وَيَسْـَٔلُونَكَ

5:91, 92.

Important Words:

الخمر (wine) is the noun-infinitive from خمر. They say خمر الشیء meaning, he veiled or covered up the thing. خمرالشھادة means, he concealed the evidence. خمرالعجین means, he leavened the dough and left it till it became well fermented. خامره means, it became mixed or blended with it; it infected or pervaded it. A veil worn by a woman is called خمار because it screens or covers her face and head. Wine is called خمر because it covers or obscures or infects the intellect or the senses, or because it agitates and excites the brain so as to make it uncontrolled. The word is specific for wine prepared from grapes but is also used generally (Aqrab & Lane).

المیسر (game of hazard) is derived from یسر i.e. he became docile and submissive. یسرت المرأة means, the woman was easily delivered of the child. ایسرالرجل means, the man became well off. یسرفلان means, such a one played a game of hazard or a game of chance, i.e. he gambled. Thus the primary meaning of the word is to get a thing easily and thereby become well off. A game of chance or a game of hazard is called میسر because by means of such games people seek to become rich easily and quickly without undergoing the trouble of earning with work and labour. The word المیسر is used to indicate (1) any game of hazard or game of chance; (2) a game of hazard played by the Arabs with headless arrows; (3) play for stakes and wages (Lisan & Mufradat).

اثم (sin) is the noun-infinitive from اثم meaning, he did what was unlawful. اثم means: (1) that which is unlawful (Aqrab); (2) that which keeps back a person from what is good (Mufradat); (3) punishment of sins and evil actions (Lane).

عفو (spare) is derived from عفا. They say عفا الشیء i.e. the thing became long and abundant. عفو means: (1) what exceeds or remains over and above one’s requirements. (2) the best portion of a thing (Aqrab).

Commentary:

While dealing with the subject of war, the Quran fittingly turns to the subject of wine and gambling which are directly related to war.

It was customary among Arabs in times of war to cast lots in the name of a few wealthy persons, and those in whose name the lots were drawn were bound to feed the army and supply it with wine. This is how the Arabs defrayed the expenses of war. So when Muslims were called upon to take arms, they naturally enquired of the Holy Prophet about the legality of this peculiar way of meeting the expenses of war and about the use of wine also, which was considered essential to produce a state of reckless courage in the fighters so as to make them blind to all consequences. Islam declared both these practices unlawful because their harm was greater than their advantage. The conviction of faith hadinfused into the hearts of believers far greater and nobler courage than the blind daring engendered by drinking. Similarly, the expenses of war were to be met in a fairer and more respectable manner than the casting of lots. The burden must fall on all according to their means and must come through willing and eager contributions by the faithful.

The clause, their sin is greater than their advantage, embodies a very important principle. A thing should not be adopted simply because it contains some advantage nor should a thing be condemned simply because it is harmful in certain respects. On the contrary, both sides should be carefully weighed and a thing should be condemned only if its harm outweighs its advantage. It is in fact a great characteristic of Islam that it never condemns a thing wholesale but frankly and freely admits even the smallest good that may be found in it. Islam prohibits certain things not because it considers them to be devoid of all good, for there is nothing in the world which is wholly bad, but because their evil outweighs their good. This is why, while prohibiting the use of intoxicants and games of chance because of their great harm, Islam has not failed to acknowledge the few advantages they possess.

It is worthy of note that of all religions, Islam alone has forbidden the use of wine. In Hinduism, drinking forms an essential part of certain religious ceremonies. Judaism does not seem to prohibit drinking, because nowhere has the Bible declared it to be unlawful; while according to the New Testament, the very first miracle which Jesus showed was that he turned water into wine for the use of a marriage party (John 2:7-9).

Attempts have been made during the ages by social reformers, and even the help of legislation has been enlisted in some countries, to put an end to wine-drinking. But all such attempts have so far failed. The only experiment on record which met with complete success in this direction was that made in Arabia more than thirteen hundred years ago. A whole people steeped in drinking became absolute teetotallers by the mere declaration by the Prophet that God had forbidden drinking. This constitutes no small testimony to the great hold that Islam had come to possess on the minds of the unlettered and unruly Arabs, and to the wonderful transformation it had brought about in their lives.

From the meaning of the word خمر (wine) as given above under Important Words it should not be understood that Islam prohibits the use of only such quantity of wine as may make one drunk. The Holy Prophet has made it definitely clear that even small doses of such things as may intoxicate one when used in larger doses are unlawful (Tirmidhi).

