لَهُمُ

3:101, 150; 4:90.

a5:14.

b5:53; 16:34.

Important Words:

فاعفوا (forgive) is derived from عفا. They say عفا عنه or عفا له or عفا ذنبه or عفا عن ذنبه meaning, he forgave and pardoned him and did not resort to punishment; he connived at his fault or offence. عفا الله عنه means, God obliterated the traces of his sin. عفا عن الشیء means, he withheld or restrained himself from it (Aqrab).

اصفحوا (turn away) is derived from صفح. They say صفح عنه meaning, he turned his face from it, he avoided it and left it alone; he pardoned him his sin. الصفح means, the side of a thing; or the side of a face, i.e. the cheek, etc. (Aqrab).

امر (decree). The verb امر means, he commanded or he enjoined or he asked. So امر means, a command; an order; a decree; a judgement; an affair; a thing; a condition or state; an event. امرالله means, the promised or the decreed punishment of God (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

By manifold devices, some of which have been referred to above, the Jews wished to lead the Muslims astray, and their designs had their basis in jealousy. Muslims are exhorted not to quarrel with them but to wait patiently in a spirit of forbearance, till God Himself should finally decide the matter.

As explained under Important Words above, there is a subtle distinction between the meanings of عفو (forgive) and صفح(turn away). Whereas the former means, abstaining from punishment, the latter signifies, turning one’s face away or leaving a thing alone. By using the words together, God exhorts Muslims not only to forgive the Jews and refrain from punishing them for their overt hostile acts and covert machinations, but to leave them alone and remain aloof from them till God Himself opened out a way for them, which He eventually did, as soon afterwards the Jews themselves declared war against the Muslims.

It is wrong to think that the words, till Allah brings His decree, refer to aggressive war. It is God’s general decree or judgement that is meant here, as may be inferred from the words that follow, viz. surely, Allah has the power to do all that He wills. Some of the Jews embraced Islam and the rest perished as a result of divine punishment.

The phrase, out of envy from themselves, means that the Holy Prophet had done nothing to excite their jealousy, but that it was their own evil nature that had given rise to it. The disease of حسد (jealousy) originated in their own hearts and had no infection from outside.

5:105; 10:79; 21:53, 54; 31:22.

Commentary:

It is indeed strange, but nevertheless a hard fact, that in matters of religion which so deeply concern man, he is often content to follow blindly the footsteps of his forefathers and does not even care to satisfy himself that his forefathers were wise and well-guided people. On the other hand, in worldly matters where only the interests of this life are at stake, and that too partially, he often takes meticulous care to see that he adopts the right course and does not blindly follow others.

5:27.

Commentary:

The commandments relating to conjugal relations were mentioned as an offshoot of the subject of جھاد (holy war) dealt with in 2:217 and the following verses. The Quran now reverts to the original subject and by way of re-introduction cites the example of the Israelites who had left the land of the Pharaohs for fear of death. Trodden under the foot of the tyrant, the children of Israel were then in a most abject condition, and the wise God, in His eternal wisdom, decreed that they should lead a life of ordeals in the wilderness before becoming fit for the great life that awaited them in the Promised Land. The words, Allah said to them: 'Die', point to the great truth that all life must be preceded by death, i.e. great trials and extraordinary sacrifices.

As mentioned above, the clause, those who went forth from their homes, refers to the Israelites who had gone forth from Egypt to escape persecution by Pharaoh. It was the fear of death which had made the Israelites migrate from the land (2:50).

The words, they were thousands, contradict the Bible which represents the number of the Israelites migrating from Egypt as six hundred thousand. Recent researches favour the Quranic view (See History of the People of Israel, p. 145, by Ernest Renan, London, 1888, and History of Palestine and the Jews, i. 174 by John Kitto, London, 1844). See also. 2:55.

The story of the exodus of the Israelites is briefly this. When, being persecuted by Pharaoh, they left Egypt and crossed over to Asia, Moses wanted them to enter the Promised Land, but they were afraid of the people that dwelt there and refused to march ahead, saying Go thou and thy Lord and fight and here we sit (5:25). The result was that they drew upon themselves the wrath of God, Who said to Moses, Verily, it shall be forbidden them for forty years; in distraction shall they wander through the land (5:27). The promise was thus put off for forty years and the children of Israel were left to wander in the wilderness until those who had refused to fight perished in the desert, whereafter the younger generation led by Joshua conquered the land. Thus it was that the people whom God had caused to perish had new life breathed into them. It is with reference to these events that the Quran uses the word "die" in the verse under comment. This very death, i.e. destruction of the rebellious and training of the youth through trials and ordeals, proved the forerunner of life. Elsewhere, the Quran says about the Israelites: Then We raised you up after your death (2:57).

