قُلۡتُمۡ

4:154.

Important Words:

الصاعقة (the thunderbolt). See 2:20.

Commentary:

The present-day Bible, at fault in many places, does not make a direct mention of the incident referred to in the verse under comment. But a careful study of it reveals the fact that the reference is to the time when Moses went up the Mount to receive God’s Commandments and left his men camped at the foot of the mountain. On the day appointed, Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet God, and they stood at the nether part of the Mount. And the Lord came down on Mount Sinai on the top of the Mount and ordered Moses saying: "Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze and many of them perish" (Exod. 19:21). The words "to gaze" occurring in the above quotation clearly show that the Israelites were eager to see God and, as the Quran puts it, they had previously expressed a desire to that effect. But when the manifestation actually came and they saw the thunderings and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet and the mountain smoking, they removed themselves and stood afar off and exclaimed to Moses, saying: "Speak thou with us and we will hear: but let not God speak with us lest we die" (Exod. 20:19). This shows that, at first, they wanted to see God, i.e. see a most clear manifestation of Him without which they would not believe, but having been greatly terrified, they afterwards went to the other extreme and shouted to Moses that they would have none of the manifestations and would not even listen to God’s words lest they die.

As the word قال does not necessarily mean "he said" but is used on occasions when one does not say a thing in so many words but simply expresses a wish or idea by one’s condition (see under 2:31), it is possible that the Israelites did not make this demand verbally but that their condition was expressive of it. In this case the words اذقلتم would not mean "when you said" but "when your attitude showed that".

As the word صاعقة also means 'death', the verse may be taken to mean that this unreasonable demand of the Israelites so arrogantly expressed brought about their spiritual death. This significance finds corroboration in the next verse wherein God says: Then We raised you up after your death.

It may be noted here that whereas the Bible mentions the incident of calf-worship after the incident referred to above, the Quran reverses the order, mentioning the incident of calf-worship before that of the demand of the Israelites to see God; and a careful study of the relevant facts indicates that the Quran order is the correct one. The incident of the calf must certainly have taken place before the Israelites went to Mount Sinai and before the Lord came down upon the Mount in the sight of the people; for if the Israelites had already gone to the Mount and had seen a clear manifestation of God, then it is hardly possible that they should have taken the calf for their God after such manifestation. Evidently they had made the calf before going to Mount Sinai, and when Moses ordered them to refrain from calf-worship, they obeyed but expressed an arrogant desire to see God so that they might be sure of His existence. Thereupon Moses took them to the Mount and God descended on the Mount in the sight of the people (Exod. 19:9-11). The words of the Quran: Then the thunderbolt overtook you, may refer to the thunders and lightnings which accompanied the manifestation of God and which caused the Israelites to tremble with fear.

3:113.

2:91; 3:113; 5:61.

2:88; 3:22, 113, 184; 5:71.

Important Words:

فومھا (its wheat). فوم means: (1) wheat; (2) any corn suitable for making bread; (3) garlic; (4) chick-pea (Aqrab).

مصر (a town) means:(1) a town or a city; (2) the frontier between two countries; (3) the thing that intervenes between two things (Aqrab).

یقتلون (would kill) is derived from قتل i.e. he killed. The infinitive means: (1) killing with a sword or with a stone or with poison or by any other means; (2) attempting to kill; (3) making up the mind to kill; (4) boycotting or cutting off all connections; (5) killing one’s carnal desires; (6) weakening the strength of a thing, as alcohol is "killed" with the addition of water, or hunger is "killed" with food, etc.; (7) humbling a person completely; (8) rendering a person like unto one killed either physically or morally or spiritually; (9) acquiring complete and certain knowledge about a thing; and (10) cursing a person or thing (Aqrab, Mufradat & Lisan)

Commentary:

In this verse another instance is cited to show how the Israelites made no effort to turn the favours of God to good account. When they were in the desert, God sent them Manna and Salwa. But soon after this they began to exhibit discontent with one kind of food and to clamour for a variety of grain, onions, salad and green-stuff (Num. 11:5-11). It may be noted that both Manna and Salwa taken together were considered one kind of food as they were taken continuously for a long time. It is further learnt from the Bible that the supply of Salwa was discontinued after a while and the Israelites were thus left to live on Manna alone (Num. 11:6). As the demand was not based on a right understanding of the wisdom of God Who wanted the Israelites to breathe the free air of the desert for a time, they met with disgrace and drew upon themselves the wrath of God.

God’s displeasure with the Israelites was not due to their demand for other food. The real cause lay elsewhere. Having lived for a long time in bondage and a state of dependence, they had become cowardly and indolent. So God wished them to stay in the desert for sometime, living on game and wild herbs, that they might get rid of their cowardice and indolence by living an independent life in the desert. Thus revitalized, they were to be led to the Promised Land and made rulers of Palestine. The Israelites, however, failed to understand the real purpose of God or having understood it, failed to appreciate it, and foolishly insisted upon living in a town. God pointed out their error, saying that they had asked for a life of agriculture in preference to what was to lead them to sovereignty. He wanted to prepare them for rule over the Promised Land, but they hungered for husbandry. So He indignantly ordered them to go down to a town where they would get the desired things.

