فَلَا

20:54; 27:62; 43:11; 51:49; 71:20; 78:7.

51:48; 78:13; 79:28, 29.

Important Words:

فراش (a bed) is derived from فرش. They say فرش الشیء i.e. he spread out the thing; he expanded it. فراش means, a thing that is spread upon the ground: a thing that is spread for one to sit or lie upon: a bed on which one sleeps; a wide or spacious plain or tract of land (Lane).

بناء (a roof) is derived from بنی meaning, he built; he constructed. So بناء means, a building; a structure; a thing that is built or constructed; also the roof or ceiling of a house or of a chamber or the like (Lane).

الثمرات (fruits) is the plural of ثمرة meaning, a fruit. The word is derived from the verb ثمر which means, the fruit became ripe. اثمر means, the tree, etc. produced fruit. The word ثمرة is also used figuratively, meaning, son or offspring; or profit of a thing (Taj).

انداد (equals) is the plural of ند which means, the like of a person or thing; or the like of a thing by participation of substance. It is a more specialised term than مثل which signifies alike by participation of anything. The word ند also means, a thing which does or may supply the place of another thing; or a like that is contrary or opposed to another thing; a thing taken as an object of worship instead of the true God (Lane). ند is to be distinguished from شریك; for whereas ند is the like of a thing, being contrary or opposed to it, شریك is simply a participant that shares the attributes or work of a thing (Aqrab under شریك and ند)

Commentary:

The subject matter of the last verse has been completed in this. It was said in that verse that رب should be worshipped because He is the Creator and He alone can foster man’s powers. In the present verse it is said that not only man but the heavens and the earth also have been created by God. It is evident that human actions depend upon environment. Trade, agriculture, industry, travel, etc. are made possible ultimately by the nature and influence of the heavens and the earth. So human actions can be guided aright only by a Being Who has made the heavens and the earth. It is only He Who can harness them for the use of man. None else has such knowledge, power or authority. So man should worship God alone.

The expression, and Who made the heaven a roof, suggests that just as a building or a roof is a source of protection for those living in or under it, similarly the remoter parts of the universe are a protection for our planet; and those who have studied the science of the stars, the clouds and other atmospheric phenomena know how the other heavenly bodies, running their courses through the boundless expanse rising high above the earth on all sides, make for its safety and stability.

In the clause, caused water to come down from the clouds, the word سماء has been used in the sense of "cloud", whereas in the preceding clause, and Who made the heaven a roof, it signifies "heaven". Had it meant the same thing in the two places, it would have been replaced in the second place by a pronoun. The repetition of the word is intended to convey a difference of meaning in the second place.

After making it clear that everything in this world is the creation of God, attention is drawn to the fact that God has no equal. There is nothing in the whole universe which can show any part of it to have been created by anyone other than God. Why, then, should man worship anyone else?

In this verse it is also hinted that the perfection of the material world depends upon a co-ordination of earthly and heavenly forces. When water is made corrupt by men on earth, fresh and pure water is supplied from heaven. Breathing makes the air foul but it is purified by nature. The eye is useful, but of what avail is it without the rays of the sun? In short, if the earth is a bed for man, the heaven is a roof. So is the case with the spiritual world. Man is gifted with reason but, like the eye, reason cannot function properly without the help of divine revelation. Human instincts are pure but they become polluted by greed, malice, etc. They can only be cleansed by the water of revelation. Hence man cannot attain to spiritual success without attaching himself to God. By showing material life to be dependent upon both earth and heaven, God points to a parallel in the spiritual world, and teaches that in spiritual matters also man should not trust earthly means alone. The intellect is not enough. Like the material world, the spiritual world also requires heavenly help. Just as there is a heaven above the earth, there is a heaven above the heart and brain of man. This is God’s guidance received through revelation.

An interesting question arises here. According to a widespread modern belief, the idea of God has evolved out of a primitive belief in spirits, ghosts and fairies. It is also said that in primitive times man worshipped beasts and poisonous insects and then gradually advanced to the idea of God. Modern critics appear to be in agreement that the idea of many gods has always preceded the idea of one God. The history of man’s beliefs is cited as evidence.

Some of those who hold such a view seem anxious to reconcile it with religion. They claim that their view does not go against religion. They say that God revealed the laws of nature by degrees; therefore there is nothing surprising if He should have revealed Himself also by degrees. Now, all religions base themselves upon revelation. And if the basis of religion is revelation, then the belief—that God revealed Himself by degrees and that He first guided the world to other gods, and then to Himself—at once falls to the ground. It is against all reason that God should first guide man to spirits, stones, rivers and snakes and then reveal Himself. What was there to hinder Him from guiding man to Himself from the very beginning? The living religions of the world have ever believed in revelation. Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Islam, all teach that revelation began with the creation of man. This being the case, there can have been no gradual evolution of the idea of God. Evolutionary accounts, therefore, conflict with religion. Those who hold them must deny revelation, the basis of religion.

The denial of revelation is, of course, very common in the Christian West. Christendom has failed for a long time to provide any examples of persons with revelation experience. Little wonder that those speculators, who have had no such experience themselves and who have not been made aware of such experience in others, should deny revelation outright. According to the Quran, however, God has spoken to man in all ages. The Quran itself is a record of revelation and, according to the Quran, the followers of Islam must continue to receive revelation. The recipient in our age is the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement. Nobody who knows all this can be impressed by denials of revelation. He can only treat them as mere ignorant conjectures.

Evolutionary accounts have little foundation in fact. It is said that the idea of God found amongst uncivilised peoples of the world today is polytheistic, therefore the idea of one God must have originated in polytheism. But it is not realized that the uncivilized peoples of today are not samples of the earliest human beings. Civilization has known many ages. Greece, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, India and China were centres of civilization and culture in their own days, but now they seem engulfed in darkness and ignorance. If ignorance can grow out of civilization, why not polytheism out of monotheism? In India, Krishna preached the doctrine of the Unity of God, but after his time a wave of idolatry swept over the country; and when Muslims came here, they found idol-worship rampant throughout the land. In Judaism false gods have taken the place of Jehovah. Jesus preached a simple faith in One God, but Christendom now believes in Trinity. A lower conception can easily supplant a higher one. Islam is an historical religion. Even its enemies admit that it teaches belief in the pure Unity of God. But today even Muslims have degenerated to the worship of things other than God. These examples refute the doctrine that monotheism has necessarily grown out of polytheism.

Moreover, a study of primitive religion itself shows that among the primitive people the idea of a perfect Deity exists side by side with their worship of many deities. Only, God is known by different names among different peoples. There also exists among the primitives the idea of revelation; they hold it to be the medium through which they came to have a knowledge of God.

7:36; 20:124.

Important Words:

خوف (fear) is derived from خاف i.e. he feared. خوف denotes fear about the future. یحزنون (shall grieve) is derived from حزنwhich means, he felt regret, grief, and sorrow. حزنه means, he made him sorrowful. حزن (grief) generally, though not always, relates to what is past.

Commentary:

As Adam was to become the progenitor of a great race and the harbinger of a new era, a timely announcement was made to mankind through him that they should be prepared to receive guidance from their God from time to time. Thus the verse holds out the promise that among the descendants of Adam there would continue to appear great souls who would invite people to truth and guidance, and that those who followed such holy persons would attain salvation. Their hearts would be so filled with the true faith that they would enjoy peace and tranquillity of mind in all circumstances. No fear about the future or regret about the past would trouble them, as they would attain nearness to God and their hearts would be to them a paradise.