When the principal means hitherto employed in Arabia for meeting the expenses of war, i.e. by casting lots, was prohibited, the question naturally arose as to how the expenses of war were to be met. Believers, realizing that they would themselves have to meet these expenses, hastened to inquire of the Holy Prophet as to how much they would have to contribute towards the expenses of war. In reply to their query they were told that they should spend عفو i.e. what may be spared after meeting the necessities of life. The word عفو by virtue of its twofold connotation, given under Important Words above, applies to two different classes of persons. Ordinary believers are required to spend what remains after their needs have been met, i.e. what they can spare; and the higher class of believers are expected to go ahead and spend the best portion of their possessions. If, however, the clause be applied collectively to all believers, it would mean, that in times of war, they should retain for themselves only such portion of their possessions as may suffice to meet their bare necessities of life. The balance should be spent in the cause of God. This is what God wanted them to do. Actually, however, some of the Companions spent even more than that. For instance, when the Holy Prophet appealed for funds for the campaign of Tabuk, Abu Bakr brought his entire possessions and laid them at the feet of his Master. When asked how much he had retained for himself and his family and how much he had brought to be spent in Allah’s cause, Abu Bakr replied that he had brought all that he possessed and that nothing remained in his house except the name of Allah (Tirmidhi, ch. on Manaqib & Zurqani).

Finally, a word about the sin or harm of wine and gambling, as mentioned in the verse under comment, appears to be called for. Though Islam was the first to prohibit the use of intoxicants and games of chance, the world now appears to be agreed on condemning these two evils which so deeply affect not only the physical but also the moral and spiritual condition of man. Here are some quotations in which non-Muslim writers have forcefully pointed out the harmful effects of wine:

(1) "Alcoholism is an important factor in the causation of disease; and in all diseases alcoholics are bad patients. In epidemics the mortality among drinkers is excessive; and the general power of resistance to disease, injury, and fatigue is diminished…Alcoholism lessens the chance of life; the English life-insurance companies found that the presumptive length of life of non-drinkers was about twice that of drinkers…The close relationship of alcoholism and crime is well known and the statistics of Baer, Kurella, Gallavardin and Sichart show that from 25 to 85 per cent of all malefactors are drunkards. The rate of suicide varies with the general rate of consumption of alcohol in different countries…

"The evil effects of alcoholism are evident in the drunkard’s posterity…Epilepsy, insanity, idiocy and various forms of physical, mental, and moral degeneracy are very disproportionately prevalent among the offsprings of alcoholics" (Jew. Enc. i. 333-334).

(2) "The effects of consumption of alcohol are almost all due to its action upon the nervous system. Thus the immediate sensation of well-being is due to the flushing of the skin, suppressing temporarily the sense of chill, and to the fact that the sensibility to minor pains and inconveniences becomes blunted; whilst with larger doses the diminution of the power of self-control and sense of personal responsibility gives rise to excitability. In the secondary stage the fineness of the senses (hearing, touch, taste and vision) is affected, and this gives rise to an inability to control bodily movements such as facial expression. In the advanced stage of drunkenness, the intellectual processes of judgement and control are suspended." (Enc. Brit. 14th Edition, i. 540).

(3) "Alcohol is a poison for protoplasm, that is, for the soft plastic material which is the essential constituent of every one of the minute cells that make up living organisms, whether animal or vegetable. Its poisonous effect in very dilute solution is easily shown on lowly organisms…

"The nerve cells of the brain, the most highly organised and delicate of the tissues, very early show the effect of alcohol. Many of the test observers of their own mental processes, such as Helmholtz and Huxley, have expressed themselves strongly as to the harmful effect of minute doses of alcohol on brain work. It would seem that the 'stimulating' effect is really due to the paralysis of the very highest nerve-centres, so that cheerfulness, wit, and recklessness have free play. Large numbers of psychometric experiments under conditions of the greatest accuracy prove that alcohol, in small dietetic doses, exercises a distinctly paralysing effect on the working of the brain. Some mental processes are quickened for a short time, and then a retarding effect shows itself, which is prolonged and much more than cancels the apparent beneficial result…

"There is universal testimony as to the close relationship between excessive drinking and breaches of the moral law and the law of the State. This is a direct consequence of the paralysis of the higher faculties, intellectual and moral, and the resulting free play given to the lower inclinations" (Enc. Rel. Eth, i. 299-301).

As to the harm caused by gambling the following quotation would suffice:

"The vicious tendency of gambling has never been called in question. Lord Beaconsfield spoke of it as 'a vast engine of national demoralization'…In 12 years (1895-6 to 1906-7) there were 156 suicides or attempted suicides in England assigned to this cause, as well as 719 cases of theft or embezzlement and 442 bankruptcies. In view of these facts, it is not surprising that, in all civilized countries, gambling is subjected to definite legislative restraints…It is, as Herbert Spencer says, a kind of action by which pleasure is obtained at the cost of pain to another. The happiness of the winner implies the misery of the loser. This kind of action, therefore, is essentially anti-social; it sears the sympathies, cultivates a hard egoism, and so produces a general deterioration of character. It is a habit intrinsically savage…In an atmosphere of brotherhood no form of gambling could exist…But the immorality of gambling may be argued on higher grounds than a calculation of pleasure.

