فَمَنْ

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.

2:195; 5:46.

Important Words:

قصاص (retaliation) is derived from قص. They say قصه i.e. (1) he cut it (hair, etc.), or be clipped it; (2) he followed him closely or followed in his footsteps; and (3) he described or narrated it. قاص الرجل means, he did with the man the like of that which he did to him; he retaliated on him for the wrong done to him. اقص الامیر زیدا من بکر means, the Amir retaliated upon Bakr for the wrong he had done to Zaid. قصاص therefore, means, retaliation, by slaying for slaying, and wounding for wounding, etc. (Aqrab) or the following up of a murder or an injury with a view to retaliating or punishing (Mufradat).

القتلی (the slain) is the plural of قتیل in the sense of مقتول i.e. a murdered person (Aqrab).

الحر (freeman) is derived from حر meaning: (1) he was free-born; (2) he was of good and noble origin. حرالارض means, the best portion of land. Thus الحر means; (1) a freeman, opposite of slave or captive; (2) a noble person; (3) the good and pure portion of a thing (Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse comprises a very important principle of civil law, i.e. equality of man and necessity of awarding proportionate punishment to all offenders without distinction, unless an offender is forgiven by the relatives of his victim under circumstances that are expected to lead to improvement and betterment of conditions.

The words کتب علیکم i.e. "is prescribed for you" show that retaliation for the slain is not simply permissible but is obligatory. Failure to inflict the punishment prescribed by Law on the offender would be tantamount to a violation of the commandment. The duty, however, of punishing the culprit does not devolve on the heirs of the murdered person but, as the plural number of the expression علیکم (for you) shows, on the authorities responsible for the maintenance of law and order. But, as the singular number of the expression اخیه (one’s brother) shows, the former have been given the option to forgive. The clause, therefore, means that on the one hand the concerned authorities are bound to punish the offender according to the requirements of law, having no right to pardon him of their own accord, and on the other hand the heirs of the murdered person are not entitled to take the law into their own hands and inflict the punishment on the guilty person themselves.

The verse under comment makes no distinction between different classes of persons in connection with the law of retaliation. The words used are of a general nature and apply to all offenders who might be guilty of murder, no matter of what rank or station in life or of what religion. Any person, irrespective of his caste or creed and irrespective of his station, must be put to death for the murder of any other person, unless pardoned by the relatives of the victim and unless the pardon has the sanction of the authorities. The sayings of the Holy Prophet are explicit on this point (Majah, ch. on Diyat).

There is indeed a saying of the Holy Prophet to the effect that a Muslim should not be put to death for killing a disbeliever. But this saying, read in conjunction with several others bearing on the same subject and interpreted in the light of the relevant Quranic verses, forces us to the conclusion that the word "disbeliever" in the tradition referred to above is not general but means only a حربی کافر i.e. such disbeliever as belongs to a people who are at war with the Muslims or, in other words, one who is a member of a belligerent community. In fact, the Companions of the Holy Prophet are all agreed that a Muslim may be put to death for murdering a non-belligerent unbeliever (Tabari, v. 44). The Holy Prophet himself ordered a Muslim murderer to be put to death for the murder of a non-belligerent non-Muslim (Qutni).

The expression, the freeman for the freeman and the slave for the slave and the female for the female, does not mean that a freeman should not be punished with death for the murder of a slave or that a woman should not be put to death for killing a member of the opposite sex, etc. The other verses of the Quran as well as the sayings and the practice of the Holy Prophet clearly establish the fact that the social position of a person or the sex of a party was never considered a bar to the application of this law. The peculiar construction, i.e. "the freeman for the freeman," etc. has been adopted here to refer to, and abolish, a custom of the Arabs whereby they used to take into consideration the sex and the social status of the murderer and the murdered person when determining punishment. If a man of high social position happened to kill a man of humble position, or if the slave of a great man killed that of a humble man, or if a lady of noble birth murdered a woman of humble origin, etc. the murderer was not punished with death, leniency being shown to him or her in sundry other ways as well. The commandment contained in this verse seeks to abolish that obnoxious custom of the Arabs and lays down in clear and unmistakable terms that no regard should be paid to the status of the murderer in the matter of retaliation.