It may also be noted here that from this verse onward, the Quran begins the description of تزکیة or means of national progress spoken of in 2:130, reference to "Signs" and "the Book" and "Wisdom" having already been made.

Important Words:

الوکیل (guardian). وکیل is derived from وکل. They say وکل الیه الامر he left the matter to him and did not interfere in it. کلنی الی کذاmeans, leave thou me to manage this thing as I may deem proper. وکیل means, one to whom the management of an affair is left or consigned; guardian; agent or deputy. الوکیل is one of the names of God meaning, Guardian; One Who watches or looks after the affairs of the Faithful; One sufficing for His servants (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

The reference here is to the false rumours spread by Nu‘aim bin Mas‘ud that the Meccans had made great preparations against the Muslims and were about to attack them. See also the preceding verse.

4:111.

Commentary:

It is sometimes sought to be inferred from the words, We have sent no Messenger but that he should be obeyed by the command of Allah, that though a Prophet is to be always obeyed by the people to whom he preaches his message, yet he himself gives allegiance to no other Prophet nor can he be subject to the Law of any other Prophet. This is evidently a very wrong inference. The simple and straightforward meaning of the words is only this that when God sends a Prophet, He means that those to whom he is sent should obey him. But the fact that a Prophet is the object of other people’s obedience cannot preclude the possibility of his being himself subordinate to, and a follower of another Prophet. A governor is sent to a province to be obeyed but that does not mean that he is not subordinate to the Governor General, if any, or to the king. According to the Quran, Aaron was a subordinate Prophet to Moses. This is why, when Moses went up to the Mount leaving Aaron behind him to look after the Israelites, and the Israelites took to worshipping the calf, Moses severely reprimanded him on his return, saying "Hast thou then disobeyed my command?" (20:94). In this connection see also 5:45.

Commentary:

Whereas the preceding verse spoke of the Prayer in time of fear in the case of individuals, the present one gives the details of the manner of its performance when the Faithful are in the form of a company or group and the Prayer is to be performed in congregation. Apparently the Holy Prophet alone seems to have been addressed here, but really the verse possesses general application. When a Muslim army is about to say their Prayer in congregation, half of them should say the Prayer with the Imam, carrying their arms, and the other half should stand facing the enemy, to fight him or repulse his attack, as the case may be. When the first half have finished one Rak‘at, they should retire to take the place of those who are facing the enemy. The latter should then come forward and say one Rak‘at with the Imam.

As many as eleven different ways in which these Prayers were said on different occasions are described in the Hadith(for details see Al-Bahrul-Muhit). In some cases, each of the two parties said only one Rak‘at of Prayer, while the Imam said two. In other cases, each of the parties said two Rak‘at, one Rak‘at with the Imam and the other alone, thus all saying two Rak‘at. On yet other occasions each of the two parties said two rak‘at of Prayer with the Imam, the Imam himself having said four Rak‘at—two Rak‘at with each party. These different methods were observed in different circumstances. If the danger was great, each of the parties said only one Rak‘at of Prayer with the Imam while the Imam himself said two; but if the danger was not so great, each party said two Rak‘ats while the Imam said four. Again, methods varied with the varying position of the army. If the enemy, for instance, was in front of the Imam, the congregation followed a method different from that which they followed on other occasions.

To sum up, whereas Prayer in a state of simple journey consists of two Rak‘ats in such Prayers as ordinarily consist of four Rak‘ats, the Prayer in time of fear may assume different forms, the more important being:

(a) Splitting up the worshippers into two parties, each party either saying one part of its Prayer with the Imam and then retiring, or saying one part of its Prayer with the Imam and the other part separately, the number of Rak‘ats performed by the worshippers being either one or two as the case may be (the present verse);

(b) Shortening the duration of Prayers only (the preceding verse);

(c) Doing away with all form and repeating the words of Prayer while walking, running or riding (2:240).

The verse observes a difference between: اسلحة (arms) and حذر (means of defence or simply precautions). Whereas the former may be put aside in moments of comparative security, the latter should always be adhered to and never neglected. See also 4:72.

2:64, 94.

2:59; 7:162.

2:66; 4:48; 7:164; 16:125.

Commentary:

See and compare 2:59, 64, 66 & 4:48.

