وَاَنَا۠

5:13.

Important Words:

میثاق النبیین (covenant from the people through the Prophets) literally means, Covenant of the Prophets. According to Arabic usage, the expression اخذ الله میثاق النبیین (lit. Allah took the covenant of the Prophets) may refer either to a covenant which the Prophets of God entered into with Him, or to a covenant which God took from the people through their Prophets. In this verse, the words are used in the latter sense, which is supported by another reading of میثاق النبیین as reported by Ubayy bin Ka‘b and ‘Abdullah bin Mas‘ud, i.e. میثاق الذین اوتوا الکتاب meaning, the covenant of those who were given the Book (Muhit). This rendering is supported by the words that follow, i.e. and then there comes to you a Messenger fulfilling what is with you, because it was to the people and not to their Prophets that the Messenger of God came. The meaning given above gains further support from the fact that as other Prophets were dead at the time of the Holy Prophet, they could naturally render him no help and there was thus no sense in taking any covenant from them to this effect.

Commentary:

This verse is considered to apply to other Prophets in general and to the Holy Prophet in particular. Both applications are correct. The verse lays down a general rule. The advent of every Prophet takes place in fulfilment of certain prophecies made by a previous Prophet in which he enjoins his followers to accept the next Prophet when he makes his appearance. If the Prophet comes in fulfilment of the prophecies con-tained in the scriptures of one people only, as was the case with Jesus and other Israelite Prophets, then only that people are bound to accept and help him; but if the scriptures of all religions predict the coming of a Prophet, as in the case of the Holy Prophet, then all nations are bound to accept him.

The Holy Prophet appeared in fulfilment of the prophecies not only of the Israelite Prophets (Isa. 21:13-15. Deut. 18:18; 33:2. John 14:25, 26; 16:7-13) but also of the Aryan seers and Buddhist and Zoroastrian sages. We have the following prophecy in Dasatir, the sacred Scripture of the Parsis: "When the people of Iran will begin to do such, (i.e.evil) deeds, there shall appear from among the Arabs a man whose followers shall abolish the crown, the throne, the kingdom, and the religion of Iran. The headstrong shall become humble and a house without idols shall take the place of idol-houses and fire-temples, and to it shall they turn their faces in worship" (Safrang Dasatir, p. 188, Siraji Press, Delhi). The words are too clear to need comment. A similar prophecy is found in Jamaspi, a work of Jamaspi, the first successor of Zoroaster (Jamaspi, published by Nizamul-Masha’ikh, Delhi, 1330 A.H.).

The word مصدقا (fulfilling; for the meaning of which see 3:42) has been used here to denote the criterion by which a true claimant to prophethood is distinguished from a false one. But if the word is taken in the sense of "verifying or confirming or declaring to be true" as is sometimes done, this verification or confirmation can be no test of knowing a true Prophet from an impostor, for even an impostor can declare the previous scriptures to be true. The word has, therefore, been rightly translated here as "fulfilling" for it is only by "fulfilling" in his person the prophecies contained in the previous scriptures that a claimant can prove his truth, it being beyond the power of an impostor to fulfil the previous prophecies in his person.

2:254; 4:165.

Important Words:

تجلی (manifested Himself) is derived from جلا . They say جلاالامر i.e. the affair was or became clear, manifest, displayed, uncovered or laid open. تجلی الشیء i.e. the thing became manifest or apparent. تجلی الشیء used transitively means, he looked at the thing standing upon a higher position. The Quranic expression فلماتجلی ربه للجبل means, when his Lord became manifest to the mountain, i.e. when He manifested Himself on the mountain (Lane & Aqrab).

دکا (pieces) is the noun-infinitive from دك i.e. he broke or crushed or pounded a thing. They say دك الارض i.e. he made even the elevations and depressions of the earth. دکته الحمی means, fever weakened him. دك , therefore, means, an even or level place; a land broken and made even; a crumbled mountain; a mound or hill or dust or earth such as is a sandhill. The Quranic words جعله دکا means, He made it even or level; or He made it crumbled (Lane).

