يَقُولُونَ

2:175; 3:200; 13:27.

Important Words:

ویل (woe) means: (1) the coming or befalling of some calamity, misfortune or sorrow; (2) punishment; (3) perdition. The expression ویل له or ویله or ویل لك or ویلك etc. is used as a warning for some coming sorrow or misfortune (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

There were Jews who composed books or parts thereof and then gave them out as the word of God. This malpractice was common among the Jews and other peoples. Therefore, in addition to the canonical Books of the Bible, there are a number of books which are supposed to be revealed, so that it has now become impossible to distinguish the revealed Books from those not revealed. Another mal-practice of the Jews was that they distorted the meaning of the Divine Word. They themselves wrote a whole book or part thereof and declared it to be based on Biblical evidence; while, as a matter of fact, it was opposed to this evidence. Those responsible for this were responsible not only for their own misdeeds, namely, fabricating and distorting the Word of God, but also for the misdeeds of their followers who were led by their example to commit one or all of the following acts (1) tampering with the Word of God (2:76); (2) preferring worldliness to religion (2:77); and (3) following their own vain desires and false notions (2:79). Hence, while speaking of them, the Quran uses the word ویل (woe) in order to warn them and remind them of the seriousness of their offence.

Some Christian writers have argued that the verse under comment proves that the Jewish and Christian scriptures were intact at the time of the Holy Prophet. This inference is absolutely unjustified. For tampering with the text does not necessarily mean tampering with a genuine text. One who tampers with a version of a false book which he believes to be true is as liable to blame as the one who tampers with a genuine scripture. Hence, the warning to the People of the Book against tampering with the Bible cannot be cited as proof of the existence of the true Bible at the time of the Holy Prophet.

The words, paltry price, do not mean that the taking of a good price would be lawful. The words have been used to point out that whatever price they may take would be paltry in view of the great loss they would be suffering thereby. Elsewhere, the Quran says: the benefit of this world is little (4:78).

In the last clause the Quran repeats the words, Woe to them, twice, saying: Woe, then, to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. This is to point out that by so doing the Israelites are committing two offences: (1) writing down a thing falsely and (2) doing it with the intention of earning some worldly benefit. As the offence is double, the punishment also will be double.

11:2.

39:24.

7:54; 18:79.

4:163.

Important Words:

محکمات (decisive in meaning) is derived from احکم which again is derived from حکم which means, he decided or he judged; he prevented or restrained or withheld. احکمه means, he rendered it firm, stable and secure; he restrained it. Hence محکم means: (1) that which has been made secure from change or alteration; (2) that in which there is no ambiguity or possibility of doubt; (3) that which is clear in meaning and decisive in exposition (Aqrab, Mufradat & Lane).

ام (basis) is the noun-infinitive from ام (amma), i.e. he aimed at or sought or took himself to. ام possesses a variety of meanings some of which are: (1) mother; (2) source or origin or basis of a thing; (3) anything which is a means of sustenance and support or of reformation and correction for another; (4) anything to which other things surrounding it are linked (Aqrab & Mufradat).

متشابھات (susceptible of different interpretations) is the plural of متشابھة which is derived from شبه. They say شبھه به i.e. he made it to be like that; he likened it to that. شبه علیه الامر means, he rendered the affair confused or obscure or ambiguous to him. تشابه الرجلان means, the two men were so like each other that it was difficult to distinguish one from the other. متشابهmeans, mutually resembling. Thus the expressions متشابھه is used about (1) that phrase, sentence or verse which is susceptible of different, though concordant, interpretations; or (2) that whose parts resemble or are concordant with one another; or (3) that whose true significance bears a similarity to a sense which is not meant; or (4) that of which the true meaning is known only by referring it to what is termed محکم (decisive); or (5) that which cannot be rightly understood without repeated consideration (Aqrab, Lane & Mufradat).

زیغ (perversity) is the noun-infinitive from زاغ which means, he declined or deviated, or turned aside from the right course. So زیغ means, deviation from the truth or the right course; crookedness; doubt. ازاغه means, he made him deviate from the right course (Aqrab & Mufradat).

تاویله (its interpretation). تاویل is the noun-infinitive from اول which is derived from آل i.e. he or it turned or returned. اولهmeans, he caused it or him to turn or return. اول الکلام means, he interpreted or explained the speech or writing. اول الرؤیاmeans, he interpreted the dream. تاویل means, (1) interpretation or explanation; (2) conjecture about the meaning of a speech or writing; (3) turning away a speech or writing from its right interpretation; (4) interpretation of a dream; (5) end, result or sequel of a thing (Lane & Aqrab). In the present verse the word تاویل occurs twice, the first-mentioned تاویلgiving the second or the third meaning, while the second-mentioned gives the first or the fifth meaning.