The Israelites deserved punishment, because their impatience was the outcome of a want of faith in the promise of God. This lack of faith in God was due to their opposition to His Prophets and, disbelief in His Signs, and they opposed the Prophets because they were transgressors and evildoers. The Prophets invited them to guidance and virtue which they disliked, and, as a result, they opposed them. Thus the Quran admirably traces the causal sequence of every evil to its origin and strikes at its very root so as to prevent all possibility of recurrence.

The words, we will not remain content with one kind of food, contain a threat and are full of arrogance. If the Israelites had meant simply to express a wish, the words would have been "we are unable to remain content with one kind of food," and not as they stand in the Quran. The Bible gives a vivid picture of their insolent and almost rebellious attitude on this occasion (Num. 11:5-15).

The words یقتلون النبیین translated in the verse as "would kill the Prophets" do not mean that the Israelites actually killed the Prophets, because, up to the time of Moses, no Prophet is known to have been slain by them. As a matter of fact, Moses is the first Prophet who was sent to the Israelites as a nation. Thus Moses and his brother, Aaron, are the only persons to whom the words can be applied; but obviously these two Prophets were not killed by the Israelites, although the latter often opposed them and were sometimes even bent upon killing them (Exod. 17:4). Hence, the word قتل in the verse cannot possibly mean actual killing. Its only meaning here is that they severely opposed the Prophets and were even prepared to kill them. This interpretation finds corroboration not only in Arabic lexicons, for which see Important Words, but the Quran itself supports it in a number of verses where the word قتل has been used undoubtedly, not in the sense of actual killing but in that of attempting to kill or intending to kill (3:22 and 40:29). Bukhari also relates a tradition to the effect that once certain hot-headed Quraish youths brutally assaulted the Holy Prophet in the precincts of the Ka‘bah, whereupon Abu Bakr rushed to his rescue, saying, اتقتلون رجلا ان یقول ربی الله "Do you kill a man because he says Allah is his Lord and Master?" (chapter on Tafsir). In this hadith the word قتل is clearly used in the sense of attempting to kill or intending to kill and not actual killing.

It will not be out of place to point out here that the purport of verse 2:59 discussed above is altogether different from the one under comment. Though in both of them God apparently orders the Israelites to go to some habitation, yet the meaning is entirely different, rather quite the opposite in each case. As a matter of fact, whereas in verse 2:59 God Himself willingly commands the Israelites to go to some habitation, His ordering them to "go down into a town" in the verse under comment is expressive of definite displeasure and anger. In the previous verse the قریة or habitation meant only a habitation found in the desert by going into which the Israelites did not leave the free desert life but rather combined it with the facilities of a habitation. On the contrary, by "going down into" a مصر i.e. a town or city as mentioned in the verse under comment, they altogether abandoned the desert life and adopted a life of ease, as is led in towns and cities. Hence the difference. This is why the Quran uses the simple word ادخلوا i.e. "enter" in 2:59 and the word اھبطوا i.e. "go down", a term expressive of decline, in the verse under comment. Similarly, whereas in verse 2:59 the Quran follows up the commandment with the words eat therefrom plentifully wherever you like, in the present verse the commandment is followed by the words and they were smitten with abasement and destitution. The difference is apparent. The former expression is indicative of the freedom of life in the desert, and the latter of the suffocating atmosphere and mental slavery of towns and cities.

4:80.

Commentary:

The words, and you had inflicted the double of that, refer to the Battle of Badr, when 70 Meccans were killed and 70 taken captive. At Uhud, 70 Muslims were killed, none being taken prisoner. Thus the Muslims had inflicted a double loss on the Meccans.

The fact that no Muslim was taken prisoner at Uhud demonstrates their high sense of honour. They preferred death to dishonour. They would die fighting rather than lay down their arms. Some of them were found killed on the battlefield with as many as eighty wounds on their bodies. How could such men allow themselves to be taken prisoner by the enemy? It is most significant that in all the different battles that were fought by Muslims till the time of ‘Uthman—and they were many and hundreds of thousands of men took part in them—the number of Muslim prisoners did not exceed a few hundred.

The expression, It is from your own selves, seems to contradict the succeeding verse where it is said, And that which befell you on the day when two parties met was by Allah’s command, and also 4:79, 80 where it is said: And if some good befalls them, they say, ‘this is from Allah’ and if evil befall them, they say, ‘this is from thee’. Say, All is from Allah. What has happened to these people that they come not near understanding anything? Whatever of good comes to thee is from Allah, and whatever of evil befalls thee is from thyself. On deeper reflection, however, no conflict or contradiction is found to exist for the different statements, apparently contradictory, have been made from different viewpoints. As for the real cause of man’s actions, both the good and evil actions are said to emanate from him, because he is their doer; but as it is God Who, as the final Judge, brings about the results of man’s actions, whether good or bad, they can equally be said to proceed from Him. In this sense, both the good and evil results of man’s actions would be attributed to God. Again, as God has created all things for our good and it is through their misuse that we suffer, therefore the evil that befalls us can legitimately be said to proceed from our ownselves. But when that evil is removed by the right use of the things provided by God and good results ensues, then that good must be attributed to God, for it is He Who had endowed things with the properties by the right use of which we benefit. In this sense, good results will be attributed to God and evil ones to man. Thus all the three assertions, though apparently contradicting one another, prove to be true.