"(a) Every gambling transaction involves a transfer of property in one shape or another. When the gambler is asked why he stakes his money on a game or a race, his reply is, 'To add an interest to the game'. The interest thus added is, simply stated, the interest of acquisition. If the real object were, as is claimed, merely the sport and the excitement, then men might just as well wager counters, or, for the matter of that, agree to hand over all winnings to public charities. But this is not done. The transfer of property, in one shape or another, is essential to the act. There are only three ways in which property can be legitimately acquired—by gift, by labour, and by exchange. Gambling stands outside all of these.

"(b) Its motive is, however, carefully disguised covetousness. It is an attempt to get property without paying the price for it. It is a violation of the law of equivalents. It is a kind of robbery by mutual agreement; but it is still robbery, just as duelling, which is murder by mutual agreement, is still treated as murder. It is begotten of covetousness; it leads to idleness.

"(c) It is, moreover, an appeal to chance. If in any contest skill comes in, odds are given or handicaps arranged so as to equalize the chances as far as possible. To make chance the arbiter of conduct is to subvert the moral order and stability of life.

"(d) It concentrates attention upon lucre, and thereby withdraws attention from worthier objects of life" (Enc. Rel. Eth. vi. pp. 165-166).

4:128; 89:18; 93:10; 107:3.

Important Words:

الیتامی (orphans) is the plural of یتیم which is derived from یتم meaning he fell short of a thing, feeling weak and tired; he lost his father in childhood. Thus یتیم is one whose father has died and who has not yet attained the age of puberty, which, according to Islamic jurisprudence, is 18 years. The word یتیم is also used about a thing which is without equal (Aqrab & Mufradat).

تخالطوھم (intermix with them) is derived from خلط. They say خلط الشیء بالشیء i.e. he mixed up one thing with the other. خالطهmeans, he mixed or mingled or associated with him; he mixed or joined with him in his affairs; he became co-partner with him. خالط قلبه ھم means, anxiety pervaded his heart (Aqrab & Lane).

اعنتکم (put you to hardship) is derived from عنت which means, he fell into difficulty or hardship. اعنته means, he put him to hardship; he burdened him with a task that was beyond his power (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The opening words of this verse apparently seem to be misplaced, for they are connected not with the following words of the verse in which they are placed, but with the concluding words of the previous one. The complete sentence, therefore, should read like this, "thus Allah makes His commandments clear to you that you may reflect upon this world and the next". If read like this, the clause would mean that God has refrained from issuing a definite commandment with regard to war expenditure and has simply ordered you to retain such portion of your possessions as you may require for your worldly needs and spend the balance in the cause of religion so that you may be trained to think over and judge the comparative value of this world and the next and act accordingly. The words, "upon this world and the next" have been separated from the preceding words to provide a pause with the object of impressing the importance of the matter on the mind of the listener or reader.

As Quranic verses follow a natural order––an order prompted and followed by the innermost nature of the addressee––this verse follows in the wake of the verses dealing with war. As the war leaves behind orphans, this verse lays down basic instructions as to how they should be treated and looked after. Muslims are told that the bringing up of orphans is a very delicate affair and an important social duty. Orphans should be brought up in the manner most conducive to their greatest good, i.e. their physical, moral and spiritual welfare. They should be treated as members of the family; and their property properly looked after and steps taken to augment it. The words, and if you intermix with them, they are your brethren, signify not only permission but exhortation. The exhortation lies in the word "brethren" which is meant to point to Muslims to allow orphans to live as members of their family, this being not only wise and humane but also based on considerations of convenience. If orphans had been directed to be kept aloof and their property managed on a strictly legal basis, it would have, in most cases, entailed a good deal of unnecessary inconvenience and trouble for both parties concerned.

The words, Allah knows the mischief-maker from the reformer, serve as a stern warning to the guardians of orphans. Anything they do is sure to come to the knowledge of God. Nay, God knows even the hidden things of the human heart. So they should beware of playing the part of mischief-makers in the garb of reformers.