Commentary:

After considering the vices of the Jews in general in the previous verse, the Quran addresses the Jews of Medina in particular in verses 85 and 86. It is pointed out that in face of the clear injunctions to the contrary, the Jews of Medina had been killing one another and turning one another out of their homes. As explained under 2:18, there lived in Medina in the time of the Holy Prophet three Jewish tribes, the Banu Qainuqa‘, the Banu Nadir and the Banu Quraizah; and two pagan tribes, the Aus and the Khazraj. Two of the Jewish tribes, Banu Qainuqa‘ and Banu Quraizah, sided with the Aus, and Banu Nadir with the Khazraj. Thus, whenever these pagan clans were at war with each other, the Jewish tribes were automatically involved. But, if during a war any Jews were taken prisoner by the pagans, the former would collect money by subscription and ransom them. They considered it improper for a Jew to remain in bondage with a Gentile. The Quran objects to this course by saying that their faith not only forbids the enslavement of Jews, but also prohibits mutual warfare and murder in which they were openly indulging, and there could be nothing worse than to accept a portion of the Scriptures and reject the rest; for, when one accepts a portion of the Scriptures, it is proof of the fact that one is convinced of their truth. Thus rejection of a portion is clear evidence of a perverted mind. As regards the prohibition of the enslavement of Jews, the reader is referred to Lev. 25:39-43, 47-49, 54, 55; Neh. 5:8; and the Enc. Bib. iv, 4657. In accordance with these injunctions, the Jews of Medina used to have Jewish slaves redeemed, but it was absurd on their part to do so, because they themselves created the circumstances which led to their enslavement.

Verse 87 points to the fact that the Jews who opposed the Holy Prophet had entirely become worldly-minded, forgetting all about the next life. So they deserved no mercy, and there being no extenuating circumstances, their punishment would not be lightened.

Important Words:

تتلوا (followed). See 2:114

شیاطین (rebellious men). See 2:15.

علی (during) gives the sense of فی i.e. "in" or "during" (Aqrab & Mughni). It is also used to denote a hostile sense meaning "against", as one says خرج علیه i.e. he rebelled against him, or he went out against him with an army intending to fight (Wright). In this sense the phrase علی ملك سلیمان would mean, against the government of Solomon, or conspiring against his government.

سحر (falsehood and deception). In verbal senses سحرہ means, he deceived him; he coaxed him and involved him in trouble and deprived him of his understanding; he enchanted him. سحرالفضة means, he coated a piece of silver so as to make it look like gold. The noun سحر means, anything the source of which is not quite visible; showing off falsehood in the form of truth; a crafty device; craftiness; mischief; enchantment (Aqrab). It also means, producing what is false in the form of truth; any event of which the cause is hidden and which is imagined to be different from what it really is; embellishment by falsification and deceit (Lane). Thus every falsehood, deceit or crafty device which is meant to hide the real object from public view is included in the meaning of سحر.

ملكین (two angels) is the dual number from ملك (angel) for which see 2:31. Figuratively ملك is sometimes used to denote a handsome or holy person, as the Quran says, He (Joseph) is but a gracious angel, i.e. a handsome and pious youth (12:32). As in the verse under comment, the two angels are described as teaching something to the people, therefore the word cannot be taken in its literal significance, because angels do not live among men and do not generally have free intercourse with them (17:95, 96; 21:8). Thus in the present verse ملکین would not mean "two angels" in the literal sense of the word but "two holy men".

ھاروت (Harut) and ماروت (Marut) are both descriptive names. ھاروت is derived from ھرت which means, he tore up (Aqrab); hence ھاروت means, one who tears; the tearer. ماروت is derived from مرت which means, he broke (Aqrab & Lane). Thus ماروت means, one who breaks; the breaker. These names signify that the object of the appearance of these holy men was to 'tear' asunder and 'break' the glory and power of certain people.

فتنة (trial) means, the trial or means whereby the condition of a man may be demonstrated in respect of good or evil (Lane). They say فتن الصائغ الذھب i.e. the goldsmith melted the gold in the crucible so that its purity or impurity might be ascertained (Aqrab).

Commentary:

Many a legend unwarranted by the Quran and the Hadith—and even running contrary to them—clusters round this verse. It would be quite unreasonable to interpret it on the basis of those myths. For their true interpretation no external evidence is needed, the words being self-explanatory. It is clear from the verse itself that Jews in the time of the Holy Prophet were bent upon the same mischief which characterized them in the days of Solomon and during the days of their captivity in Babylon. The verse further indicates that the mischief-mongers of Solomon’s time were those "rebellious men" who called him an unbeliever. God says that those wicked men themselves, and not Solomon, lacked belief. Again, the verse tells us that these men taught their associates such signs as conveyed to them meanings quite different from those generally accepted, for the purpose of deceiving other people and concealing their own activities. All this leads to the conclusion that this verse alludes to those secret plots which the enemies of Solomon made against him, and by which they wished to break his empire. It is pointed out that now, in the time of the Holy Prophet, these people are resorting to the selfsame tactics, but that they will fail.

As the verse refers to a number of historical events, it is advisable to relate them here at some length.

When Jews saw that the power of Islam was steadily expanding and that no opposition from the Arabs had been able to arrest the progress of Muslims, they began to excite outsiders against them. At that time there were two large empires in the neighbourhood of Arabia: (1) The Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire; and (2) The Persian Empire. As Jews were already at enmity with the Roman Government, because they were in constant trouble under it, so it was only the Persian Government to which they could look for support. Harassed by the oppression of Christian rulers, they had taken refuge in Persia, where they enjoyed a good deal of religious freedom, and their religious centre shifted from Judah and Jerusalem to Babylonia (Hutchinson’s History of the Nations, p.550). In the seventh century of the Christian era, i.e., during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet, Jews suffered exceptionally cruel persecution at the hands of the Christian Emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire. "Both Phocas and Heraclius", says the Historians’ History of the World (vol. 7, p. 175), "attempted to exterminate the Jewish religion, and if possible to put an end to their national existence. Heraclius not only practised every species of cruelty himself to effect this object within the bounds of his own dominions, but he even made the forced conversion or banishment of the Jews a prominent feature in his diplomacy." So, in the time of the Holy Prophet the only government to which the Jews could look for help was that of Persia, where their co-religionists enjoyed much influence, especially in the reign of Chosroes II (Jew. Enc., ix. 648).

Consequently, when the Jews saw that their efforts to check the progress of Islam had totally failed, they took to exciting the Persian Court against the Holy Prophet by various means; and as a result, Chosroes II issued orders to the Governor of Yemen to send to him the Arabian claimant as a captive. But when the envoys of the Governor came to the Holy Prophet, he asked them to see him the next day, when he told them that God had informed him that He had their king murdered. Thereupon they returned and related this incident to the Governor. A few days later, the Governor received a letter from Siroes, the son of Chosroes II, to the effect that he had killed his father on account of the latter’s tyranny and that the Governor should, on his behalf, renew the oath of allegiance from all the Chiefs of Yemen; and that the order of his father regarding an Arab should be considered as cancelled (Tabari, iii. 1573-1574).

Some historians, including Tabari himself, hold that it was the letter of the Holy Prophet to the king of Persia inviting him to Islam that was the occasion of his orders for the apprehension of the Holy Prophet. But on comparison of the dates of the above-mentioned events, this turns out to be a mistaken view. For, as we read in Zurqani (ii. 211-212), the letter in question was despatched from Medina on the first of Muharram, 7 A.H.–a date corresponding to 12th April, 628 A.D. (Lane under ھجرة); whereas Chosroes II, who sent orders for the arrest of the Holy Prophet, had been assassinated on the 29th of February, 628 A.D. (Historians’ History of the World, viii. 95). Thus the view that the letter of the Holy Prophet was the cause of Chosroes’ orders is quite untenable; and the only possible cause of Chosroes’ ignominious orders was that his ears had been poisoned by malicious reports, a fact admitted by Sir William Muir (The Life of Mahomet, p. 370). It is to these efforts of the Jews that the Quran alludes in the verse under comment.