21:9.

Important Words:

یؤفکون (they are turned away) is derived from افك (afaka). They say افکه i.e. he changed his or its state or condition or manner of being; he turned him or it away or back from a thing; he turned him away or back by lying; he changed or perverted his judgement or opinion; or he deceived or beguiled him. They say افك الرجل عن الخیر i.e. the man was turned away or turned back from good by deceit or guile. افك (afaka) or افك (affaka) also means, he told a lie or uttered a falsehood which, in essence, is the same as changing the state of a thing (Lane).

Commentary:

The verse advances a number of arguments against the alleged divinity of Jesus. Firstly, it points out that Jesus was no better than other Messengers of God in any way. He enjoyed no higher status. He showed no miracles the like of which were not shown by other Prophets. In fact, the greatest miracle ascribed to him by his followers is that of the alleged raising of the dead. But the Bible ascribes similar miracles to other Prophets also (see 2 Kings 4:16-35; 13:21).

The second argument mentioned by the verse against his alleged divinity is that he was born of a woman. Being born of a human being, he could not be divine. Moreover, a child is known to inherit some of the prominent traits of the physical and moral make-up of its parent. Jesus, being born of a woman must have inherited her nature and her qualities and so he could not be God.

Again, being human, he was, like other human beings, subject to the natural laws of hunger and of satisfying it by taking food and he was subject also to the natural phenomena that ensue.

By describing the mother of Jesus as "a truthful woman", the Quran has incidentally refuted the Jewish allegations concerning the birth of Jesus.

2:75; 57:17.

6:123; 8:49; 16:64; 29:39.

Commentary:

The words لولا (why not) are here used not to express mere interrogation, but also to express feelings of pity. Thus the verse signifies, "They ought to have humbled themselves before God; but it is a pity that they did not."

The afflictions were really a mercy from God, but, instead of turning to God, the people became hard-hearted. When misfortunes befell them, they ascribed them not to their own iniquities but to the Prophets.

The words, all that they did, refer to the hostile activities of disbelievers.

31:14.

29:49; 42:53; 62:3.

48:30.

See 3:105.

Important Words:

امی (Immaculate One) is derived from ام. They say امه i.e. he repaired to it; or he aimed at or sought after it; or he endeavoured to get it. ماکنت اما ولقد اممت means, thou wast not a mother, but thou hast come to be sought like a mother. امیmeans, belonging to or pertaining to the mother, i.e. as innocent as a child at the breast of its mother. The word also means, one not having a revealed Scripture, parti-cularly an Arab; one who does not know the art of reading or writing; one belonging to Mecca which was known as ام القری i.e. the mother of towns. See also 3:21.

اغلال (shackles) is the plural of غل (ghullun) which is derived from غل (ghalla). They say غل فلانا i.e. he put upon the neck or the hand of such a one a collar or a manacle, etc. غل, therefore, means, a ring or collar of iron put upon the neck; a shackle for the neck or the hand; a pinion or manacle for the hand; a shackle of iron collecting together the two hands to the neck; a difficult and fatiguing work. The Arabs say ھذاغل فی عنقك i.e. this is tied to your neck, meaning, it is inseparable from you and the punishment of it will stick to you (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse qualifies and explains the last sentence of the previous verse, viz. those who believe in Our Signs.

The verse puts the words "Messenger" and "Prophet" side by side which may lead some to think that one may be a Messenger without being a Prophet or vice versa. But this is not so. A رسول (Messenger) of God is also a نبی (Prophet) of God. The former epithet is applied to him in his relation to God from Whom he brings a message, while the latter is applied to him in his relation to men to whom he conveys that message, the word نبی (Prophet) meaning, one who prophesies, or makes known hidden secrets.

The word امی (Ummi) literally means "belonging to the mother", i.e. as innocent as a newborn child. The Promised Prophet, who is none other than the Holy Prophet of Islam, has been called امی because he was to be innocent like a child at the breast of its mother. The word has also been translated as "illiterate" or "one belonging to Mecca" or "an Arab", but "innocent" or "immaculate" is a preferable rendering, inasmuch as it is in keeping with the sense of the prophecy contained in Deut. 18:18-22 to which this verse particularly refers and wherein truthfulness has been mentioned as a distinctive feature of the Promised Prophet. For some of the prophecies of the Bible about the Holy Prophet see under 2:42 and also Matt. 23:39; John 14:16, 26; 16:7-14; Acts 3:21-24.