In fact, the law of retaliation, as stated in this verse, is confined to the clause, equitable retaliation in the matter of the slain is prescribed for you, which forms a complete sentence in itself, giving a full and complete meaning. The ensuing expression, the freeman for the freeman and the slave for the slave and the female for the female, is something extra, not forming part of the law. It only contains a repudiation of the Arab custom referred to above and illustrates, by giving three instances, how the law is to be administered. Such an expression is known as جملة استینا فیه or جملة مستانفه in Arabic grammar, and is technically introduced with a view to answering a question which is suggested by the preceding clause to which it is added without any intervening conjunction. The question answered in such an expression is often understood and not expressed (Mukhtasar).

The sayings of the Holy Prophet and his practice also support the above interpretation, for it is on record that he once ordered a woman to be put to death for murdering a man (Muslim), and on another occasion he commanded that a freeman be put to death for the murder of a slave. Says the Holy Prophet: "Whoever kills his slave shall be put to death" (Majah). At another place he says: "The blood of all Muslims is alike in respect of the law of retaliation" (Nasa’i).

The words, if one is granted any remission by one’s brother, show that the infliction of capital punishment is not obligatory in all cases; for in special circumstances the murderer can be exempted from the extreme punishment by the heirs of the murdered person. Such exemption, which may be termed partial as the word شیء (any) indicates, means that the heirs of the deceased may renounce their right to have the murderer put to death and may in place of that receive from him blood money. Or as the Holy Prophet has made it clear, the heirs may, in exceptional cases and with the sanction of the authorities, even grant full pardon, remitting blood-money as well (Musnad & Baihaqi).

It is worthy of note that where the Quran speaks of remission, it uses the word "brother" instead of "heir of the murdered person". This is to hint to the heir of the slain person that he should, as far as possible, take a lenient view of the offence. On the other band, the murderer is also enjoined to pay blood money with good grace and without undue delay.

The concluding clause, i.e. whoso transgresses thereafter, for him there shall be a grievous punishment, is meant to point to the fact that if, after the matter has been amicably settled and the murderer granted a remission by the heirs of the murdered person, the heirs should take it into their heads to wreak vengeance on the murderer by killing him, they will be shown no mercy and will get capital punishment. Says the Prophet: "I will allow no remission in case of one whokills the murderer after he has accepted blood money from him" (Jarir).

The Islamic law of قصاص (retaliation), as briefly stated above, provides a very effective and practical means to put a stop to murder and safeguard human life. A man who shows a callous disregard for the life of a fellow person, loses his title to live as a member of human society. The option to pardon allowed to the heirs of the slain person should not be regarded as likely to encourage murder, for such option is not synonymous with exemption from punishment, as in ordinary circumstances the murderer will have to pay the blood money. Moreover, the would-be murderer possesses no means to know that the heirs of the person whose murder he contemplates will actually be persuaded to pardon him; so the fear of capital punishment will always be there to deter him from the commission of the crime. Again, pardon or remission is permissible only where the circumstances are such that pardon or remission is likely to improve matters and bring about good results for all parties concerned (42:41). Thus, while on the one hand, Islam has made due provision for the suppression of crime, it has, on the other, kept open the door for the display of the noble qualities of benevolence and mercy.

The way in which the Quran has upheld the ultimate necessity of the death penalty is indeed most significant. At the time when the Quran was revealed, people exacted retaliation for an injury done to them with a vengeance. They were not satisfied even with inflicting capital punishment on the murderer, to say nothing of pardoning him. They needed no incentive to retaliation. They were already overdoing it. In fact, the Islamic law of retaliation, viewed in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time of its revelation, implied a prophecy that a time would come when people would go to the other extreme and a movement for the total abolition of capital punishment would be set on foot. So the Omniscient God laid down the law of retaliation in a form that is indispensable for the preservation and protection of human life, as well as the promotion of harmony and goodwill.

