, signify a national disaster. The words mean that the teachings which are revealed by God are for the good of the people themselves and it is on acting upon them that all progress depends. So, if any change is made in these teachings, it is sure to prove detrimental to the best interests of the entire people.

6:48; 7:98-99.

Important Words:

ارءیتم (Tell me) means, have you considered; or tell me you; or simply, tell me( Lane).

Commentary:

The words, by night or by day, contain a subtle allusion to the destruction of the people of Mecca, on whom punishment was to come both during the day and at night. At the Battle of Badr, which was the first pitched battle fought between Muslims and Meccans and in which the foundations were laid of the latter’s complete destruction, they had a foretaste of their ruin "by day" while at the Battle of the Ditch, which was the last real trial of strength between the two parties, the circumstances which caused their ruin were brought into existence "by night." The punishment which was to overtake the Meccans by night has been mentioned here before that which was to overtake them by day, because the former was to deal to them a blow which was to end their power for all time.

The verse also constitutes a rebuke to disbelievers that they should not indulge in futile discussion as to the time and form of the promised punishment but should try to escape it by effecting a change in their lives.

2:117; 4:172; 9:31; 17:112; 18:5, 6.

Commentary:

In v. 67, it had been hinted that in the false doctrines of disbelievers lie hidden the seeds of their destruction. In the present verse, the Quran proceeds to refute the doctrine of the plurality of gods, the most heinous of all false beliefs, and of the various forms of this doctrine it selects the belief that God has a son. This doctrine differs from other known polytheistic dogmas in that, whereas in other forms of shirk, idolaters claim only that they can attain nearness to God through the instrumentality of their gods, by this doctrine a person is believed to be an actual partner in Godhead.

Four arguments have been given here in refutation of the doctrine that a person can be a Son of God. The first is contained in the words, Holy is He, which mean that God is free from all defects and imperfections. But the belief that God has a son presupposes the presence of carnal passions in Him as well as His being subject to the laws of decay and death, for only such beings or things are perpetuated in their progeny as are subject to decay and death. The earth, the sun and the moon, for instance, have no issue because they are above the familiar law of death and decay; but animals and plants wither and die. Therefore they produce their substitutes which take their place when they are gone. Thus the existence of the progeny of a thing presupposes its mortality.

The second argument is embodied in the words, He is Self-Sufficient, which mean that in His work of running the universe God does not need anybody’s help. Progeny, besides saving a person from extinction, helps him to carry on his work. But God being Self-Sufficient needs no helper in that respect either.

The third argument is contained in the sentence, To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. Sometimes one can make or originate a thing but lacks the power or ability to keep it in his possession or under his control and therefore needs assistance. But God does not need anybody’s help to keep the universe in His possession or under His control.

The fourth argument is implied in the expression, You have no authority for this, which signifies that the doctrine of the plurality of gods is based on no sound or solid ground. Its whole basis lies in the fancy and caprice of men. This fact alone constitutes an argument against this foolish doctrine. All efforts to find some real evidence in support of shirk, do not go beyond mere indulgence in idle philosophical discussion, and no real basis has so far been found for it.

The argument embodied in the words, Do you say against Allah what you know not?, is given in 13:34, in the words, Would you inform Him of what He does not know in the earth? The difference in the wording is due to the fact that in the verse under comment it is pointed out that shirk springs from the ignorance of man and is not based on any sound reasoning, while in 13:34 it is said that the doctrine of shirk involves the charge of ignorance on the part of God, for it means that He failed to know and make known the existence of gods and it was left to idolaters to disclose the godhead of their deities by the force of their own knowledge.

6:91; 11:30.