If the word امی be taken in the sense of "unlettered", the verse would signify that although the Prophet had received no education whatever and was quite unread and illiterate, yet God vouchsafed to him such knowledge as can impart light and guidance even to those who are considered to be most advanced in learning and enlightenment.

The illiteracy (امیة) of the Holy Prophet, mentioned in this verse and believed to have also been hinted at in 10:17, has been subjected to much hostile criticism. George Sale, a well-known Christian commentator of the Quran, writes as follows: "For so old was Muhammad before he took upon him to be a Prophet, during which time his fellow-citizens well knew that he had not applied himself to learning of any sort, nor frequented learned men, nor had ever exercised himself in composing verses or orations, whereby he might acquire the art of rhetoric or elegance of speech" (Prelim. Disc, Section II).

Referring to this view of Sale, another Christian commentator of the Quran, the Rev. E. M. Wherry, says:

"This view, however, does not agree with what is recorded of his previous career. Is it likely that he should have been trained in the same household with ‘Ali, who knew both how to read and write, and not have received similar instruction? Could he have conducted an important mercantile business for years without some knowledge of letters? That he could read and write in later years is certain. Tradition tells us, he said to Mu‘awiyah, one of his secretaries: 'Draw the ب straight, divide the س properly', etc., and that in his last moments he called for writing materials. The question arises, when did he acquire this art? The commentators say that God gave him the power, as he did his inspiration, and they quote chap. xcvi. 4, one of the earliest verses of the Quran, in proof. Certainly that verse seems to teach clearly that he could write as well as read, though it by no means teaches that he had not received the knowledge of both beforehand, or that he did not receive it in the ordinary way. His use of amanuenses does not militate against his knowledge of the art of writing, for such use of amanuenses was common in that age, even among the most learned. But still there remains the testimony of many traditions and the almost universal belief of Muhammadans. How account for this? I am inclined to think it originated with a misunderstanding of Muhammad’s repeated claim that he was the "Illiterate Prophet", or rather the "Prophet of the Illiterate", the term "illiterate" being generally applied by the Jews to the Arabs. See notes on chap. v. 85, 86. This misunderstanding turned out to the furtherance of Muhammad’s claims, inasmuch as the miracle of the matchless style of the Quran was enhanced by the consideration that the Prophet was illiterate. On the whole, we think there is very good reason for believing Muhammad to have been acquainted with the art of both reading and writing from an early period in his life" (Commentary of the Quran, ii. 326).

The above constitutes the gist of Wherry’s criticism of the generally accepted view that the Holy Prophet was امی or illiterate. But this contention seems to possess no substance. It is indeed a poor argument to say that because the Prophet "had been trained in the same house with ‘Ali, who knew both how to read and write", therefore he should also have learnt reading and writing. It only betrays ignorance of elementary facts of the Holy Prophet’s life on the part of the reverend gentleman. Even a desultory acquaintance with the life history of the Holy Prophet should make one know that ‘Ali and the Holy Prophet could not be brought up together. There was a great difference between the ages of the two. The Prophet was no less than 29 years older than ‘Ali; therefore, it was impossible for the two to be trained and brought up together.

Those whom prejudice against the Holy Prophet has not blinded to the patent facts of history know that, let alone the Prophet being educated and trained together with ‘Ali, which the great disparity in their ages evidently obviated, it was ‘Ali who got his training in the house and under the fostering care of the Holy Prophet (Hisham). Abu Talib in whose house the Holy Prophet was brought up was a man of very meagre means. He did not know the value of learning and knowledge nor was their possession regarded as an asset and acquisition in his time. The Holy Prophet, therefore, remained illiterate in his house. But ‘Ali was brought up in the house of the Holy Prophet himself, whose marriage with Khadijah, a wealthy lady of great repute, had placed ample means at his disposal. The Prophet also fully realized how priceless a thing good education was. So under his benign care and ennobling influence, ‘Ali, judged by the standards of that time, naturally grew up to be a young man of good education.

Wherry’s second objection is that if the Holy Prophet had been illiterate and did not know how to read and write, he could not have proved such a successful business man as he actually was. This objection is born of the mistaken concept of a good and successful Arab business man of the Prophet’s time. Judging by the present European standards of a successful business man, Wherry thought that lack of education and success in business could not go together. He would not have made this objection if he had known that in Asia even in the present twentieth century, highly successful business men are to be found who have not received even elementary education. In Mecca, in the Holy Prophet’s time, education was not much in favour. There were very few persons there who could read and write, though hundreds carried on most successful and flourishing business. Education was not at that time regarded in Arabia as the sine qua non of a good business man. Moreover, the fact that Khadijah had given the Prophet, a slave named Maisara who knew reading and writing and who always accompanied him on his trade journeys, knocks the bottom out of Wherry’s objection.