To prevent crime, Islam really aims at eliminating the conditions that produce it. It seeks to remove the very root-cause of all crime by working a complete moral reformation in man. But it does not remain content with that. It also prescribes deterrent laws in conformity with the dictates of reason, justice and humanity. The fact that, despite efforts to the contrary, the death penalty is still found on the Statute Books of most countries in one form or another, constitutes a sufficient proof of the wisdom of the Islamic teaching. As a matter of fact, even the most enthusiastic protagonists of the abolition of capital punishment have not yet been able to suggest a suitable alternative to it. They have had to admit that a long term of imprisonment as an alternative is "horrible" and is "not an ideal substitute" (Capital Punishment in the Twentieth Century by E. Roy Calvert, G. P. Putnam, London, 1930). The law of retaliation still remains the most effective deterrent to crime and an essential method to satisfy the demands of justice; and the Islamic Law takes a further step to bring about reconciliation between the offender and the aggrieved party.

Important Words:

جنفا (partiality) is the infinitive noun from جنف. They say جنف عن الطریق meaning, he deviated from the right path. جنف فی وصیتهmeans, he acted wrongfully in his will. جانف اھله means, he kept away from his family out of anger and not for a just cause. تجانف لاثم means, he inclined towards sin. So جنف means: (1) inclining to sin, etc. (2) deviating from the right course; (3) acting unjustly or wrongfully; (4) keeping away from rightful things (Aqrab).

Commentary:

If someone should have reason to fear that the testator is showing undue favour to any particular person or party, or that he is acting contrary to Islamic Law, it would be no sin for him to bring about reconciliation between the parties concerned by removing the cause of displeasure or disagreement between the testator and his heirs and thereby having the will altered in accordance with the requirements of justice and Islamic Law. The words, it shall be no sin for him, do not mean that such pious intervention is simply an act of negative virtue. The expression has been used lest, in view of what has been said in the preceding verse regarding the sinfulness of the act of alteration in a will, some overcautious people should hold aloof even when they see an unjust inclination on the part of the testator. The verse thus really means that such an interference, far from being an act of sin, is an act of virtue which is sure to draw God’s mercy.

The concluding clause reminds the testator that God is Forgiving, so that if he mends his error, He will be pleased to forgive him. The declaration that God is Merciful, also serves as an inducement to other Muslims to intervene, if it is felt that the testator is unduly partial to one party, to the detriment of the other. In that case they should readily step in and set things right, for which God would give them an ample portion out of His mercy. Thus the word غفور (Most Forgiving) relates to such testators as return to the right course when reminded to do so, and the word رحیم (Merciful) relates to those persons who succeed in persuading the testator to revert to the path of rectitude and justice.

62:7, 8.

Important Words:

نبتھل (let us pray fervently) is derived from بھل. They say بھله i.e. he left him to his own will; or he left him to himself; he cursed him. ابتھل means, he prayed or supplicated humbly and earnestly and fervently, with energy and effort. باھلهmeans, he cursed him, being also cursed by the latter. مباھلة means, the act of invoking God’s curse on each other, i.e. on whichever party is the wrongdoer (Aqrab & Lane).

انفسنا و انفسکم (our people and your people). The words are the plural of نفس and mean: (1) our souls and your souls; (2) ourselves and yourselves; (3) our people and your people; (4) our co-religionists and your co-religionists (Lane). See also 2:55 and 3:29. Here, as the context shows, the words give the last-mentioned meaning.