God’s attributes of "Powerful" and "Wise" placed at the end of the verse contain a general admonition to guardians of orphans to be very careful about their dealings with them. They should not delude themselves with the idea that, being weak and not yet possessed of proper understanding, the orphans are entirely at their mercy and that they can treat them as they like. For, if orphans are not strong and wise, God certainly is, and He would call them to account if they behaved unkindly or dishonestly towards these helpless and friendless creatures of His. By mentioning God’s attributes of "Powerful" and "Wise" the Quran also means to exhort Muslims to look after orphans in such a way and give them such good education and training as should help them to grow strong and wise and become useful members of the community.

Important Words:

المحیض (menstruation) is derived from حاض. They say حاضت المرأة i.e. the woman menstruated; blood came forth from her womb or uterus at the known time and in the known manner. Thus محیض means, (1) menstruation, i.e. the monthly course: (2) time of menstruation; (3) place of menstruation (Lane & Mufradat). According to some, the word which means a tank or a place where water collects, is also derived from the same root though the central letter of the root is different (Lane).

اذی (harmful thing) is the infinitive-noun from اذی meaning, he came to harm, or he was annoyed. آذی means, he or it caused a harm. اذی means, a harmful thing; a disagreeable thing; an annoyance; a hurt; a thing held to be unclean or filthy; a slight evil less than what is termed ضرر (Taj).

اعتزلوا (keep away from) is derived from عزل. عزله عنه means, he removed him or it from that (Aqrab). اعتزل الشیء or اعتزل عنهmeans, he kept away from the thing (Aqrab).

یطھرن (they are clean) and تطھرن (they have cleansed themselves) and المتطھرین (who keep themselves clean) are all derived from طھر which means, he or it became clean or free from dirt or filth, etc.; or he or it became pure. طھرت المرأة means, the woman became clean from the menstrual discharge, i.e. her flow of menses stopped. طھرت المرأة means, she became cleansed or purified by washing herself. اطھر (ittahara) is like تطھر giving the same meaning, i.e. he became cleansed or he kept himself clean (Aqrab).

Commentary:

After laying down, in brief, the law about intermarriage, reference to marital relations and conjugal obligations became necessary. The verse under comment indicates that coition or sexual intercourse with one’s wife is not permissible during menses, for such intercourse would be harmful for both parties. Coition becomes permissible when menses cease, but as a further precaution the husband should wait till the wife has washed herself by taking a bath.

The command referred to in the words go in unto them as Allah has commanded you is contained in, and seek what Allah has ordained for You (2:188), hinting that coition with one’s wife should be in a manner productive of issue. A further hint to the above is contained in the following verse.

The words, and go not in unto them (lit. do not go near them) until they are clean, do not mean that the husband should keep away from his wife completely and in no case go near her. The Holy Prophet’s sayings as well as his practice belie that inference. The expression simply refers to coition and does not debar other forms of loving approach.

The concluding word "متطھرین" i.e. those who keep themselves clean has been put in the masculine gender, because firstly the use of the masculine gender generally includes and extends to females as well; and secondly because by using this word the Quran means to hint that if men go in unto their wives while they are unclean, they are sure to make themselves unclean too. Thirdly this word also hints that though it becomes lawful for a man to go in unto his wife after the monthly flow has ceased, yet it is better for him to wait till the woman has properly washed herself, for God loves those who are more careful about cleanliness.

Commentary:

Various meanings have been assigned to the word روح (soul) by scholars of different schools of Muslim religious thought. According to some of the commentators it applies to all angels; according to others it means only the angel to whom is entrusted the task of the creation of the world; yet others think that it particularly applies to the Archangel Gabriel.

Some scholars, however, are of the view that الروح means the word of God, while some others take it as applying to the Quran. But the most appropriate meaning of this word is "the human soul."

The question regarding the nature of the human soul was first put to the Holy Prophet at Mecca by some of the Meccan idolaters, probably at the instance of the Jews of Medina, when the news reached the latter that he had claimed to be a Divine Prophet. In reply the Prophet recited to them the present verse. When, however, he came to Medina the question appears again to have been put to him by the Jews and he must naturally have recited to them the same verse, thus giving rise to the wrong notion held by some traditionalists that this verse was revealed in Medina or that, after having been first revealed at Mecca, it was again revealed at Medina. The fact is that it was only revealed once and that was at Mecca.

As stated above, the most appropriate meaning of the word الروح is the human soul. The soul has been described here as something created by the direct command of God. As a matter of fact according to the Quran all creation falls under two categories: (1) Original creation which is brought about without the aid or help of any substance or matter previously created. (2) Subsequent creation which is brought about with the aid and help of means and matter previously created. The former kind of creation falls under the category of امر (lit. command) for which see 2:118, and the latter is known as خلق (lit. creating). In this verse we are told that the human soul belongs to the first category.