Commentary:

It is a common objection against the Prophets of God that they seek to gain ascendency over men by raising the standard of revolt against the existing order of things with a view to establishing a new order under their own leadership. It is this baseless charge that is refuted in this verse. God’s Prophets never seek self-aggrandizement. On the contrary, they choose the path of suffering and service. They pass their days in hardship and privation. Their life is a model of rigid discipline willingly undergone. Had their activities been prompted by a desire to gain power and dominion over men, they would not have subjected themselves to a hard and disciplined life, a life of prayer, fasting and renunciation. They do demand obedience of others, but they themselves are always the first to forego their desires and their ambitions in the service of their Lord and of humanity. It is not the desire for power but the passion for service and self-abnegation that has mastery of them. This is not an empty assertion, unsubstantiated by the established facts of history; for though the Prophet Noah, in whose mouth are put the words, I have not asked of you any reward, did not get the opportunity to subjugate his enemies, yet the Holy Prophet of Islam who was, like Noah, a Prophet of God, did show by actual practice that God’s Prophets desire no reward for their service in the form of riches or dominion. The fact is too well-known to need a reference that when Mecca lay prostrate at the Prophet’s feet, he forgave his most inveterate enemies with a magnanimity unparalleled in the history of the world. He demanded no fine and asked for no indemnity from the defeated Meccans or their allies. The only words he uttered were: "Go, you are a free and forgiven people."

7:55; 10:4; 25:60.

5:49; 6:166; 67:3.

Commentary:

This verse reminds us how God has created things by a gradual process of evolution to bring man into existence and to make provision for his progress. This gradual process of evolution has culminated in the creation of man. This shows that the real object of the creation of the whole universe was that man should come into being. Man is the real object of the creation of the universe because he has been endowed with an unlimited capacity for spiritual progress. It is, therefore, inconceivable that God, having endowed man with unlimited powers, should have neglected to provide means for his unending spiritual growth and development. For an explanation of the expression ستة ایام (six periods) see 7:55 and 10:4.

As water has been repeatedly described in the Quran as the source of all life (see 21:31; 25:55; 77:21 and 86:7) the words, His Throne rests on water, signify that all the great attributes of God have found their manifestation through "life" (i.e. living creatures) and above all through man, who is the culminating point of all life. The words that follow, viz. that He might prove you to know which of you is best in conduct, also corroborate the above explanation; otherwise, how can the works of man be tested by the resting of the Throne of God on material water? Indeed the passage can bear no other interpretation than this that it is through living creatures that God’s attributes are manifested and that God desires to see who benefits most by His attributes.

The words, His Throne rests on water, may also mean that the attributes of God are dependent for their manifestation on His word, which has been compared at several places in the Quran to water. Water stands, therefore, here for "the Word of God" and the verse means that God has bound up the manifestation of His attributes with His Word, which indeed is the source of all spiritual life. This subject is further explained in 58:22 where it is laid down that God’s Messengers on whom His word descends and their followers who benefit by the Divine Word are granted power and dominion over their enemies.

The verse may also be said to embody what may be called the Islamic theory of evolution. In this case، the word کان(is) will be rendered as "was" (for which see 2:35) and the verse would mean that God placed His Throne on water, viz. on the manifestation of life in this universe, so that the capacities of various animals might be compared and it might eventually become evident which of them deserved to be the aim and end of the whole of creation. In fact, the real and ultimate object of God in creating life was to bring into existence a being who might prove to be the best and highest manifestation of life fit to receive the impress of his Maker. This shows that the creation of man who was to prove the best of all creation, took place in the last cycle of life. Thus, although Islam does not accept the theory of evolution as commonly understood—that man is a development of a lower animal––yet it does teach that the creation of man formed the culminating point in the creation of life which began with the lower form of life and ended with the higher one, finding its consummation in man, and that this system of creation was from the very beginning intended to lead finally to the creation of man.

It is pointed out in the words, You shall surely be raised after death, that this system of creation itself shows that man should have a second life after death, for the creation of such a vast universe in which a being with a volition and independent will should live, makes it clear that the creation of that being is intended to serve a great purpose. But the life of this world is short-lived, a temporary place of tests and trials like the examination hall, over which hangs a veil of mystery and doubts, so much so that even the existence of God is sometimes denied. All this goes to prove beyond reasonable doubt that after this temporary abode of tests and trials man must pass on to his permanent or eternal abode of recompense. Hence (the verse says) how strange it is that, when people are told that creation has passed through a gradual process of development they readily admit it (even atheists accept the evolution theory) but when they are told what is but the natural sequence of this process, viz. that the life of man cannot come to a stop in this world, but must continue into another and higher life after death, they deny it.