The tradition which says that the Holy Prophet had once asked Mu‘awiyah to write correctly the letters ب and س does not seem to be quite reliable. In the ‘Abbasid period many traditions derogatory to the Umayyads were forged. This tradition seeks to show off Mu‘awiyah, a prominent member of the distinguished House of Umayyah, as a man of very poor education who could not even write properly such simple letters as ب and س. Even, however, if this tradition be proved to be reliable, it does not show that the Holy Prophet was literate, because he had become so used to dictating the Quran that it was not impossible for him to have become familiar with the general form of letters and to give instruction regarding an improperly written word. It is also possible that someone, while rehearsing some portion of the Quran to the Prophet, might have stopped at a certain place, not being able to decipher the writing, and the Holy Prophet having asked the cause of stopping, the reader might have replied that the delay was due to the letters ب and سnot having been written properly or legibly. This might have led the Holy Prophet to instruct Mu‘awiyah to see that the letters were written correctly.

The fact that the Holy Prophet sent for pen and paper in the last moments of his life also lends no support to Wherry’s assumption. It is an established fact of history that whenever any verse was revealed, the Holy Prophet used to send for pen and paper and dictate to one of his scribes what had been revealed to him. The mere sending for pen and paper cannot, therefore, prove that the Holy Prophet himself knew how to read and write.

Nor do the words, referred to by Wherry in support of his contention viz. "read in the name of thy Lord", prove anything. The Arabic word اقرء (read) used in the verse referred to above not only means the reading of a written thing, but also repeating and rehearsing what one hears from another person. Again, the words ھویحسن القراءة (i.e. he recites well) occurring in a tradition can be spoken of even of a blind man who can recite the Quran properly and well. Moreover, the Hadith establishes the fact that when, at the time of the first revelation, the angel Gabriel said to the Prophet اقرء(read), no writing was actually placed before him to read. He was simply asked to repeat orally what the angel was reciting to him. The word قراءة not only means to read a writing but to repeat orally or recite or rehearse what another man has uttered.

Wherry’s inference that the idea that the Holy Prophet could not read or write originated with a misunderstanding of his repeated claim that he was the "Illiterate Prophet", is as strange as it is ill-based. It is really very surprising to say that those with whom he had lived day and night for years could not find out that he was illiterate but were misled into this belief only by his own repeated claim that he was امی (illiterate). Only a man of Wherry’s hostile attitude could come to such a conclusion. The question is whether it was the Prophet’s own contempor-aries who suffered from this misunderstanding or those who came afterwards. If it were the former, then the question would naturally arise how those, who saw him daily with their own eyes reading and writing, could possibly fall victims to the glaring misunderstanding that he was illiterate. If it were the latter class, even then the whole theory of misunderstanding advanced by Wherry looks frivolous, because the argument put forward by him is that because the Holy Prophet was considered to be illiterate, therefore, the matchless style of the Quran was regarded as a miracle. This inference is both foolish and flimsy, inasmuch as Muslims and other contemporaries of the Prophet, who were fully aware that he knew quite well how to read and write, could never believe in such a miracle.

Wherry’s last argument in support of his contention, that "his (the Holy Prophet’s) use of amanuenses does not militate against his knowledge of the art of writing, for such use of amanuenses was common in that age, even among the most learned," betrays his ignorance of Arab and Islamic history. The fact is that there were no ulema or learned men among the Arabs in the time of the Holy Prophet in the sense in which this word is understood now, nor were they used to keeping amanuenses and scribes. There is no instance on record of an amanuensis having been kept by an Arab. We know of only one learned man among the Meccans in the Prophet’s time, viz. Waraqah bin Naufal, and he was his own secretary. It is a pity that in their zeal for misrepresenting Islam, some Christian writers do not even hesitate to invent historical facts.

The words, and remove from them their burden and shackles, occurring in the latter part of the verse, contain a hint that by accepting the Promised Prophet Christians will get rid of the curse of the original sin of Adam and Eve and of the punishment thereof which, according to them, has dogged their footsteps through no fault of theirs.

2:59.

Commentary:

See note on 2:59.

6:44; 16:64; 27:25; 29:49.