In the period of their spiritual decadence the Jews seem to have come to dabble in spiritualism and occult practices like many modern Spiritualists, Theosophists and Hindu Yogis. They had come to believe in magic and so-called spiritual practices. These occult practices appeared to have exercised great influence on them. It appears that the Jews started taking interest in magic and occult practices in the time of the Prophet David. These practices became very popular with them in the time of Jesus. According to Philo and the well-known Jewish writer, Josephus, the Essenes in the time of Jesus greatly indulged in these practices and by a life of renunciation they had greatly developed this art. The Quran also refers to the Jewish counterparts of the modern spiritualists in 72:8-10. References to black and white magic may also be found in the books of the Old and New Testaments. Some of the Jews of Medina also seem to have resorted to these practices in the time of the Holy Prophet. This is why when the Meccan idolaters sought their help in confuting the Prophet they suggested that they (the Meccan idolaters) should enquire of him regarding the powers and attributes of the human soul. The Quran answers this inquiry in the verse under comment by saying that the perfect soul derives its powers from the command of God and anything else that is claimed to be acquired by so-called spiritual exercises and magical arts is all meaningless. It may be added that by الروح is particularly meant the perfect soul. That the knowledge acquired by so-called spiritual exercises and by their professed communication with the dead carries little weight has often been demonstrated by the fact that the information claimed to be furnished by departed souls to different mediums regarding the next world always varies.

The question of the powers and attributes of the human soul is of more than local importance, inasmuch as it had not only agitated the minds of the Medinite Jews of the Prophet’s time but has also agitated those of Hindu Yogis, Theosophists and Spiritualists in our own time. Taking الروح in its general sense the verse would mean that the human soul is as much the creation of God as the human body.

Important Words:

ذوالقرنین (Dhul-Qarnain). قرن is derived from قرن (qarana). They say قرن شیئا بشیء i.e. he connected a thing with a thing. قرنmeans, horn; edge; border of the rising sun; trumpet of the Last Judgement; nobleman; one’s equal in age; a generation of men; people of one time; people of a time among whom there appears a Prophet of God; century; age (Lane & Aqrab). See also 6:7.

Commentary:

Before proceeding to know and establish the identity of Dhul-Qarnain it is necessary to state the reasons why at all his story has been related in the Quran and why it has found such prominent mention in the present Surah. A pointed reference has already been made in this Surah to the two periods of the great material progress of Christian nations. Its opening verses give a somewhat detailed account of the Dwellers of the Cave. We are told that in the early days of Christianity, Christians were true and righteous followers of their Faith. Even in later years when they came to acquire great political power but lost much of their former spiritual vitality and religious fervour, they did not altogether become divorced from their religion because till that time they had retained some faith in Jesus and because also a new Dispensation which demanded their allegiance had not yet come into force.

After the story of the Dwellers of the Cave an account of the Isra’ (اسراء) or Spiritual Journey of Moses which represents the advent of the Holy Prophet of Islam has been given in some detail in order to show that with the Holy Prophet’s appearance the first period of the material prosperity and progress of the Christian people would come to an end and though it would still be possible for them to make some progress they would reach the zenith of their material glory and greatness for a second time long after his advent. Spiritually, however, they would be a dead people and without the Holy Prophet’s acceptance there would be no redemption for them. This second period of material pomp and grandeur and the spiritual death of the Christian people are represented in Divine Scriptures by the phenomenal rise to power of Gog and Magog which forms one of the central themes of the present Surah. Because politically Gog and Magog and Dhul-Qarnain are inseparably linked with each other, as will appear from the following paragraphs, Dhul-Qarnain’s account also has been given at some length in this Surah.

Now as to Gog and Magog. These names were given to certain tribes who lived in the extreme north-west of Asia and eastern Europe. The fertility of the Asiatic plains led these tribes to make inroads into the south and south-west of Asia. If these incursions had been uniformly successful the whole course of subsequent human history would have completely changed and, like the marauding Aryans before them, these people would also have settled in Asia and would have been converted to the various religions of the east. But, as is explained in the following verses, Dhul-Qarnain set up a formidable barrier which prevented their spreading into Asia and thus compelled them to move further west. Thus they became hedged in between the extreme north-west of Asia and eastern Europe and instead of penetrating into Asia they spread into other parts of Europe. There they came into contact with Christianity which they accepted and made their national Faith. But these people never ceased to cast longing eyes on the fertile lands of Asia and to cherish an intense desire to conquer them. The sense of frustration at their failure to fulfil their heartfelt desire deepened with every generation till it developed into a feeling of political hostility towards the Asiatic peoples which burst forth in its full fury in the last three centuries. Thus Dhul-Qarnain’s efforts to check these people from spreading into Asia, in a way, led to the great spiritual havoc caused among mankind by Dajjal which is the second name of Gog and Magog. As both Gog and Magog and Dhul-Qarnain are intimately connected with each other, Dhul-Qarnain has found a mention in the Quran along with the account of the second rise to power and prosperity of Christian nations who, in our age, represent Gog and Magog.