The verse also points out that it was foolish on the part of the Jews to suppose that they would succeed in that way. Their attention is invited to the fact that they had already been responsible for two secret plots. The first was against Solomon, when some members of their community turned rebels, hatched plots and stirred up bitter feeling against him by calling him an infidel; whereas the infidels were those who opposed him, hurled imputations at him, and set up against him secret societies in which secret signs and symbols were taught. The Jews, however, themselves reaped the ill-reward of their sinister schemes: their power, as a consequence, fell into decay, and at last they became so powerless that they were driven into exile towards Babylon. This account of Jewish secret societies and conspiracies and treacherous signs and symbols, as alluded to in this verse, finds corroboration in the Bible (1 Kings 11:1-6), where we read that the charge of idol-worship was spread against Solomon. An account of his enemies is found in I Kings 11:14, 23, 26, and a reference to secret plots is met with in II Chron. 10: 2-4 where we learn that the Jews had sent for Jeroboam, a bitter enemy of Solomon, immediately after his death and had attempted to make Solomon’s son agree to some demands of theirs, involving certain imputations against Solomon, before his accession to the throne. We learn about the secret signs from I Kings 11:29-32, in which the ten tribes of the Israelites are likened to ten pieces of a garment, and Jeroboam is told that these ten tribes were on his side against Solomon; and so it proved to be, for on the death of Solomon, these ten tribes made Jeroboam their king (I Kings 12:20). Again, the reference of the Quran to the infidelity of Solomon’s enemies finds corroboration in II Chron. 11:15, from which we learn that his enemies, who falsely charged him with unbelief, themselves fell into idol-worship when they rose to power.

Besides the testimony of the Bible, there is other evidence to show that in the days of Solomon a secret society was at work against him. An old tradition, current among medieval Freemasons, indicates that Solomon was envious of the superior intelligence of Hiram, the chief architect who built the Temple at Jerusalem. He is said to have attempted to kill the great Mason by having him thrown into a tank of molten brass, but he was saved by the spirit of his ancestor, Cain, who prophesied that at last his people would get the better of their enemy. Solomon, however, as the tradition goes, had him afterwards put to death. It is said of him that he had fixed certain secret signs which were a sort of mystery known only to him and his associates (Secret Societies of the World, Volume II, pp. 1-8; as the original book could not be obtained, the reference is to an Urdu translation). We further learn from this book that before the period of the Accepted Masons, the same signs used in all the Lodges were current among the Masons of Solomon’s time (p. 11) and that at the time of initiation, the Hiram incident was related to the new member (pp. 29, 30). However incredible the story as a whole may be, it points at least to the conclusion that in one way or other, secret societies were associated with Solomon’s reign and were much in vogue in his time.

The second occasion when, according to the Quran, the Israelites had resort to secret societies was during their captivity in Babylon. But this time they were not acting against any Prophet but were, on the other hand, working under the leadership of two inspired personages, who were, in obedience to divine command, trying to bring about the deliverance of the Israelites. Their mission was to "tear asunder" and "break down" the empire of the enemies of the Israelites. These holy men told new members, at the time of initiation, that they were a sort of trial from God, serving to differentiate between the good and the bad, and that the Israelites should not therefore refuse to believe what they said, because this would lead them to infidelity. In their teachings they drew a distinction between males and females, confining membership to males only (this is an old practice found among most secret societies). It is also stated that the disciples of these holy men directed their activities against only those for whose chastisement they were commissioned by God.

In this narration, the Quran refers to the days when King Nebuchadnezzar brought the Jews as captives into Babylon and kept them there for a long time. The holy men referred to in the verse under comment were Haggai, the Prophet, and Zechariah, the son of Iddo (Ezra 5:1). When Cyrus, King of Media and Persia, rose to power, the Israelites entered into a secret agreement with him and greatly facilitated his conquest of Babylon. In return for this service, he not only allowed them to return to their own country but also helped in the rebuilding of the Temple (Historians’ History of the World, ii. 126).

After stating that the Jews of the Holy Prophet’s time were following the same course which was adopted by the rebels of Solomon’s days and which was later adopted by the Jews under two holy men in Babylon, it was necessary here to state the ultimate upshot of their efforts against the Holy Prophet, because on the two previous occasion’s their efforts had met with different results. On the first occasion the conspiracy of the Israelites, being directed against a Prophet of God, had ended in the total loss of their prestige and finally in their banishment to Babylon. On the second occasion, they took a similar course under two inspired personages and were successful. Hence, in order to indicate whether the efforts of the Jews against the Holy Prophet would meet with failure, as they did in the days of Solomon, or with success as in Babylon, the Quran says: these people are learning that which would harm them and do them no good; hinting that they will not be successful as in Babylon. Accordingly, the consequence of their hostile efforts against the Holy Prophet was that Chosroes, their only supporter, met his death at the hands of his son, and they themselves were exiled from Arabia in the time of ‘Umar. In the concluding portion of the verse, God adds: And they have certainly known that he who trafficks therein has no share of good in the Hereafter, meaning that a mischievous plotter never succeeds ultimately. The last clause, had they but known, throws a flood of light on how intensely God desires that His creatures should always take the right course and not be misled by mischievous people.

3:103.

Important Words:

وصی (did enjoin upon). وصی فلانا بکذا means, he enjoined this upon him, he ordered him to do this, he charged him with this. وصی علیه بالصلوة means, he exhorted him or enjoined him to observe Prayers. وصی له بماله means, he made a will in his favour, making him heir of his property after his death (Aqrab).

Commentary:

Abraham not only submitted himself to the will of God but also took special care that his children too should inculcate that spirit and lead lives of submission and resignation. The name of Jacob or Israel (grandson of Abraham) has been particularly added here to point to the fact that as Jacob also issued a similar injunction to his children, it becomes all the more binding on the Israelites to submit to the will of God and accept the Prophet who has come with the specific mission of اسلام i.e. submission to God’s will.

The words, so let not death overtake you except when you are in a state of submission, beautifully point to the fact that as nobody knows the time of his death, one should always lead a life of submission to God’s will so that whenever death comes, it may not find one in a state other than that of submission. The words may also mean that a true believer should be so perfectly resigned to God’s will and should so completely win His pleasure that He may, out of His limitless bounty, arrange that death may not come to him except at a time when he is resigned to His will.

This, as well as the preceding verse, forcefully brings out the important point that Islam really means absolute obedience and complete submission to the will of God. Only he who is completely resigned to the will of God is a true Muslim. Thus every true pre-Islamic religion that inculcated the spirit of submission will, within this meaning of the term, fall under the true definition of Islam, because previous to the religion preached by the Holy Prophet, to follow Islam was to obey the then expressed will of God, or, in other words, the revelation of the day. The point of difference between the religion brought by the Holy Prophet and the other true preceding faiths is—although they are Islamic in essence—those faiths were not called by the name of Islam, the reason for this being that they were not perfect and each of them was to be replaced by a succeeding one, and so, if all these had been given the name of Islam, there would have been great confusion. Hence, only the faith which was perfect in every way and was meant for all mankind and was to last forever was given that name so that its very name might be illustrative of its underlying purpose. The name Islam is "the new name" referred to in Isa. 62:2.

When the Quran calls the former Prophets Muslims, it obviously does not mean that they followed Quranic teachings. It simply means that, as explained above, they followed the true faith of their day and manifested in themselves, though partly of course, the spirit of اسلام i.e. submission to the will of God.

3:61; 6:115; 10:95.

Important Words:

الحق (truth) means: (1) a truth; (2) a thing foreordained by God; (3) an established fact (4) a right; (5) certainty and conviction (Aqrab).