14:23; 59:17.

Important Words:

جار (protector) is derived from جار which means, he declined or deviated. جاورہ means, he became his neighbour, or he lived in his neighbourhood. جاورہ also means, he bound himself to him by a covenant to protect him. جار means, a neighbour; a person whom one protects; one who seeks protection; also a protector (Lane).

نکص (he turned). نکص عن الامر means, he receded or retired or drew back from the thing or the affair; or he recoiled or shrank from it in fear. نکص علی عقبیه means, he turned back from a thing to which he had applied himself (Lane).

Commentary:

For the meaning of the word "Satan", see 2:15. The word here means, one who misleads or gives evil advice. The person referred to in the verse is reported to be Suraqah bin Malik bin Ju‘sham who incited the Meccans against the Muslims but who afterwards embraced Islam.

The Meccan army was still at Mecca when some of the Quraishite leaders gave expression to the fear that Banu Bakr, a branch of Banu Kananah, who were hostile to the Quraish, might surprise Mecca during their absence or attack the Meccan army from the rear. Their fears were allayed by Suraqah, a chief of Banu Kananah, who assured them that his tribesmen would do them no harm (Jarir, x. 13).

The words, I see what you see not, signify that when Suraqah saw the grim determination of the Muslims, fear took hold of him; for on seeing them he was convinced that the Muslims would win or die. This was exactly what ‘Utbah and ‘Umair also saw and felt when they told the Meccans that the Muslims looked like so many "seekers of death" (Tabari). Suraqah uttered the words, I fear Allah, not because he really feared God at that time but because he wished to find an excuse to flee from the battlefield.

8:75; 9:41, 111; 61:12.

4:75; 61:11-12.

3:196; 61:5.

Commentary:

The words, an unfailing promise that He has made incumbent on Himself in the Torah and the Gospel and the Quran, mean that the Torah, the Gospel and the Quran contain clear promises of divine favour and assistance for those who strive in the cause of God with their persons and property. The promise is general, but was to apply to Muslims alone after Islam had abrogated other religions. These words may also mean that the people of whom God purchased their lives and property in exchange for Heaven, viz. the Companions of the Holy Prophet of Islam, have been spoken of and commended in all the three Books, i.e. not only in the Quran, but in the Torah and the Gospels as well.

41:31.

Commentary:

In reply to a question as to what was meant by the expression, glad tidings in the present life, the Holy Prophet is reported to have said: "It means a true dream or vision that a believer sees with regard to himself, or what others see with regard to him." The term بشری or مبشرات (glad tidings) is, however, of general application and may be used with regard to the revelations and visions of the Prophets as well as those of saints and other believers, and the verse under comment refers to both these kinds of visions and revelations (Jarir & Kathir).

The words, there is no changing the words of God, may mean two things: (a) that the granting of بشری (glad tidings) is an eternal law of God, and being eternal, it must prove true in the case of Muslims also; and (b) that this is a special promise meant for Muslims and God has decreed that this promise will never change. This implies that there are certain prophecies which do not belong to the category of the "words of God" as used here, and are liable to be changed, but there are certain others, which belong to the category of the "words of God" and these never fail to be fulfilled.

The expression, that indeed is the supreme triumph, may mean either that the receiving of "glad tidings" is a great achievement, or the fact that the "words of God" do not change is a great secret of success. The verse is capable of bearing both these interpretations. That the receiving of "glad tidings" is really a great triumph is self-evident. As for the immutability of the "words of God," i.e. the laws of nature, one can easily see that the whole working of the universe is based on it. Everything is governed by certain fixed and immutable laws. For example, fire burns and water assuages thirst. If these laws had been subject to change, the whole system of the universe would have gone to pieces. It is, therefore, on the unchangeability of the laws of nature that all progress depends.

26:213.

Commentary:

Those who forge lies against God (see v. 19) can never succeed in their wicked plans but only become involved in the meshes of their own schemes and stratagems.

God cannot be their friend and helper because of their fabricating lies against Him, and as God, the Lord of the universe, is angry with them, their own friends and sympathizers can be of no help to them.

The word یضاعف (will be doubled) being derived from ضعف (for which see 3:131), which means both "the double of a thing" or "an unlimited addition," is used here in both these senses. The punishment of disbelievers will be doubled in the sense that they will be punished both for their own sins and for the sins of those whom they misled. In the second sense, the verse means that their punishment will continue to increase absolutely; for by preaching and disseminating a false teaching they sowed the seeds of evil in the world, and as long as that evil subsists their punishment will continue.