Who is this Dhul-Qarnain to whom the present and the following several verses refer and when and where did he live? Before an answer to this question is attempted it must be pointed out that the Quran is not a book of history. It does not merely record a historical event to establish its authenticity. The so-called stories mentioned in the Quran are, in fact, so many prophecies about future events. The story of Dhul-Qarnain also belongs to the same category. It is not merely an account of the military exploits of a great and noble conqueror who lived in the past but it contains also a prophetic reference to another great historical personage, a World Reformer, who was to appear in some future time—our own time. About the appearance of this Reformer who has been called "the Promised Messiah and Mahdi" repeated mention has been made in Muslim scriptures (Bukhari, Majah etc.). Thus the story of Dhu’1 Qarnain possesses both ahistorical and a spiritual significance and therefore deserves special study.

Dhul-Qarnain was the founder of the Medo-Persian Empire which represented the two horns of the ram of Daniel’s famous dream. Daniel says: "I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great" (Dan. 8:4). Quite in harmony with this part of Daniel’s dream, the Quran mentions three journeys of Dhul-Qarnain (vv. 87, 91, 94). This fact lends powerful support to the inference that Dhul-Qarnain is the descriptive name of a king of Media and Persia. And of all the kings of Media and Persia, the description given in the Quran most fitly applies to Cyrus. He ascended the throne of Persia after the death of his father and subsequently conquered Media which was a greater kingdom than Persia, and thus was fulfilled the second part of Daniel’s dream: "and behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other and the higher came up last" (Dan. 8:3).

The Quran has mentioned four distinctive marks of Dhul-Qarnain: (1) He was a righteous servant of God, and he was blessed with Divine revelation (vv. 87, 92 & 99). (2) He was a great conqueror and a kind and just ruler; and he treated the nations he conquered most benevolently (vv. 85, 89). (3) He marched to the west and made great conquests till he came to a place where he found the sun setting in a pool of murky water and then he turned to the East and conquered and subdued vast territories (vv. 85, 87, 88, 89). (4) Last of all he went to a midway region where lived a savage people and where Gog and Magog made inroads, and he built a wall there to stop these inroads (vv. 94-98). Now of the great monarchs and famous military captains of ancient times Cyrus possesses in the greatest measure the four above-mentioned qualifications. He therefore more than anybody else deserves to be considered as the Dhul-Qarnain of the Quran.

The first distinguishing mark of Dhul-Qarnain mentioned above is that he was a righteous man of God and was blessed with Divine revelation. The Bible agrees with the Quran in this respect. The Bible says:

That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Thus saith the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus whose righthand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, that thou mayest know that I, the Lord which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel…Now in the first year of Cyrus King of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus King of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing saying: Thus saith Cyrus King of Persia, the Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth and He hath charged me to build Him a house at Jerusalem which is in Judah (Isaiah, 44:28; 45:1-3; Ezra. 1:1-2 & 2 Chron. 36:22-23).

Thus according to the Bible Cyrus was Jehovah’s "friend", His "anointed" and "shepherd" and "performed all His pleasure" (Jew. Enc., vol. 4, p. 404 & Enc. Bib., vol. 1, col. 980).

Dhul-Qarnain’s second characteristic according to the Quran is that he was a great conqueror and ruler of vast territories. About this the Bible says:

Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, the Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he hath charged me to build Him a house at Jerusalem…Whose hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two-leaved gates…I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight; I will break in pieces the gates of brass and cut in sunder the bars of iron; and I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places (Ezra 1:2; Isaiah 45:1-3).

In this respect history also supports the Quran and the Bible. It represents Cyrus as a great conqueror and a very humane ruler who treated the nations he conquered most generously and in return received their most willing allegiance:

I knew that there were some who willingly obeyed Cyrus, that were many days’ journey, and others that were even some months’ journey distant from him, some, too, who had never seen him and some who knew very well that they never should see him; and yet they readily submitted to his government; for he so far excelled all other kings, as well as those that had received their dominion from their fore-fathers, as those that had acquired it by their own efforts…More than this he was most humane. His shield is stained by no horrible deeds of blood, of frightful revenge and cruelty…He spared and made gifts to conquered enemies…because no wide stream of blood separated him from the vanquished, he found the only possible basis for his giant structure in the raising of the conquerors and the conquered to equal privileges…Who is there that approaches him? He is not only beloved by his own people as a father incomparable in every way…He was not the product and child of his age but its creator and father. (Historians’ History of the World, under Cyrus).