الممترین (those in doubt) is the plural of الممتر which is derived from امتری which again is derived from مری. They say مری حقهi.e. he contested or refused his right. امتری means: (1) he doubted; (2) he contested or raised objections. Thus ممترین means: (1) those who doubt; (2) those who contest and raise objections (Mufradat & Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse refers to the great future of Islam. The revelation sent down to the Holy Prophet had come to stay and all obstacles that stood in its way were doomed to disappear. This is ordained by God, the Controller of man’s destiny, and is as good as an established fact. Therefore, O reader, do not waste your energies in doubting or disputing a thing that must prevail.

2:145, 150.

5:4.

5:4; 12:7.

Commentary:

The singular person in خرجت (thou comest forth) is used to emphasize the fact that the conquest of Mecca was the personal responsibility of the Holy Prophet. If he could persuade others to help him, well and good; if not, he alone stood responsible before God—a mighty responsibility indeed which also strikes at the very root of the objection that Islam waited for a declaration of the defensive war till it was strong enough to hit back.

The plural person in حیث ماکنتم (wherever you be) is used so as to include the Muslims of all places. Next to the Holy Prophet, they are also commanded to keep the same object in view, i.e. the conquest of Mecca. This verse and the preceding one should afford no ground for inferring that Islam bids its followers to wage an aggressive war. For, as amply borne out by history, by the time these verses were revealed, war had already commenced with the Meccans and it was they that had forced it upon the unwilling Muslims.

The words, that people may have no argument against you, mean that if the Muslims failed to conquer Mecca, the objection would quite legitimately be raised by the enemies of Islam, that the Holy Prophet had not fulfilled the prayer of Abraham, contained in 2:130, and therefore, could not claim to be the Promised Prophet. Moreover, the House to which the Muslims were commanded to turn their faces during Prayers was, while under the control of the heathen Meccans, full of idols. If the idols had continued to remain in the Ka‘bah, the Muslims might have been accused of worshipping idols. This objection could be effectively answered, if the Holy House, which had been originally dedicated to the worship of One God, had been cleared of idols. Hence the commandment to substitute the Ka‘bah for the Temple at Jerusalem as Qiblah was naturally followed by the injunction about the conquest of Mecca.

It may be added here that the conquest of Mecca by the Muslims had also been predicted in the Quran in 28:86, and 17:81. The prophecy contained in Deut. 33:2 was also fulfilled when the Holy Prophet entered Mecca as a conqueror at the head of ten thousand Muslims.

The clause, that I may perfect My favour upon you, provides yet another argument in favour of the commandment relating to the conquest of Mecca. God means to say that, with the taking of Mecca, God’s favour on the Muslims would begin to be perfected; for it would mean the subjugation of all Arabia and the influx of thousands of men into the fold of Islam. The result amply justified the prophecy; for the conquest of Mecca was rapidly followed by the conversion to Islam of thousands of Arabs. Most of the Arabs, at heart victims of the beauty of Islam, had deferred their acceptance of the new faith till the issue of the struggle between Muslims and Meccans had been finally settled, and now they virtually came forward in "troops" to join it.

Another reason why the conquest of Mecca was followed by a general influx of Arabs into Islam was that although the Arabs followed no revealed Book, yet the prophecy of Abraham that Mecca would not be conquered by the followers of any false Prophet, and any people attempting it would meet with destruction was well known to them. They had only recently seen a remarkable illustration of the fulfilment of this prophecy in the miraculous destruction of the Abyssinian invader Abraha and his powerful army. Thus when Mecca fell into the hands of the Holy Prophet, they were at once convinced of his truth and thousands of them hastened to embrace Islam.

In this and the preceding verses (vv. 145 and 150), the command to turn to the Ka‘bah has been mentioned thrice. This is not a repetition; for the first command, i.e. in v. 145, pertains to the change of the Qiblah, while the second and the third, i.e. in vv. 150 and 151, refer to the conquest of Mecca. But here, too, there is truly speaking no repetition, for the command about the conquest of Mecca contained in each of these two verses serves a different purpose. In v. 150 Muslims are asked to turn their attention to the conquest of Mecca because God wished them to do so. So they were duty bound to carry it out undeterred by any fear of failure; whereas in the verse under comment, i.e. v. 151, the benefits which were to accrue to Muslims on their carrying out the command relating to the conquest of Mecca have been mentioned. Those benefits briefly are: (1) refutation of the objections and criticism of the enemy; (2) conversion to Islam of hundreds of thousands of Arabs, including the kith and kin of the Muslims; and (3) enlargement of the political power of Islam.

22:33.

Important Words:

الصفا والمروة (As-Safa and Al-Marwah) are the names of two hills near the Ka‘bah in Mecca, the first-mentioned being the nearer of the two. Both Arabian history and the traditions of Islam connect these hills with the story of Hagar and Ishmael when Abraham left them near these hills under God’s command. Ishmael was yet a child, and when the scanty provisions ran out and he was in a pitiable condition for want of water, Hagar anxiously and repeatedly ran between these two hills in search of water and help, but none was found. When, however, she was in her seventh circuit, an angel of God called to her saying that God had brought forth a spring of water near her son and that she should go and look to it (Bukhari, ch. on Anbiya’). Thus the hills of صفا (Safa) and مروة (Marwah) became شعائر الله i.e. Signs of God worthy of due honour and respect in the sight of every true believer. The Bible also makes mention of مروة in a somewhat changed form (Gen. 22:2; also Enc. Bib. under Moriah) in connection with the sacrifice of Abraham’s son.

شعائر (Signs) is the plural of شعیرة which is derived from شعر meaning, he knew or he perceived. Thus شعیرة means: (1) anything by means of which another thing may be known; (2) a sign; (3) anything which is considered or is performed as a mark of submission to God; (4) the rites of pilgrimage and practices pertaining thereto (Aqrab).

حج (is on pilgrimage) means: (1) he sought a person or thing; (2) he went or repaired to a person or thing; (3) he went to a person again and again; (4) he visited a holy place; (5) he performed حج (Pilgrimage) to the Ka‘bah; (6) he overpowered a person in argument (Aqrab).

اعتمر (performs ‘Umrah) is derived from عمر which means, he occupied or tenanted a house; he worshipped God and prayed to Him. اعتمر means, he went to, or visited, a place. عمرة means, visiting a place; worshipping and praying to God; performing Lesser Pilgrimage in which some of the rites of حج are left out (Aqrab).

تطوع (does beyond what is obligatory) is derived from طاع i.e. he obeyed; he did an act willingly and voluntarily. The infinitive الطوع means: (1) obedience; (2) doing an act willingly without its being obligatory on one. تطوع means, he performed an act with effort and volition. تطوع خیرا means, he performed a good act which was not obligatory on him (Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

To a superficial observer the verse under comment dealing with the subject of Pilgrimage appears to have no connection with the preceding ones which deal with the subject of trials and sacrifices. But a deeper study will at once disclose a very close connection between the two. The preceding verses warned Muslims to be prepared for sacrifices and gave them the glad tidings that if they performed the required sacrifices willingly and patiently, God would bless them greatly and would show special mercy to them and would remember them with kindness and would provide guidance for them whenever needed. Now, in order to bring home to them the truth of this promise, He invites the attention of Muslims to the great sacrifice of Abraham near the site of As-Safa and Al-Marwah. Abraham obeyed His Lord and left his wife Hagar and his son Ishmael near these two hills of Mecca, which was then a most desolate tract. The seed was sown in a soil which was apparently the most barren of all soils, but how wonderfully it prospered! God was a most Loving and Faithful God who so fondly remembered His servants, Abraham and Ishmael, even after the lapse of 2,500 years, and Muslims can expect the same love and the same fidelity from Him, if they too love and obey Him. Safa and Marwah, as explained under Important Words above, are two hills which stand as a memorial to Hagar’s great patience and extraordinary loyalty to God on the one hand and to God’s special treatment of her and her son on the other. A visit to these hills makes the pilgrim deeply impressed with the love, fidelity and power of God.