Commentary:

The present discussion on Christian doctrines with which this Surah began has been brought to a close in this verse. The reference, as mentioned above, is to the Christian deputation from Najran which consisted of sixty persons and was headed by their chief, ‘Abdul-Masih, known as Al-‘Aqib. They met the Holy Prophet in his Mosque and the discussion on the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus continued at some length. When the question had been fully discussed and the members of the deputation were found to be still insisting on their false doctrine, the Holy Prophet, in obedience to the Divine command contained in the present verse, invited them as a last resort to join him in a sort of prayer contest technically known as مباھلة i.e. invoking the curse of God on the holders of false beliefs. As, however, the Christians did not appear to be sure of their ground, they declined to accept the challenge, thus indirectly admitting the falsity of their doctrine (Zurqani, Khamis & Bayan under 3:3). On this occasion, the Holy Prophet brought out ‘Ali, Fatimah, Hasan and Husain (Khamis & Zurqani) as well as Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and others (‘Asakir) in the field and is reported to have said: "If the Christians had accepted the challenge of مباھلة and agreed to pray to God to send His punishment on the lying party, God would have surely destroyed the liars before a year had passed" (Bukhari, Muslim & Tirmidhi).

It may be noted that the prayer contest known as مباھلة is in the nature of seeking God’s arbitration in fundamental religious differences. When other methods of settlement fail, the parties approach Almighty God to decide between them according to His eternal scheme of helping the righteous and destroying the wicked. The act of cursing is thus not in the form of abusing but an earnest supplication to God to uphold the truth and destroy falsehood—to amputate the diseased limb in order to save the healthy one. Thus مباھلةis a very serious affair and should be resorted to in very rare cases, subject to the following conditions, which are deducible from the present verse as well as from the relevant sayings of the Holy Prophet; (1) the point in dispute should be a matter of supreme and fundamental religious importance and should be based on clear scriptural authority; (2) the matter should first be fully argued and discussed between the parties; (3) the مباھلة should take place only if and when after the aforesaid discussion each party still continues to adhere to its views, definitely holding the other party to be in the wrong; (4) for the actual contest the parties should assemble in a suitable place together with the members of their families and a suitable number of others holding similar views, and there solemnly invoke the curse of God on the party sticking to falsehood.

As to the form or time of punishment which, as a result of مباھلة must overtake the offending party, the verse sheds no light. The matter rests entirely with God. From the above-quoted tradition, however, it may be deduced that if any period at all is to be fixed, it should be not less than a year. But the form of punishment must still rest on Divine will. The Judge in heaven reserves the right of deciding each individual case as He thinks fit. The result is left to speak for itself.

It may be noted here incidentally that during the discussions with the Christian deputation from Najran, the Holy Prophet allowed them to pray in his Mosque in their own way, which they did facing the east—an act of religious toleration unparalleled in the history of all religion (Zurqani).

4:166; 5:20; 18:57.

5:70; 7:36.

Commentary:

All Divine Messengers have a sort of dual personality—a twofold mission. They bring glad tidings for one class of men and warnings for others. Those who accept them receive tidings of blessings and those who reject them receive warnings of punishments. Those who are weak should hasten to join the class of men for whom glad tidings are meant. They have no reason to fear; for, as the verse makes it clear, if they accept the Prophets, "no fear shall come on them, nor shall they grieve!"

7:204.

Commentary:

The word بصائر (proofs) also helps to explain the words, He reaches the eyes, occurring in the preceding verse and signifies that God reveals proofs by means of which man becomes able to know Him. By "proofs" is here meant the divine signs and evidences sent by God.

The words, whoever sees, mean, whoever makes use of his reason after proofs have been revealed to him by God. Similarly the words, whoever becomes blind, refer to such persons as shut their eyes to all truth and virtually make themselves blind.

The duty of the Holy Prophet described in the words, I am not a guardian over you, is only to convey what is revealed by God; it is not his responsibility to compel people to believe in God. Thus, the verse also provides a refutation of the baseless charge that Islam countenances compulsion in the propagation of religion.

6:22; 7:38; 11:19.

Commentary:

Speaking of the laws devised by man, the Quran had referred to some pagan customs with regard to animals (6:140, 141). Now it gives its own laws with regard to them.