Commentary:

This verse sheds light on one of the most important religious subjects—whether it is possible for one to see God with the physical eyes. The verse lends no support to the view that God is visible to the physical eyes. Let alone seeing Him, the human eye cannot even see angels. Says the Quran: If God had appointed as Messenger an angel, He would have made him appear as a man (6:10). As we cannot see angels but only a manifestation of them, similarly we can see only a manifestation of God, and not God Himself. It is, therefore, inconceivable that a great Prophet of God like Moses with all his knowledge of the attributes of God, should have desired an impossibility. Moses knew that he could see only a manifestation of God and not God Himself. But he had already seen a manifestation of God in "the fire" when travelling from Midian to Egypt (28:30). What then did Moses mean by his request to see God, contained in the words, My Lord, show Thyself to me that I may look at Thee? The request seems to refer to the Perfect manifestation of God that was not granted to Moses but was to take place at the time of the Holy Prophet of Islam who was to be a مثیل or like of Moses. Indeed, Moses had already been given the promise that there was to appear, from among the brethren of the Israelites, a Prophet in whose mouth God was to put His word (Deut. 18:18-22). The words in which the promise was given implied a greater manifestation of God than had been vouchsafed to Moses. So Moses was naturally anxious to see what sort of God’s Glory and Majesty the promised Manifestation would be. He, therefore, wished that something of that Glory and Majesty might be shown to him. But a manifestation of that Glory was beyond the capacity of Moses to bear; it could not take place in or upon his heart. He was, therefore, asked to see a manifestation of it taking place at the Mount. But this should not be understood to mean that the Mount was to serve as a receptacle for the Great Glory: for, according to the Quran (33:73), the heart of Moses was certainly more capable of enduring it than the Mount. The Mount thus served only as the site or locality where that great manifestation was to take place. But even this proved too much for the Mount which shook violently.

The effect on the Mount was similar in nature to that produced on a Companion of the Holy Prophet when the latter’s head happened to be resting on his thigh at a time when a revelation descended on the Prophet. He felt such a heavy weight on his thigh that he feared that it would be crushed under it. Moses, too, could not bear to see the manifestation of Divine Power and Majesty and fell down unconscious, in spite of the fact that he had been warned beforehand of the terrible quaking that was to overtake the Mount. Thus it was that Moses realised that he did not possess the capacity for that powerful manifestation of Divine glory which was to take place later through the Holy Prophet of Islam. This is why when he recovered his senses, Moses cried, Holy art Thou, I turn towards Thee, and I am the first to believe. These words meant that he had realized that he did not possess the capacity for that perfect manifestation of Divine glory which was to take place through the Promised Prophet and that he was the first believer in the great spiritual eminence which that Prophet was destined to attain. This belief of Moses in the Holy Prophet has also been referred to in 46:11.

The words, He broke it into pieces, should not be taken literally, for the Mount was not actually broken into pieces. The words are used figuratively to express the great severity of the earthquake.

It may be also noted here that Moses was told to look at the mountain, and he was also told that he would see God if it remained in its place. The laying down of this condition shows that Moses had not asked for an impossible thing; for the laying down of a condition for an impossible thing is evidently meaningless.

The words, look at the mountain, implied that he should look outside himself because the manifestations could not take place within him. The fact that Moses fell down in a swoon shows that he did witness some manifestation, though only partly and imperfectly. The manifestation that takes place in the heart is permanent and lasting, while that which takes place outside is only temporary and passing.

A reference to this request of Moses to see God is to be found in Exod. 33:18.

6:15; 39:12-13.

Commentary:

Not only were all the energies of the Holy Prophet devoted to God, but he believed in no other deity, and his eyes were shut to every thing but his Lord and Maker to Whom alone he submitted. The Holy Prophet was indeed the First Muslim.

7:63, 80; 46:24.

Commentary:

This verse contains the answer to the charge of lying brought against Hud in 7:67 above. A person resorts to lying either because (1) he seeks thereby to gain some advantage, or (2) to do another person some harm or (3) because lying is a habit with him. Now Hud refutes the charge by saying, I am to you a sincere and faithful counsellor, i.e. being sincere I have no selfish motive, nor do I wish evil to anyone; on the contrary, I am solicitous of doing you good; and being faithful, i.e. possessing faith, I am not in the habit of lying.