The words, it is no sin for him, should not be taken to mean that performing the circuit between Safa and Marwah is only permissible and not obligatory. The expression is used simply to remove the aversion to such performance found among certain persons on the basis of the fact that heathen Arabs had placed two idols on these two hills (Muslim). God removed this erroneous notion by saying that it was no sin to perform the circuit between Safa and Marwah, which on account of the great sacrifice of Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael on the one hand and the resulting blessings of God on the other, had become شعائر الله i.e. great Signs of God. That the performance of these circuits is obligatory in both حج and عمرة(the Greater and the Lesser Pilgrimage) is clear from the practice of the Holy Prophet and his injunctions to his followers (Bukhari, ch. Al-Hajj).

The words, whoso does good beyond what is obligatory, do not refer to حج (Greater Pilgrimage), which under certain conditions is obligatory on each Muslim once in a lifetime, but to عمرة (Lesser Pilgrimage) which is not obligatory but simply supererogatory. The words may also be considered to refer to any additional حج or Pilgrimage which a Muslim may perform, after he has performed the one obligatory Pilgrimage.

As this verse mentions the subject of Pilgrimage only secondarily, we are not giving here a note on the rites and philosophy of which will be discussed when we come to the relevant verses.

Important Words:

رفث (going in unto) has a number of meanings: amatory talk, kissing, caressing, embracing, compressing, coition, etc.; in fact, everything that a man desires of his wife. When رفث is followed by the preposition الی it means, coition or going in unto one’s wife, and it is in this sense that the word has been used here. رفث also means, immodest, foul and lewd talk or speech (Lane).

تختانون (you have been acting unjustly) is derived from خان. They say خانه i.e. he acted unfaithfully or perfidiously towards him; he was not faithful to the trust reposed in him. اختانه is like خانه, giving the same meaning. It also means, he acted wrongfully or unjustly towards him. The Arabs say خانته رجلاه i.e. his feet or legs acted unfaithfully towards him, meaning he was unable to walk. تختانون انفسکم would, therefore, mean, you failed to give your souls (i.e. yourselves) their due either (1) by preventing them from their duty to God, or (2) by refusing them the satisfaction of their natural and lawful cravings. The former act is a sin, while the latter, though not a sin, may endanger one’s health or deprive one of just happiness. The word has been used in both these senses in the Quran. In 4:108, it has been used in the sense of "sin", while in the present verse it has been used in the sense of "depriving the soul of the gratification of its natural and just desires".

عفاعنکم (afforded you relief). The word عفا gives a number of meanings (see 2:53). The expression عفاالله عن فلان is sometimes used where there is no question of pardoning any sin or obliterating traces thereof but simply in the sense of removing one’s mistake or misunderstanding or improving one’s condition or bestowing honour on one (Aqrab). It also means, making things easy, i.e. affording relief (Muhit).

باشروھن (go in unto them) is derived from بشر from which is also derived the word بشارة or بشری meaning, glad tidings. The expression بشربه means, he became glad and happy because of that. The words بشرالجلد mean, he removed or peeled off its skin. البشرة means, outer part of skin, or what is visible of the face or body. باشرالمرأة means, he came in contact with his wife skin to skin; he went in unto her. البشری (glad tidings) is so called because it changes the colour of the listener’s face. البشر (man) is also so called because, unlike other animals, man’s skin is visible and not concealed under hair (Aqrab, Mufradat & Lane).

Commentary:

It was a custom among the Israelites to abstain from all kinds of food from one evening to the other on the occasion of the fast of the Atonement Day, the only fast prescribed by Moses for his people. When fasts were first prescribed for Muslims, and details had not yet been revealed, they thought that, like the Jews, they too would have to fast for 24 hours with a slight intervening breakfast. Hence, following their own judgement, they concluded that it was lawful for them to eat and drink and to go in unto their wives only as long as they did not go to bed, and that after they had gone to sleep, they were not allowed to partake of any food or drink or to go in unto their wives until the next evening. Bukhari gives the following tradition on the authority of Bara’: "When the command to fast was revealed, if anybody kept a fast and then went to sleep in the evening, he abstained from eating, drinking and sexual intercourse until the time for breaking the fast the following day" (Bukhari ch. on Saum). This tradition and others of the same import show that it was not in obedience to any command from God or the Holy Prophet that his Companions abstained from sexual intercourse after going to bed at night, but it was owing to their own imitation of similar customs among the People of the Book that they had imposed these restrictions on themselves. As, however, these restrictions were against the will of God, a revelation was soon sent down allowing the Faithful to eat and drink and approach their wives as they liked during the night; only they were forbidden to do so while fasting during the day.

Some commentators have inferred from the words, you have been acting unjustly to yourselves, that the Companions of the Holy Prophet were unable to act upon the commandment to abstain from intercourse with their wives during the nights of fasts and frequently broke it. But this is evidently wrong, for the good reason that there was no such commandment to be broken. Moreover, the words of the Quran, i.e. you may now go in, also belie this interpretation, for the use of the word "now" clearly indicates that the Companions of the Holy Prophet were erring not on the side of indulgence but on that of abstinence. The Quran could not obviously say, you may now go in, to a people who were already going in unto their wives.

The clause, they are a garment for you and you are a garment for them, very beautifully describes the object of marriage. The verse points out that the object of marriage is not the gratification of carnal passions. The real object is the comfort, protection and embellishment of the parties, for such are the uses of a garment as explained in 7:27 & 16:82. Thus in a very few words, the Quran has described the true relationship that should exist between husband and wife, a description which has hardly a parallel in any other scripture.

The clause, the white thread becomes distinct from the black thread of the dawn, does not refer to the thread made of yarn but to the streak of light that appears along the eastern horizon at the time of dawn. The verse enjoins that from dawn till sunset Muslims should abstain from food and drink and intercourse while fasting. But they are free to have recourse to these things between sunset and dawn. At places where days and nights are unusually long, i.e. nearer the poles, calculation should be made for the purpose of fasting on the basis of average conditions, i.e. in such a case day and night would each be supposed to be of twelve hours’ duration (Muslim, ch. on Ashratus-Sa‘at). The clause, while you remain in the mosques for devotion, refers to the practice of اعتکاف which is observed by remaining in the mosque, night and day, during the last ten days of Ramadan. During these days, the devotee who decides to observe اعتکاف is not to leave the mosque except from human necessity, i.e. to answer a call of nature, etc. He enters the mosque on the morning of the 20th of Ramadan

and abides therein till the end of the month, fasting from daybreak to sunset and occupying himself in prayer or recitation of the Quran or other religious study or meditation. During اعتکاف (I‘tikaf), which is, as it were, the consummation of the spirit of fasting, intercourse with wives and preliminaries thereto are not allowed even at night time. The clause, these are the limits fixed by Allah, so approach them not, points to the very important principle that a man can attain true piety only if he refrains from even "approaching" the things that have been forbidden by God. "Some acts," says the Holy Prophet "are of doubtful character, one not knowing whether they are right or wrong. It is always better to avoid these. The forbidden things are like a pasture-land which the Wise God prohibits to the people. If you make your beasts graze on the borders of such land, i.e. allow your beasts to approach near them, there is danger of their trespassing upon the prohibited area" (Bukhari, ch, on Iman). This is an extremely wise injunction which cuts at the root of all trespass. Only those can protect themselves against sin who give all unlawful things a wide berth. The final clause, that they may become secure against evil, repeats the idea contained in 2:184 in which the subject of fasting was first introduced. In both verses the underlying object of fasting has been stated to be the attainment of تقوی i.e. piety, righteousness and protection against evil, which are all different forms of divineblessings. The reader may, with advantage, compare this idea with the belief of the Christians that the Law is a curse (Gal. 3:10, 13).