Surprise is expressed in the words, They can neither hear, nor can they see, at those who falsely claim to be Divine Messengers. It is pointed out that although both true and false prophets have passed before them, yet they would not try to see what a miserable end the false prophets came to nor would they listen to the stories of their lives.

2:28.

Commentary:

Some persons sever ties of kinship; others violate the discipline of their community. Some oppose Divine Messengers, while others show lack of fellow-feeling, and yet others forsake God. All these are different forms of cutting asunder what Allah has commanded to be joined. Such people not only cut asunder what Allah has bidden to be joined but go a step further. They act corruptly in the earth viz. they perpetrate acts of injustice, and even oppose and act inimically towards those with whom they are bidden to establish a firm connection.

The words, on them is the curse of God, mean, as they cut off their connection with God, therefore they shall be removed far away from Him. The word لعنة (curse) which denotes removal from the presence of God, has not been used here by way of abuse, but only expresses an actual fact. See also 2:89.

Commentary:

This verse gives the reason why there should be a life after death and a Day of Resurrection. In that life the veil would be lifted from all things and their reality would become manifest. If human life were limited to this world, then the truth of the Prophets and their teachings would ever remain a matter of controversy and the deniers of the Prophets would also forever remain deprived of guidance which is inconsistent with God’s Dignity and Mercy because He has created man to attain His nearness. A life after death is therefore necessary that man may realize the truth in that life which he could not realize in this life.

Elsewhere in the Quran (verse 65 below) the same purpose of creating an infallible faith in the existence of God has been declared to be the object of the advent of Prophets and Divine Books. The fact is that in the present life such matters as pertain to belief can be explained by reason and argument only to those who honestly seek after truth. They cannot be so demonstrated and established as to be beyond doubt. This is possible only in the life after death. But when in the afterlife truth will become quite manifest there will be no merit in accepting it; such acceptance may only be helpful in exciting God’s Mercy.

The clause, "that they were liars", confirms the above interpretation. Realization of the truth on the Day of Resurrection will be so complete that disbelievers will have to admit that they were foolish to deny Resurrection. Indeed, it would be a full and complete realization.

Commentary:

The verse reverts to the subject of the previous verse in a different form and says that disbelievers are foolish to think that they can ever come to a happy end by attributing to God abominable things which they dislike for themselves, and that just as they consigned God to oblivion in this life, so would He abandon them in the next life to burn in the fire of Hell.

6:43; 22:53.

6:44; 8:49.

Commentary:

The verse purports to say that the disbelievers of Mecca like disbelievers of former Prophets have been lulled by Satan into a false sense of security. Like their predecessors and prototypes, they labour under the delusion that they would not have to answer for their wrongdoings. They feel themselves to be secure while a terrible punishment is about to overtake them.

6:158; 12:112; 16:90.

Commentary:

The verse sets forth the existence of differences among the nations of the world as a reason for Divine revelation to be sent down to them because the Divine Word alone can resolve these differences. These differences also constitute a justification for the Quranic revelation. If men could only be convinced that the Quran was the revealed word of God, they would certainly give up their own views in its favour.

The verse also suggests that disbelievers cannot reasonably object to the advent of a new Prophet because a new Prophet comes only when the people cease to observe the teaching of the previous Prophet and deviate from the right path. So their deviation from the right path and their differences justify the appearance of a new Prophet.

The question may be asked, if, for instance, the Jews had remained loyal to the teachings of Moses, would the Holy Prophet not have come? The question is hypothetical. In any case differences and disagreements would have continued to exist in the world and consequently there would have always remained the need for a new Divine Messenger. But God has already provided an answer to the question in the words, "Had there been in the earth angels walking about in peace and quiet, We should have certainly sent down to them from heaven an angel as a Messenger" (17:96) i.e. if all men had become pure and holy like angels, there was no need for any Prophet to come. The word of God would then have descended directly upon every individual. But since angels have never lived on this earth nor has the world ceased to be a place of sin and iniquity, the Prophets also have not ceased to appear to bring about reconciliation between the sinful people and their Compassionate and Merciful Creator.

6:134, 148.

10:12; 35:46.

Important Words:

موئلا (refuge) is derived from وال. They say وال فلانا i.e. he made such a one his refuge. وال الرجل منه means, the man sought refuge from him. وال الیه means, he sought refuge with him or fled to him for refuge or protection. وال الی اللّٰه means, he returned to God. موئلا means, a place of refuge or simply refuge (Aqrab).