2:140; 109:7.

Commentary:

This verse throws interesting light on the catholicity and broad-mindedness of Islam. Disbelievers are told here that if they prefer to reject the Holy Prophet, they are at perfect liberty to do so. In fact, whenever there exists a difference of views between two parties, each party has the right to show the other to be in error. But this difference should not be allowed to go further, and one party should not compel the other party to accept its views.

The verse declares that when it is well known that believers and disbelievers are two distinct and separate parties and there is no likelihood of the one being mistaken for the other, and when their ways of working are also different, then there is no reason why compulsion should be resorted to. Compulsion may only be exercised when the conduct of one party is likely to bring discredit to the other party. But, situated as they are, the works of a Prophet and of his followers bring no discredit to disbelievers, nor do the actions of disbelievers bring any discredit to believers. Therefore, there is no justification for either of the two classes to bring compulsion to bear on the other.

The verse is also capable of another interpretation. It may mean that the works of the Holy Prophet are quite distinct from those of the disbelievers and there is no similarity between the two. This being so, the result would show whose works are right and whose wrong. When there is similarity between the works of two parties, it is difficult to determine definitely the cause of the progress or degeneration, as the case may be, of one party or the other. But when there exists absolutely no similarity between the works of two parties, everybody is in a position to fix responsibility for the result.

7:139; 20:78.

20:79; 26:61; 44:25.

Commentary:

The verse throws interesting light on an important political question. Islam enjoins Muslims to obey their rulers. If, however, the latter deny to them religious freedom and resort to compulsion in matters of faith, Muslims are enjoined to migrate from their country rather than offer resistance to the established authority. But what should they do if the authorities do not even permit them to migrate and force them to remain in the country and suffer persecution? The verse under comment supplies an answer to this question by saying that Pharaoh pursued the Israelites "wrongfully and aggressively," which means that in preventing the Israelites from migrating Pharaoh was doing a thing to which he had absolutely no right. Thus if rulers prevent an oppressed subject people from peacefully leaving a country, the latter would be justified in resisting and opposing them by all legitimate means and in that case defiance of the authority will not be held as a breach of the law or an act of rebellion. Just as nobody is allowed to defy and break the law of the land in which he lives, similarly no Government has a right to compel any person to live under it while denying him freedom of religion and conscience.

The words, He in Whom the children of Israel believe, spoken by Pharaoh at the time of his drowning, show the utterly abject state of his mind at that time. If he had said that he believed in the God of Moses, he might be considered to have had some sense of dignity left in him because, having been brought up in the royal household and being the leader of his people, Moses was entitled to respect even from worldly considerations; but to say that he believed in Him in Whom the children of Israel believed—the very children of Israel whom it was his pride to trample under foot—bespeaks the great depth of abasement to which the proud Pharaoh had fallen.

46:9.

Commentary:

The words, Say, If I have forged it, on me be my sin, refer to Noah and not to the Holy Prophet, and mean that God commanded Noah to tell his people that if in what he had said to them he had forged a lie against God, he would certainly be punished for it, so they need not worry about it. But if he was speaking the truth and was a true Messenger of God, then they had committed a great sin by rejecting him and would surely be called to account.

By saying, I am clear of the sins you commit, Noah clears himself of the charge of imposture in another way also. He points to his previous spotless life as proof of his truthfulness, for if he was free from the various sins in which his people were involved, he could not be expected to be so depraved as to forge lies against God, which was the most heinous of all sins.

51:30.