8:40; See 2:191.

Important Words:

الدین (religion) has a number of meanings including (1) religion; (2) rule and government (Aqrab). See also 1:4.

عدوان (hostility) is derived from عدا. They say عداه meaning, he passed beyond it. The expression عدا علیه means, he acted wrongfully towards him or he exceeded the proper limit against him. The words عاداه mean, he treated him with enmity and hostility. Thus عدوان means: (1) hostility; (2) wrongful conduct; (3) punishment for wrongful conduct and; (4) approach or way to a person by way of justification or excuse against him (Munjid, Mufradat & Lane).

Commentary:

This verse is often quoted by the opponents of Islam in support of their allegation that the Quran inculcates the carrying-on of war against unbelievers until all traces of false religions are wiped out and the whole world embraces Islam. But such a view is clearly wrong. The word which throws light on the true significance of this verse is فتنة (persecution) which, as has been explained in the preceding verse, means religious persecution. This verse therefore enjoins Muslims to fight only till persecution for religion is over. It is on record that during the war between Hadrat ‘Ali and Mu‘awiyah, ‘Abdullah, son of ‘Umar, was once asked why he did not take part in the war when the Quran enjoined the Muslims to fight to put an end to فتنة. He replied: "We did indeed act upon this injunction of the Quran when in the time of the Holy Prophet the number of Muslims was small and a man was subjected to فتنة i.e. persecution for his religious beliefs, being either put to death outright or tortured, until at last Islam spread and the "فتنه was over" (Bukhari, ch. on Tafsir). These words of ‘Abdullah, son of ‘Umar, leave no doubt that the word فتنة in this verse means persecution for religious beliefs and nothing else. Muslims are enjoined to fight until there is no فتنة i.e. no persecution for religious beliefs.

The words that follow, i.e. and religion is professed for Allah, would, therefore, mean that Muslims should fight till profession of a faith is not influenced by the fear of men, but that whatever religion a man follows, he should follow it only for the sake of God, and not out of the fear of men. The above interpretation is also borne out by the fact that the Holy Prophet entered into a number of treaties of peace with disbelievers, which could have no justification if the divine commandment had been to continue fighting until all embraced Islam. The object of the jihad or holy war which the Holy Prophet was bidden to undertake is clearly stated in 22:40-42, which were the first verses that gave Muslims the permission to take up arms against disbelievers and the idea has been further clarified in 2:191, 193 above. Among the numerous other verses which throw light on this subject the reader is referred to 2:195, 218, 257; 3:135; 4:91, 92; 5:3, 9, 33; 8:39, 62, 63; 9:6, 8, 10, 13; 22:39,41; 41:35; 42:49; 50:46; 60:9, 10.

The concluding clause i.e. but if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors, further confirms the interpretation of the verse as given above. If the Quran enjoined the waging of war till Islam obtained universal acceptance, then there would be no sense whatever in the injunction that if disbelievers desisted from fighting and no longer remained aggressors, Muslims should also stop hostilities; for, as the verse puts it, fighting is not permissible "except against the aggressors".

2:190; 9:36.

3:98; 22:28.

Important Words:

رفث (foul talk) means, foul, immodest or lewd talk or speech in relation to women. It also signifies acts leading to and including coition (Mufradat & Lane). See also 2:188.

فسوق (transgression) is the same as فسق for which see note on 2:27.

جدال (quarrelling) is derived from جدل. They say جدل الحبل i.e. he twisted the rope. جدل الرجل means, his dispute or quarrel became intensified. جادله means, he disputed or quarrelled with him. Thus جدال means, dispute or quarrel, or the use of strong and hot words (Aqrab).

تزودوا (furnish yourselves) and الزاد (provision) are both derived from زاد with واو as the central root letter. They say زادالرجلi.e. the man prepared a provision for himself for a journey, etc. تزود means, he took for himself a provision. تزودمن الامیرکتابا الی عامله means, he took from the caliph a letter of introduction to his governor so that the latter might afford him his assistance as and when required. الزاد means, any provision, etc. taken when proceeding on a journey (Aqrab). The word is used of extra store meant for future use (Mufradat).

Commentary:

The clause the months of the Hajj are well known is intended to hint that, in the matter of the time of Pilgrimage, the Quran gives no new commandment. The established custom is the right one, being rightly retained by the Arabs from the days of Abraham and Ishmael. The three lunar months during which one may formally undertake the Pilgrimage and enter into the state of Ihram are Shawwal, Dhul-Qa‘dah and the first ten days of Dhul-Hijjah (Bukhari).

The clause, there is to be no foul talk, nor any transgression nor any quarrelling during the Pilgrimage, does not mean that such acts are permissible at other times but that these are necessary conditions for the completion of Pilgrimage, which would be like a soulless body if one indulged in such things while undertaking it. Another purpose underlying these injunctions is that a person should abstain from them particularly during the period of Pilgrimage so that it might become easy for him to shun these things at other times as well. The three vices selected are typical of what should be scrupulously avoided in a religious gathering like that at the Pilgrimage. رفث (rafath) stands for all foul, immodest and lewd talk as well as acts relating to sex. فسوق (fusuq) stands for transgression against the laws of God and disobedience of lawful authority, whether spiritual or temporal. And جدال (jidal) stands for disputes and quarrels with co-travellers, companions and neighbours.

The clause, And furnish yourselves with necessary provisions, does not only refer to the preparation which one makes for an ordinary journey which is necessary in its own way, but also to the preparation which one has to make for a spiritual journey. In this sense the clause would signify "provide yourselves with piety and righteousness;" and in order to emphasize the latter kind of provision, the Quran fittingly adds, and surely the best provision is righteousness. But ordinary provision is also necessary; for, if a man does not take necessary provisions with him, he will be certainly put to great inconvenience and hardship on the way and will have to beg of others for help and both these things are detrimental to the noble object underlying Pilgrimage.

See 2:228.

2:232; 4:130; 65:3.

Important Words:

امساك (retain) is derived from امسك which is again derived from مسك. They say امسك به i.e. he stuck to it. امسك is both transitive and intransitive. امسكه means, he got hold of it and stopped and retained it. امسك عن الکلام means, he abstained from talking. امساك means, (1) to hold or stop or prevent or retain; (2) to refrain or abstain (Aqrab).

تسریح (send away) is the noun-infinitive from سرح (sarraha) which is derived from سرح. They say سرح المواشی i.e. the cattle went forth for grazing. سرح السیل means, the flood moved on leisurely. سرحه means, he sent him away. سرح فلان زوجته means, he sent away or divorced his wife (Aqrab).

حدود (limits) is the plural of حد i.e. a limit. حده means, he put a limit to it. حد الشیء عن الشیء means, he distinguished one thing from the other. الحد means, (1) the limit or the line where two things meet; (2) last limit or extremity of a thing; (3) that by which a thing may be defined; (4) prescribed punishment for an offence. حدود الله means God’s religious commandments (Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse contains the fifth check on divorce. A man who seeks permanent and irrevocable separation from his wife must pronounce divorce on three separate occasions, each in a separate طھر i.e. period of purity, when the woman is clean and the man has not gone in unto her during that period of purity. The pronouncement of divorce twice or thrice at one and the same time is not permissible as the verse hints in the word مرتان (twice) which signifies a thing happening on two separate occasions and not two things happening at one and the same time. The Holy Prophet treated such collective pronouncements, whatever their number, as only one divorce (Tirmidhi & Dawud). According to Nasa’i, the Holy Prophet was extremely angry when one day he was told that a person had made all the three pronouncements of divorce at one and the same time, and said: "Is the Book of God going to be made a plaything while I am yet among you?"