Dhul-Qarnain’s third outstanding mark mentioned in the Quran is that he conquered and established a vast empire in the East as well as in the West. Now it is a well-known fact of history that Cyrus ruled over vast territories which extended to the waters of the Black Sea in the west and to the confines of Afghanistan, Samarkand and Bukhara in the East. About his conquests in the West it may briefly be stated that he had hardly become the ruler of Media and Persia when Croesus, the King of Lydia (Asia Minor), from his capital, Sardis, instigated the rulers of Babylon, Egypt and Sparta, and rose against him but within a few days suffered a crushing defeat and opened the way for Cyrus’ conquests up to the banks of the Black Sea. Cyrus conquered Babylon, Nineveh and Greek colonies which had extended to the north of Asia Minor to the Sea of Marmora. Thus he reached that pool of murky water which was situated to the West of that country. About Cyrus’ conquests in the East the Historians’ History of the World (vol. 2, under Cyrus) says:

How far to the East Cyrus extended his dominion we do not know, but it is probable that all the countries to the East which are mentioned in the older inscriptions of Darius as in subjection or rebellion were already subject in the time of Cyrus. In this case Chorasmia (Kharezm, the modern Khiva) and Sogdiana (Samarkand and Bukhara) belonged to him. He doubtless ruled also over a large portion of modern Afghanistan.

The following extract also from the Historians’ History of the World (under Cyrus) throws further light on the vast range of the conquests of Cyrus in both the West and the East.

But Cyrus finding, in like manner, the nations of Asia independent and setting out with a little army of Persians, obtained the dominion over the Medes by their own choice, and over the Hyrcanians in a similar manner; he subdued the Syrians, Assyrians, Arabians, Cappadocians, both the Phrygians, the Lydians, Carians, Phoenicians and Babylonians; he had under his rule the Bactrians, Indians and Cilicians as well the Sacians, Paphlagonians and Magadidians and many other nations of whom we cannot enumerate even the names. He had dominion over the Greeks that were settled in Asia and going down to the sea over the Cyprians and Egyptians. These nations he ruled though they spoke neither the same language with himself nor with one another; yet he was able to extend the fear of himself over so great a part of the world, that he astonished all and no one attempted anything against him… without a struggle the greatest empires, the two conquerors of Nineveh, surrendered to him both themselves and their own kings in chains, as had been done to none other; even Tyre, that proud and mighty city, unconquered and unconquerable, with whose lion-courage his predecessor and his successor, Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander alike, wrestled so fiercely and so long, did homage to him of her own free will. Above all, the little people of the Jews hailed him at the waters of Babylon as they had done no mortal before or since, as the victor and rescuer, the liberator and saviour.

The fourth notable feature of Dhul-Qarnain referred to in the Quran is that after his conquests he turned his attention to a midway region. Here lived a half savage people who were the target of constant attacks by Gog and Magog and he built a wall to stop these inroads. Now in order fully to understand and appreciate this Quranic passage it is necessary to know who Gog and Magog were. About these people the Bible says:

Son of man, set thy face toward Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, and prophecy against him, and say, Thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal: and I will turn thee about and put hooks into thy jaws…Persia, Cush and Put with them (Ezekiel 38:2-6).

This shows that according to the Bible, which is our first and main source of information about Gog and Magog, Russia, Moscow and Tobolsk which are all situated in northern regions were the homeland of these people.

History supports this Biblical account about Gog and Magog. Magog is mentioned in Genesis 10:2 as the second son of Japheth, between Gomer and Madai. Gomer representing the Cimmerian who lived to the east of Asia Minor and Madai the Medes, Magog must be a people located east of the Cimmerian and west of the Medes. But in the list of nations (Gen. 10) the term connotes rather the complex of Barbarian peoples dwelling at the extreme north and north-east of the geographical survey covered by the chapter…In Ezek. 39:6 Magog occurs as the name of a northern people, the leader of whom is Gog and in Revelation Gog and Magog are considered as a comprehensive term for the powers of evil. Josephus identified them with the Scythians, a name which among classical writers stands for a number of unknown ferocious tribes. According to Jerome Magog was situated beyond the Caucasus, near the Caspian Sea. This also is the same northern region where the Scythians lived. Herodotus indicates that these nomads (Scythians) came through the natural gate between the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea, the pass of Darband (Jew. Enc., under Gog and Magog & Historians’ History of the World, vol. 2, p. 582).

Now as quoted above from the Bible, Gog and Magog had conquered Persia and it is a well-known fact of history that "Persia fell into the hands of the Scythians or Median Emperor who ruled Ecbatana from whom it was delivered by Cyrus the Great" (Historians’ History of the World, vol. 2, p.589).