While speaking of sheep and goats in 6:144 above, the Holy Prophet is made here to ask the idolaters to inform him if these animals were unlawful, i.e. not fit for eating, and to bring forward (as hinted in the words نبٔونی بعلم i.e. inform me with knowledge) some rational argument or scientific reason to show that they should not be eaten. When, however, it speaks of oxen and camels in the present verse, the Quran asks idolaters whether they were witnesses when Allah forbade the eating of these animals. In other words, the verse here calls upon them to produce a religious authority showing that the cow and the camel were really forbidden. This is so because the cow and the camel are looked upon as forbidden by some on religious authority. For instance, the Hindus think it unlawful to eat beef for religious reasons and the Jews look upon the camel as forbidden by their scriptures.

This restriction is, however, unjustified; for, as regards beef, it is clearly allowed by the Vedas and was freely used in ancient India not only as ordinary food but also as an essential part of many religious ceremonies (Indo-Aryans by R. Mitra, LL.D., C.I.E.; The Review of Religions for 1923). As regards the camel, it is indeed forbidden by the Bible, but that prohibition is not meant for all time, for the Bible announces the advent of another Lawgiver whose Law was to abrogate the Law of the Bible (Deut. 18:18).

The words, Were you present when Allah enjoined, signify that when pagans do not believe in any revelation, they cannot possibly know that anything was forbidden by God.

35:43.

6:22; 7:38; 10:18.

Commentary:

The words, better guided, are either intended to express a possible idea on the part of the Arabs that the "two peoples" mentioned above did not faithfully act on Divine teachings or they merely express a possible feeling of regret that whereas others were granted Divine guidance, they were not. It must be said to the credit of the Arabs that when the Quran was revealed to the Holy Prophet, those of them that accepted it did follow it much more faithfully than the "two peoples" referred to above or for that matter any other people. Thus, when the Holy Prophet was attacked by the Quraish of Mecca at Badr and he summoned a council of his followers to consult them, the latter told him without demur that they would not, like the companions of Moses, say to him, Go, thou and thy Lord, and fight and here we sit (5:25), but would fight in his front and fight at his back and fight on his right and fight on his left, meaning that the enemy would not be permitted to reach him except over their dead bodies (Bukhari, ch. on Maghazi).

6:22; 10:18; 11:19; 61:8.

6:23; 40:74-75.

6:131.

Commentary:

The verse gives the reasons why the rejecters of Divine Messengers deserve severe punishment. People incur the wrath of God because they treat His Messenger as a liar and reject the heavenly signs he brings with him. Indeed, impostors and the rejecters of true Messengers are equally doomed and can never escape the punishment ordained for them.

The words, who shall have their lot as ordained, mean that the rejecters of God’s Messengers will see before their very eyes the fulfilment of the prophecies foretelling their defeat and discomfiture and shall taste of the punishment promised to them for opposing God’s Messengers.

6:22; 11:19; 61:8.

Commentary:

This verse brings to light two eternal truths. The first of these is that both those who fabricate lies against God and those who reject and oppose His Messengers are highly unjust and can never escape God’s punishment. The second is that impostors and false prophets cannot succeed in fulfilling the object of their mission. It is indeed possible that a false prophet may temporarily succeed in securing a number of followers or in amassing wealth. But even in this case he will not be regarded as having succeeded in fulfilling his mission, because the amassing of wealth or the securing of a number of followers has never been the mission of a Prophet of God. The true mission of a Divine Messenger is either to introduce and establish a new Law or to strengthen the old one, and unless he succeeds in achieving this object, he cannot be said to have been successful in his mission. This is a criterion the truth of which cannot legitimately be disputed or denied. The apparent failure of a true Prophet like John the Baptist or the apparent success of a claimant like Baha’ullah can be fully explained with the help of this touchstone. John came with the mission of announcing the coming of the Messiah, which was in the nature of strengthening the old Law, and he was successful in that mission. On the other hand, Baha’ullah, even if he be taken to have come only as a Divine Messenger and not as God’s incarnation as he declared himself to be, claimed to have brought a new law that was to replace the Quranic Dispensation and therein he utterly failed, for his law has not been truly established even in a single household, not to speak of a whole people or country.