After the pronouncement of the first two divorces, the husband can take back the divorced wife within ‘iddah, i.e. the period of waiting, with or without her consent; but after the period of waiting is over, he can take her back only with her consent and that after remarrying her. After the pronouncement of the third divorce, however, the husband forfeits this right and the couple are finally separated. A Companion of the Holy Prophet once asked him saying, "The Quran has here spoken of two divorces only, whence comes in the third!" The Prophet referred him to the Quranic words اوتسریح باحسان i.e. or send them away with kindness meaning thereby that after the pronouncement of the first two divorces the husband was free to retain his wife if he so desired but if he wanted irrevocable separation, he should "send her away", i.e. divorce her a third time (Jarir & Musnad). The point is further made clear in the succeeding verse. Thus the word تسریح here signifies طلاق i.e. divorce.

The present verse also makes it clear that when a person divorces his wife, he forfeits مھر i.e. the dower-money he has given her; and if at the time of divorce he has not yet given her the dower-money agreed on by the parties, he must make the payment before the divorce becomes effective. Again, he is not allowed to take back anything he might have given her in the form of gifts and presents as the clause it is not lawful for you that you take anything of what you have given them indicates.

If, however, it is the wife who demands separation, technically known as خلع (Khul‘a lit. the putting off of clothes etc., or the shedding of old leaves), she must get it through a Qadi or judge as the word خفتم (you fear), which has been put in the plural number, hints. In this case she has to part with, in full or in part, her dowry as well as the gifts she might have received from her husband, as agreed on by the parties or decided by the judge. The case of Jamilah, wife of Qais bin Thabit, provides a good illustration of the exercise of the right of Khul‘a by women. She demanded separation from her husband, Qais, on the ground that she did not like him, i.e. their temperaments being different, she could not get on with him. She was granted Kkul‘a by the Holy Prophet, but she had to return to her husband the orchard he had given her (Bukhari). This right, however, is not to be exercised in a light-hearted manner. The Holy Prophet has condemned the action of a woman who demands separation from her husband without valid reason even as he has condemned the action of a man who divorces his wife without genuine cause. He is reported to have said, "A woman who seeks separation from her husband without a legitimate cause shall be deprived of the fragrance of heaven" (Dawud & Tirmidhi). This is what is hinted in the concluding words, these are the limits prescribed by Allah, so transgress them not, etc. The husband and the wife are both warned to fear God and refrain from transgressing the limits imposed by God for their own good.

Important Words:

یتراجعا (return to each other) is derived from رجع i.e. he returned; the word is used to indicate the coming together of people after their dispersal or separation, as they say تراجع القوم i.e. the people returned to the place from where they separated or left (Aqrab).

یقیما (observe) is derived from اقام which means, he made a thing stand upright; he observed or duly performed a religious commandment or duty, etc. (Lane). See also under 2:4.

تنکح (she marries) is derived from نکح. They say نکح or نکحت meaning (1) he or she married a spouse; (2) he or she had sexual intercourse with his or her spouse. In the present verse the word is used in the latter sense. See also 2:222.

Commentary:

This verse refers to the third and final pronouncement of divorce after which the husband loses all right of reunion with his wife unless the divorced woman marries another man and establishes conjugal relations with him, and is then formally divorced by him or he dies, leaving her free to marry another man. By the inclusion of this provision in the law of divorce, Islam has, on the one hand, enhanced the sanctity of the marriage tie which must not be trifled with and has declared unlawful the evil practice of حلالة (halalah); and, on the other, it has afforded yet another opportunity to the couple who once had lived as husband and wife to become reunited if they so desired. The practice of halalah referred to above consists in a divorced woman marrying a man, other than her former husband, with the object of obtaining divorce from him and thereby making herself lawful for the former husband. Islam condemns this practice as a thing accursed (Tirmidhi ch. on Nikah) and enjoins that marriage with and divorce from another husband must both be genuine.

Important Words:

لاتعضلوھن (prevent them not) is derived from عضل. They say عضلھا i.e. he prevented or debarred her from marrying. The primary signification of عضل is the act of straitening or preventing, or withholding or debarring. عضل means, he straitened him in his affairs and intervened as an obstacle between him and that which he desired (Taj).

تراضوا (agree between themselves) is derived from رضی i.e. he was pleased, or he was satisfied, or he agreed. تراضی القومmeans, the people agreed between themselves, or they came to a mutual agreement (Aqrab).

ازکی (more blessed) is derived from زکا which means, it increased or augmented; it received blessing from God; it was or became pure. ازکی means, more blessed, containing greater benefits, conducive to more good (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The word "husbands" mentioned in this verse may refer either to former husbands or to prospective ones. In the former case, the clause, and when you divorce women, would be taken as referring to the first or second pronouncement of divorce. Sometimes, when a husband desires to take back his wife before pronouncing the third or irrevocable divorce, her offended relatives do not like her to go back to him again and therefore try to prevent her from remarrying him. The verse condemns that practice. In case the word "husbands" stands for prospective husbands, the above phrase would refer to the third or final divorce. Some men, even after the complete dissolution of their marriage, do not like the idea that their divorced wives should marry other persons and try to prevent them from contracting new marriages. This practice is also condemned in the clause, prevent them not from marrying their (prospective) husbands. Should the guardian of a divorced woman prevent her from remarrying her former husband or should the former husband prevent her from marrying a new husband, she can do so with the permission of the Qadi or the judge. The verse under comment also implies a repudiation of the evil practice of pronouncing three divorces at one and the same time, because had it been permissible, the question of divorced women remarrying their former husbands would have been meaningless.

31:15; 46:16.

65:7.

2:287; 6:153; 7:43; 23:63; 65:8.

Important Words:

یرضعن (give suck) is derived from رضع i.e. he (the babe) sucked. ارضعت means, she (the mother or the wet-nurse) gave suck to the child. استرضع means, he arranged for the suckling of the child; he engaged a wet-nurse for it. The infinitive-noun رضاعة signifies sucking. ھذا اخی من الرضاعة means, he is my foster-brother, both having sucked from the breast of the same woman (Aqrab & Lane).

حولین (two years) is the dual of حول (a year) which is the infinitive-noun from حال meaning, it passed and became complete, or it passed from one state to another, or it turned round. A year is called حول because it is a complete measure of time and turns round and round. حول also means strength and power to do a thing as in the well-known formula لاحول ولاقوة الابالله (Aqrab).

وسعھا (its capacity) is derived from وسع meaning, it was sufficiently capacious. وسعت رحمة الله کل شیء means, God’s mercy extends to, and covers, all things. وسع means capacity or power or strength. The infinitive-noun from it is سعة meaning, breadth; extent, capaciousness; capacity and power. ذوسعة means, a man of means or a man of ample means (Aqrab).

تکلف (is burdened) is derived from کلف. They say کلفه امرا i.e. he imposed on him the task of doing a thing, or he tasked him to do a thing. It also means, he ordered him to do a thing which was difficult or troublesome or inconvenient (Lane).

فصال (weaning the child) is derived from فصل which is both transitive and intransitive, meaning, he separated, he divided, he partitioned; or he got separated, he went forth from. فصلت المرأة رضیعھا means, the woman weaned her child, which is also a sort of separation between the woman and her suckling. ھذایوم الفصل means, this is the day when a decision or a distinction shall be made between the parties, i.e. the doers of good and the doers of evil. فصال means, the weaning of a child from its mother or from the woman who suckles it (Taj).