Important Words:

عجوز (old woman) is derived from عجز which means, he lacked strength or power or ability. عجز عن العمل means, he was unable to do the work; he was too old to do it. عجزت المرأة means, the woman became old. The word عجوز has a variety of meanings, some of which are, an old and aged woman; a woman old and weak; a man’s wife whether old or young; also a woman’s husband; an old or aged man; a man old and weak (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The verse does not mean that the expression of surprise on the part of Abraham’s wife implied that she doubted the truth of the news that had been communicated to her by God. It is far from an ordinary believing woman to express doubt with regard to the great and wonderful powers of God, much further from the wife of a Prophet who had already witnessed many signs of the power of God. In fact, she wondered at the unusual news that a son would be born to her at such an advanced age. Her surprise was, therefore, at the magnitude of the boon that was about to be conferred on her. Abraham himself had expressed similar surprise when the glad tidings about the birth of a son in his extreme old age was given to him (see 15:55-57).

Important Words:

جھزھم (he provided them) and جھازھم (their provision) are both derived from جھز which means, he fitted out, equipped, furnished or supplied (a bride, a traveller, a corps or an army) with requisites. جھاز means, requisites or equipment, etc. It also means, excellent goods that are conveyed to another (Lane).

کیل (measure) is derived from کال. They say کال له الطعام or کاله الطعام i.e. he measured out the food to him. اکتال علیه الطعام means, he measured for himself the food from him. This is why the Arabs say کال المعطی و اکتال الآخذ i.e. for the giver the word used is کال and for him who receives the word used is اکتال . کیل means, a measure with which corn etc., is measured, whether of wood or iron. Sometimes the word کیل is used in the sense of weighing also, as they say کال الدراھم i.e. he weighed the dirhams (Aqrab & Taj).

Commentary:

According to the Bible, Joseph said to his brethren, "And bring your youngest brother unto me; then shall I know that ye are no spies" (Gen. 42:34). This shows that Joseph declared his brothers to be spies and threatened to take action against them. The Quran, on the other hand, represents Joseph as showing kindness to them. It is possible that, from the way in which Joseph put so many searching questions to his brothers regarding their family and parents, they might have themselves thought that he had taken them for spies. Otherwise, a Prophet of God such as Joseph could not condemn them as spies, when he knew they were his brothers. Such a statement on his part would have amounted to a lie. The Bible seems only to have reported what Joseph’s brothers thought and has not described the facts as they actually happened. Joseph could not possibly accuse his brothers of espionage simply because they failed to bring Benjamin with them.

Commentary:

The verse points to the supreme truth that Divine Messengers, when they talk about God, speak from personal experience. They do not merely make an assertion about God but substantiate it with practical proofs from their own life. They do not invite people to God merely because human reason demands belief in His existence but they do it with full conviction and firm faith. When they say that God exists they say it with full conviction because they constantly hear His sweet voice and because also they themselves speak to Him and receive answer to their prayers from Him. God reveals Himself to them and they witness practical proofs of His power and omniscience in their own persons. So their testimony about the existence of God is based not on hearsay, nor on reason alone but primarily and principally on their personal experience. It is for this reason that God has commanded the Holy Prophet to declare:

"I call unto Allah on sure knowledge, I and those who follow me" (12:109).

3:119; 4:145; 5:58.

17:77.

Commentary:

The prohibitory injunction contained in the verse is of a very strict character. Muslims are not to have friendly relations with the avowed enemies of God—those who drove out the Prophet and the Muslims from their hearths and homes and sought to destroy Islam. The prohibition is all-comprehensive in this respect that no consideration of bonds or ties of even the nearest blood relationships is allowed to interfere with it. The enemy of Islam is God’s enemy, whosoever he may be.

The immediate occasion of the revelation of the verse under comment was that when the Quraish did not honour the Treaty of Hudaibiyyah, and the Holy Prophet had to take stern punitive action against them, Hatib bin Abi Balta‘h had written a secret letter to the Meccans informing them of the Holy Prophet’s intended march on Mecca. The Prophet, informed by revelation about it sent ‘Ali, Zubair and Miqdad, in search of the bearer of the letter. They overtook the messenger—she was a woman—on the way to Mecca and the letter was brought back to Medina. Hatib’s offence was extremely grave. He had sought to divulge an important State secret. He deserved exemplary punishment. Incidentally, the episode of the letter fixes the date of revelation of the Surah.