5:33; 14:10; 40:84.

Commentary:

The enemies of truth never admit their defeat. They continue to seek new pretexts for refusing to believe in it. When the Jews were told that they had opposed the Prophets of God through covetousness (3:181-182), they retorted by saying that they did not oppose Muslims through covetousness but because, animals unlike them, the Muslims devoured even that which they offered as sacrifices, instead of burning them at the altar according to the Jewish Law (Lev. 1:11-17). Thus, it was not they but the Muslims who were greedy and covetous and they could not, therefore, consistently with the Law of Moses, accept the Prophet who did not observe that Law.

The Quran answers this objection by saying that the observance of the law about burnt offerings was no criterion to test the truth of a Prophet, because that could easily be done by an impostor. It was البینات (clear signs) only that demonstrated and established the truth of a claimant. But even if observance of burnt offerings was the criterion of a true Prophet, the Jews had no right to raise an objection; for in that case the question arose, why did they reject those Prophets who strictly conformed to that law? The fact that the Jewish demand referred to in the words, that which you speak of, has been mentioned in the verse separately from clear signs, shows that what the Jews spoke of was not a miracle, but that they were only referring to the law about burnt offerings, and not to the miracle of fire descending from heaven to consume a sacrifice, as is generally but wrongly believed.

2:286.

Commentary:

It is Muslims, and not the People of the Book, that are addressed here. As, however, no special covenant is known to have ever been made with Muslims, the "covenant" mentioned here must be taken to refer to the process of بیعة (oath of allegiance) taken from every new convert to Islam; or the word may refer to the law revealed in the Quran and accepted by Muslims. The words, We hear and we obey, obviously refer to the acceptance of Islam by the Faithful.

The words, Allah knows well what is in the minds, have been added to point out that mere lip-profession is not acceptable to God. He who would accept Islam should accept it from the depths of his heart and willingly act up to its teachings. The words thus incidentally provide a strong refutation of the charge so wrongfully brought against Islam that it sanctions conversion at the point of the sword. The sword can only govern the tongue but not the heart.

4:11; 17:35.

17:36; 26:182-183; 55:10.

2:287; 7:43.

5:2; 16:92; 17:35.

Commentary:

Next to the injunction to protect the lives of our brethren (see preceding verse) comes the injunction to protect their property. Of those the Quran takes first those who cannot take care of their own property, viz. orphans. The verse says:And approach not the property of the orphan, except in a way which is best. In these words we are bidden to take due care of the property of those whose parents are dead and who are too young to take care of their property. We are to act as trustees for their property and we are strongly forbidden to misappropriate it. The injunction not to "approach" the property, however, does not mean that we should not even make such use of their property as may be to the advantage of the orphans themselves, e.g. investing it in some profitable business which may bring gain to our wards. The Quran allows such profitable investment by saying, except in a way which is best. Again by using the words, till he attains his maturity, the Quran reminds us that we are to be the custodians of the property of orphans not for a month or a year, but until the time when they are old enough to take charge of it and look after their own affairs.

Next to orphans come those of our brethren who, though able to take care of their property, may sometimes become the dupes of others. So the next injunction is of general application and is to the effect: And give full measure and weight with equity. In these words we are bidden not to cheat or defraud others of their property in any way, even if the other party is not intelligent or watchful enough to look after his or her interests.

After the injunctions pertaining to the protecting of property, comes the injunction to guard our tongues. Says the Quran: And when you speak, observe justice even if a relation be concerned. This signifies that when we are called upon to bear witness, we should speak the truth, even if our testimony may prove harmful to one near and dear to us. On the other hand, we should not unjustly harm our relations either. We must be true to them also, for they too are our brethren and come under the general injunction.

After the injunction to guard the tongue comes the injunction to guard the heart. Says the verse, and fulfil the covenant of Allah. Obviously this injunction pertains to the heart, for whereas the previous injunctions pertained to the covenant with men, the present one relates to the covenant with God.

It should also be noted that the injunctions contained in 6:152 pertained to outward evils, hence they were followed by the words, that you may understand, i.e. if you will act upon these injunctions, your power of understanding will be strengthened. But the injunction contained in the latter portion of the present verse pertains to the heart; it has, therefore, been aptly followed by the words, that you may remember.

Commentary:

The verse purports to say that Prophets have been coming in the world from time immemorial but men are so constituted that whenever a Prophet came they rejected and opposed him and when he died they said that no more Prophets would come and that the door of revelation was shut forever. This attitude of disbelievers has led to the rejection of every Prophet.

15:86; 18:22; 20:16; 22:8.

Commentary:

This verse further makes it clear that the "Hour" mentioned in this and the preceding verse refers also to the hour of the complete defeat and discomfiture of disbelievers in this life.