تشاور (consultation) is derived from شار. They say شارالعسل i.e. he extracted honey from the honey-comb. شارالدابة means, he rode the beast in order to try it and ascertain its worth. اشار besides giving the same meaning as شار, also means, he made a thing known, he pointed to a thing, he gave a word of good counsel to a person. شاوره means, he consulted him, he sought his advice and counsel. تشاور means, mutual consultation. مشورة and شوری give similar meanings, i.e. consultation (Aqrab).

Commentary:

If a woman is divorced while she is pregnant, the question of the suckling of the child and the expense of bringing it up naturally arises. The verse under comment supplies the answer. It points out that the suckling of the child should last for two years at the maximum. But it is allowable to discontinue it before the end of that period, if the father and the mother both agree on that course. The verse also implies that the child is not to be weaned before the end of two years without the consent of its mother.

The expression لاتضار is both in the active and the passive voice; the clause لاتضار والدة بولدھا may therefore mean that: (1) the mother shall not make the father suffer on account of her child; and (2) the mother shall not be made to suffer on account of her child; and both meanings are equally good and equitable. The words مولودله (he to whom the child belongs) have been used here in preference to the simpler word والد (father), in order to point to the inherent right of the father to possess the child and to his natural responsibility for its maintenance.

The clause, and the same is incumbent on the heir, lays down an important social principle. If a father dies leaving behind a child, it is the duty of his heirs to bring up the child and maintain it until it reaches puberty. This shall not be considered an act of favour on their part, but an act of duty. One who inherits the property of a deceased person is duty bound to bring up the children the latter may leave behind. He who receives a support from another must be prepared to give the same to him, when he may stand in need of it.

2:241.

2:229.

Important Words:

یتوفون (who die) is derived from توفی which is derived from وفی (wafa). They say وفی بالعھد i.e. he fulfilled his promise; he was faithful in his word. وفی فلانا حقه (waffa) means, he gave him his right in full. اوفی gives both the meanings ascribed to وفی and وفی(waffa) above. توفی means, he took something in full, as they say توفی حقه i.e. he got or obtained his right in full. توفی الله زیداmeans, God took away the soul of Zaid, leaving the body behind; God caused Zaid to die. توفی فلان means, his soul was taken away, i.e. he died. In this case God is متوفی (mutawaffi) and the man who dies is متوفی (mutawaffa). الوفاة means, death (Aqrab). The Quran says: الله یتوفی الانفس حین موتھاوالتی لم تمت فی منامھا i.e. God takes away the souls of men at the time of their death; and He also takes away the souls of men that have not died, during their sleep (39:43). The Arabic idiom, which has the support of the Quranic usage, definitely shows that wherever God is فاعل (i.e. subject) and a being having a soul is مفعول به(i.e. object) the word توفی invariably means, the taking away of the soul.

Commentary:

After having dealt with the question of the remarriage of divorced women, the Quran in this verse proceeds to issue commandments regarding widows. The عدة i.e. the period of waiting in the case of widows, is four months and ten days which roughly corresponds to four alternate periods of menstruation and purity combined. Islam has prescribed a longer period in the case of a widow as a mark of respect for her feelings at the death of her husband and has thus added to the dignity and sanctity of the marriage tie.

This verse also implies a rebuke to those who are opposed to widow remarriage, thinking it to be an insult to the family and a disgrace to the widowed woman. The words, what is fair, show that it is not only lawful, but preferable and desirable, for a widow to remarry. The words, in anything that they do with regard to themselves, obviously refer to remarriage. Elsewhere the Quran says, And marry your widows (24:33).

2:235.

Commentary:

The middle verses, which came in like the middle Prayer, having ended, the Quran reverts to the original subject of conjugal relations. The verse under comment is erroneously believed by some to have been abrogated by 2:235 and 4:13. Apart from the fact that the abrogation theory is based on lack of the knowledge of true teaching of the Quran, there is nothing in the verses referred to above which contradicts the provision contained in the present verse. The period of waiting laid down for a widow in 2:235 is four months and ten days in which time she can, as of right, claim residence and maintenance from the heirs of her deceased husband. The period of one year mentioned in the present verse has nothing to do with the above-mentioned period of waiting, as the words, but if they themselves go out, there shall be no blame upon you; clearly show. The present verse only contains a concession or a favour for a widow in addition to her right of residence and maintenance mentioned in 2:235. One year is about the time conveniently required by a widow for making suitable arrangements about her future. It is also the requisite time for a pregnant widow to be delivered of the child and relieved of the encumbrances attending thereto. Nor has this verse anything to do with the share of a widow in the property left by her husband as stated in 4:13. The concession about residence and maintenance for one year mentioned in the present verse forms no part of her share in the inheritance. The verse contains no obligatory injunction, but only an additional exhortation to the heirs of the deceased person to show special kindness to the widow for a period of one year, just as the following verse embodies an identical exhortation in favour of a divorced woman.

2:148; 6:115; 10:95.

Important Words:

مـمترین (those who doubt) means: (1) those who doubt; (2) those who contest and raise objections (see also 2:148). Both meanings are applicable here.

Commentary:

As حق (truth) also signifies an established fact or an established truth (2:148 & 3:4), the verse hints that as now the fact has been established beyond doubt or controversy that there was nothing in Jesus above an ordinary mortal, so there is truly no possibility of doubt or difference of opinion in the matter.

Commentary:

The words من بعدہ translated as, beside Him, literally mean "after Him" and may also be rendered as "in opposition to Him". The verse throws further light on the philosophy of توکل (trust in God). In spite of making use of the necessary means, a true believer should, and in fact does, put his trust in God alone.

7:28; 16:101; 35:7.

Commentary:

The expression یخوف اولیاءہ rendered in the text as, Satan only frightens his friends, may mean: (1) Satan tries to make believers fear disbelievers, who are his friends; (2) he frightens disbelievers themselves, i.e. he becomes the cause of their fear, for the friends of Satan can never be brave. In the latter case the pronoun "them" in, so fear them not, would refer to the noun الناس (people) in 3:174 above.

61:3-4.

Important Words:

مفازة (secure) is derived from فاز which means, he was successful and gained what he desired. فازمنه means, he escaped it (danger, etc.), or he became secure from it. So مفازة means, a place or state of security or escape; a means of success and prosperity (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The expression "think not" mentioned twice in the verse not only makes the sentence more clear, but also adds to it beauty and force. Such people as exult in evil deeds and have no anxiety and no desire for their spiritual welfare, being satisfied with false praise only, must not consider themselves secure from Divine punishment.

Important Words:

بھتان (lying) is the noun-infinitive from بھت. They say بھته i.e. he slandered him or accused him falsely; or he did so in such a manner as to make him confounded at the falsity of the charge. بھتان therefore means, a calumny, slander or false accusation; falsehood by reason of which one is perplexed or confounded and is rendered unable to see his right course; a false accusation of adultery against a woman (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The verse does not mean that man can divorce his wife at will. Anas, a Companion of the Holy Prophet, relates that once Abu Ayyub and Abu Talha wanted to divorce their wives (without valid reason) and asked the Holy Prophet about it. He counselled them not to do so, characterizing their act as an act of injustice. Thereupon, they abandoned their intention of divorcing their wives and retained them. This does not mean that a husband cannot divorce his wife without obtaining the permission of the authorities; he can do so, if he so desires; but he will certainly be accountable before God if he does so without valid reason. Elsewhere the Holy Prophet is reported to have said, "Surely of the things sanctioned by the Law of Islam the most hateful in the sight of God is divorce" (Dawud, ch. on, Talaq).

If for some special reason a man wishes to divorce one wife and marry another, he is not allowed to take back from the former what he has already given her, no matter however big the sum may be. If he does so, he will be guilty of infidelity and sin.

Important Words:

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

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

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

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

Commentary:

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

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

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

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

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