So it seems quite clear that the Scythians or Gog and Magog occupied territories to the north and north-east of the Black Sea and that they came from these territories through the pass of Darband and invaded and conquered and ruled over the Persians and that Cyrus had defeated them and delivered the Persians from their clutches.

As to the last point about Dhul-Qarnain—that he built a strong wall as a barrier against the inroads of Gog and Magog—we find that exactly at the place which according to Herodotus was the pass through which the Scythians made raids upon Persia stood a wall, the famous wall of Derbent. The Encyclopaedia Britannica (under Derbent) refers to this wall as follows:

Derbent or Darband, a town of Persia, Caucasia, in the province of Daghestan, on the western shore of the Caspian…And to the south lies the seaward extremity of the Caucasian wall, 50 miles long otherwise known as Alexander’s wall, blocking the narrow pass of the Iron Gate or the Caspian Gate. This, when entire, had a height of 29 feet and a thickness of about 10 feet, and with its iron gates and numerous watch-towers formed a veritable defence of the Persian Frontier.

This extract shows that there existed a wall which served as a barrier against, and protected Persia from, the attacks of the Scythians in the north. It is generally believed that this was built by Alexander the Great but this popular belief is against proven facts of history. Alexander defeated Darius in the summer of 330 B.C., but this defeat did not give him possession of the whole of Persia. Without pausing to take rest he proceeded to subdue the whole country, but had hurriedly to come back to quell a revolt in his rear. After this he marched on to Kabul, where he had to face another revolt in his army and it was only in the winter of 329 B.C., that he could come to India. He finished all this journey in such haste that some historians have doubted whether it could have been accomplished in such a short time. Anyhow, it is admitted that he fought his way to India and did not stop anywhere. From India he returned in 324 B.C. to Persia, where he had again to face a revolt in his army. After subduing it he started for home and died on the way in June, 323 B.C. (Enc. Brit., 14th edition, vol. 1, pp. 569, 570). These facts show that his military expeditions were like a whirlwind and he conquered a large part of the world in a very short time. Amidst these whirlwind expeditions he could not give attention to any vast project such as the building of a large wall of the nature of that under discussion. The popular notion that Alexander had built this wall seems to have arisen from the fact that Muslim commentators of the Quran mistook Dhul-Qarnain for Alexander.

But if Alexander did not build this wall it does not prove that Cyrus built it. We are not in possession of quite incontestable and conclusive historical evidence to show that Cyrus did build this wall. Our conclusion that he was its builder is based only on the following circumstantial evidence:

(a) Darius about whom Cyrus had seen a vision that his wings would overshadow Europe and Asia ascended the Persian throne after the death of the son of Cyrus. In order to break the power of the Scythians Darius passed through Greece and attacked them prom across Europe. It is inconceivable that Darius should have undertaken such a long, arduous and roundabout journey to attack these people from across south-east Europe when they lived very near him in the north. The inevitable conclusion is that the existence of a huge wall which only Cyrus before him could have built had made it impossible for him to cross over to the other side with a large force. Nor was it possible for him to demolish it or take his army safely through its gates. So in order to fulfil his mission the only possible and wise cause open to Darius was to attack the Scythians from the side of Europe.

(b) If there existed no impassable barrier of the nature of that under discussion it is inconceivable that, wise and far-seeing strategist as he was, Darius should have adopted a circuitous route of thousands of miles across Europe to attack the Scythians, his own country exposed to their attacks from across the border.

(c) The fact that before the time of Cyrus the Scythians made constant and uninterrupted raids on Persia but after his conquests these raids completely ceased, leads to the very probable conclusion that he must have set up a barrier which effectively checked these attacks, and that the barrier must be the famous wall at Derbent, mistakenly known as Alexander’s wall.

56:6; 70:10; 101:6.

Important Words:

الجبال (mountains) is the plural of جبل (a mountain). Figuratively, the word جبل means, (1) chief of a tribe or community; (2) a learned man who towers above those around him (ھو جبل) i.e. he is like a mountain and does not move from his place); (3) a niggard; (4) a great hardship or calamity (Lane & Aqrab). See also 13:32.

The reference in the word الجبال (mountains) here is to the powerful Christian nations of the west. The prophecy contained in this verse is that these great powerful nations will be scattered as dust. The decline of the west has already begun. The last two World Wars have considerably weakened the hold of the West over the East and eastern nations are gradually coming into their own.

This decline of the West is too patent to be overlooked and western political thinkers themselves realize and admit it. The reader is referred to Spengler’s "Decline of the West", and Toynbee’s "A Study of History". See also 18:8, 9.