Commentary:

God does not destroy a sinful people forthwith. It is against His Law. He first grants them respite and warns them of the impending punishment by raising a Prophet among them who invites them to truth and urges them to give up iniquitous ways. It is only when they persist in transgression that destructive punishment comes upon them and then they can find no refuge from it.

Important Words:

وداً (love) is infinitive-noun from ود (wadda). They say ودہ i.e. he loved him or it. ود (wad), ود (wid) and ود (wud) mean the same thing, viz. (a) deep love and affection; (b) a person loved, an object of love. ودود means, a person who loves much; very loving and affectionate. الودود is one of the Divine attributes meaning, Most Loving towards His servants; also One Who is loved in the hearts of His servants (Aqrab & Taj).

Commentary:

The words سیجعل لھم الرحمان ودا may haveone of the following meanings: (a) God will put His own love in the hearts of the righteous; or (b) God will have deep love for the righteous; (c) God will put deep love for mankind in the hearts of the righteous, or (d) God will create love for the righteous in the hearts of men.

4:96-97; 8:4-5.

Important Words:

جامع (which has brought them together) is derived from جمع which means, he collected; assembled; brought together; it comprised, comprehended or contained. They say جمع امرہ i.e. he arranged or settled his affair. The Arabs say جمع اللّٰه شمله i.e. may God unite his disorganised state of affairs. امر جامع means, an affair that brings people together; or a momentous or important affair on account of which people gather together as though the affair itself gathers them (Lane, Mufradat & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The several preceding verses contained directions for Muslims as how to conduct themselves in affairs of social importance. The present verse, however, deals with affairs of national importance. The Muslims are enjoined that when they are with the Holy Prophet, engaged in transacting a business of national importance, they are not to leave the assembly without his permission. It may also be inferred from this verse that in affairs concerning a whole nation or community, the individual loses his independence of action. He must abide by the decision arrived at by the assembly of Muslims presided over by the Prophet, his Successor or their accepted and elected leader. When a person withdraws himself from such assembly, he, in fact, deprives himself of the opportunity to contribute his share to the good of Islam and Muslims and consequently to that extent he becomes deprived of God’s grace and mercy. The Holy Prophet, therefore, has been told to ask forgiveness of Allah for such an individual for an inadvertent lapse on his part. Islam is very sensitive about the maintenance of a living relationship between an individual Muslim and the central authority of the Muslim community.

8:49; 16:64; 35:9.

Commentary:

The Sabaeans worshipped the sun and the stars, a creed which in all likelihood had been imported into Yemen from Iraq with which the people of Yemen were in close contact by way of the sea and the Persian Gulf. The Sabaeans should not be confounded with Sabians who have been mentioned in 2:63, 5:70 & 22:18 and have been variously described as (1) a star-worshipping people living in Iraq; (2) a people believing in a faith which was a sort of patchwork of Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism; (3) a people who lived near Mosul in Iraq and believed in the Unity of God but possessed no known shari‘ah and (4) a people who lived round about Iraq and professed beliefs in all Divine Prophets.

Important Words:

وصلنا (thoroughly conveyed) is transitive verb from وصل (wasala). They say وصل الی المکان i.e. he came, reached or attained the place. وصل الشیء بالشیء (wassala) means, he joined or connected one thing with the other وصله الیه او أوصله (wassala-hu) means, he conveyed it to him (Aqrab).

Commentary:

In view of the two significations of the word وصل given under "Important Words" the verse may have the following two interpretations: (1) We have joined one revelation with another, which means that God has been sending His Messengers and revelations one after the other. The Quran has also been revealed quite in harmony with this time-honoured Divine practice. It has come after the Torah which had made a prophecy about it (Deut. 18:18) and whose prophecies it has fulfilled and whose basic principles it supports. (2) The Word of God, i.e. the Quran, has been fully conveyed to the Meccans and thoroughly explained to them.

Commentary:

Whereas in the preceding several verses polytheism has been condemned and denounced, the present and the following few verses give the reasons for this denunciation and condemnation. The most effective argument against polytheism is that God is All-Knowing, All-Powerful and is the sole Creator of the whole universe. He depends on no one for help or advice in the control and direction of the affairs of the universe and His wisdom being infallible His choice in all things is unfettered.

The expression تعالی عما یشرکون may mean: (1) He is far above being associated with other persons and things as equal; (2) He is far above those persons or things which the idolaters associate with Him as His equal.