69:20; 84:8, 9.

Commentary:

The word امام (Leader) here means a spiritual Leader or a Prophet. On the Day of Judgement every people will be summoned along with their Prophet, for he will have to render an account of how he discharged his divine mission and how his people received and treated his Message (4:42; 16:85, 90; Bukhari, Kitabut-Tafsir).

According to Islam the right hand is a symbol of blessing while the left is a symbol of punishment. In the human body the right side enjoys a certain superiority over the left since the tissues of the right side generally are stronger than those of the left. The giving of the record of one’s deeds in one’s right hand as mentioned in this verse signifies that it will be a good and favourable record.

A certain preference for the right hand is a trait common among all races. Medical science has established the fact that the right hand of man is comparatively stronger than the left. Various explanations for this phenomenon have been offered by scientists, some of which are based on psycho-physics and others on social habits. At any rate among normal men the percentage of left-handed persons has been found to vary from 4 to 8, while among the mentally defective the percentage is much higher (Enc. Brit., 14th Edition, under Handedness).

It may well be concluded from these facts that the right hand is better suited for the performance of work than the left. So it is quite reasonable to regard the right arm as the symbol of strength. The receiving by believers of the records of works in their right hands may therefore be understood to point to the fact that they were industrious, diligent and self-sacrificing, while the receiving by disbelievers of their records in their left hands would signify that they were slow, lazy and selfish, the left hand being symbolic of weakness.

Moreover, the right hand is reserved for doing works which are generally regarded as clean while the left hand is reserved for unclean works. Thus the holding by believers of their records in their right hands would signify that their works were good and pure and the works of disbelievers were unclean and dirty as they would hold their records in their left hands.

According to some commentators of the Quran the word یمین (right hand) also signifies strength and power (69:46). According to this sense of the word the holding by believers of their records in their right hands would signify that they had taken hold of virtue with strength and resolution while the holding by disbelievers of their records in their left hands would signify that they did not strive after virtue with requisite strength and zeal.

The word یمین (right hand) also means a blessed thing as in the hadith کلتا یدی ربی یمین i.e. both the hands of my Lord are full of blessings. (Bihar, vol. 2, p. 503). In this sense the words, "whoso shall be given his book in his right hand" would symbolize that the believers’ record would be a blessed one.

The words, such will read their book, only point to a common habit of man. The possessor of a good record naturally reads it again and again while he whose record is bad conceals it and avoids reading it. See also v. 15 above. For the word فتیلا (a whit) see 4:50.

21:25; 25:4.

6:145; 7:38; 10:18; 11:19.

Commentary:

By using the words "our people" the verse shows that the people to whom the Dwellers of the Cave belonged were idol-worshippers. Such were the Romans who worshipped idols.

6:22; 10:18; 29:69.

Commentary:

After having briefly referred, in the foregoing verses, to the need and purpose of revelation, the Surah proceeds to give two very sound and effective arguments in support of that phenomenon. The verse under comment deals with the first argument, which is, that two persons never succeed in life; the one who invents lies against God and the other who denies and rejects the truth when it is presented and preached to him. The second argument is given in the next verse.

2:195; 10:28; 16:127.

Commentary:

The verse forms the basis of the penal laws of Islam. The real object underlying the awarding of punishment to the guilty person, according to Islamic teaching, is his moral reformation. If forgiveness is calculated to do him some moral good, he should be forgiven. He should be punished, if punishment is likely to lead to his reformation; but the punishment should in no case be disproportionate to the offence committed. Islam does not believe in the monastic teaching of turning the left cheek when the right is smitten nor in the Jewish doctrine of "an eye for eye." It adopts the golden mean. The next three verses shed some further light on this subject.