الراسخون (firmly grounded) is the plural of الراسخ which is derived from رسخ i.e. he or it was or became firm, stable or established. رسخ الشیءmeans, the thing became firmly established. رسخ العلم فی قلبه means, knowledge became firmly established, or sank deep, in his heart. الراسخ فی العلم is one whose knowledge is extensive and deep-rooted, being firmly established and based on sure ground (Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

The verse, which was revealed when a party of Christians from Najran visited the Holy Prophet in Medina (Jarir), serves a fourfold purpose: (1) it gives the genesis of the later Christian doctrines and explains how the true original doctrines became perverted; (2) it tells how the critics of Islam, particularly the Christians, distort true Islamic teachings in order to find an excuse for attacking Islam; (3) it warns Muslims to take a lesson from the history of Christians; and (4) it supplies a sure and trustworthy principle of interpreting revealed Books, or, for that matter, any writing or speech, in a right manner.

What proved the perversion of the Christian faith was that expressions like "Son of God" etc. used metaphorically were taken literally and the simple and straightforward faith of Jesus was transformed out of all recognition, the متشابهbeing given the place of محکم.

Again, it is on record that when the party of Christians, referred to above, visited the Holy Prophet and had a discussion with him on the godhead of Jesus, they, like clever casuists, who when it suits their purpose tear a passage from its context and then base their arguments on it, asked the Holy Prophet if the words کلمة الله (word of God) and روح(spirit) were used about Jesus in the Quran, and, receiving an answer in the affirmative, joyfully exclaimed that the divinity of Jesus was thereby proved. They did not care to ponder over the explanation of these words in their context, which did not at all bear out the sense which they thought they possessed. It is to such objectionable practices that allusion is made in this verse, which lays down the golden rule that, in order to prove a controversial point, the decisive and clearly worded parts of a Scripture should be taken into consideration, and that if they are found to contradict the construction put upon a certain ambiguous passage quoted in support of an argument, that interpretation should be rejected and the passage should be so interpreted as to make it harmonize with the decisive and clearly worded parts of the text.

This golden rule should always be observed whenever it is required to interpret or explain a passage which is susceptible of several interpretations and is not easily comprehensible. Its observance is all the more necessary when a seemingly difficult and knotty verse of the Quran is sought to be explained. Any interpretation which clashes with other verses of the Quran and runs counter to the clearly worded parts thereof should be rejected and only that interpretation which is in harmony with its basic principles should be accepted.

According to the verse, the Quran has two sets of verses. Some are محکم (decisive in meaning) and others متشابه(capable of different interpretations). The right way to interpret a متشابه verse is that only such interpretation of it should be accepted as agrees with the verses that are محکم and all other interpretations should be dismissed as incorrect. It is on record that one day the Holy Prophet, on hearing people disputing about the interpretation of certain verses of the Quran, angrily said: "Thus were ruined those who have gone before you. They interpreted certain parts of their scriptures in such a manner as to make them contradict other parts. But the Quran has been so revealed that different parts of it should corroborate one another. So do not reject any truth by making one part contradict the other. Act on what you understand thereof and refer that which you do not understand to those who know and understand it" (Musnad).

The above hadith also refutes the theory of abrogation, for it speaks of the Quran as a Book of which all parts corroborate one another and condemns those who think that some of its verses contradict others. To Ahmad, the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, goes the credit of exploding the so-called abrogation theory. He and his disciples have given convincing explanations of those verses which were previously regarded as abrogated.

It may be noted here that in 39:24 the whole Quran is called متشابه and in 11:2 all the Quranic verses have been described as محکم. This should not be taken as contradicting the verse under comment, according to which some verses of the Quran are محکم and others متشابه. The apparent in-consistency is easily explained. So far as the real significance of the Quranic verses is concerned the whole of the Quran is محکم (decisive), inasmuch as all its verses contain decisive and eternal truths. In another sense, however, the whole of the Quran is متشابه inasmuch as the Quranic verses have been so worded as to give, at one and the same time, several meanings equally true and good. The Quran is also متشابه (i.e.mutually resembling) in the sense that there is no contradiction or inconsistency in it, its different verses affording support to one another. But parts of it are certainly محکم or متشابه for different readers according to their mental and spiritual capacities, as the present verse points out.

As regards prophecies, those that are couched in plain and direct language, susceptible of only one meaning, would be regarded as محکم and those that are described in figurative or metaphorical language, capable of more than one interpretation, would be regarded as متشابه. The prophecies described in metaphorical language should, therefore, be interpreted in the light of the prophecies that have been clearly and literally fulfilled and also in the light of the basic and fundamental principles of Islam. For an example of محکم prophecies, the reader is referred to 58:22; whereas 28:86 contains a متشابه prophecy.

The term محکم may also be applied to such verses as embody full and complete commandments while متشابه verses are those which give only part of a certain commandment, and require to be read in conjunction with other verses to make a complete injunction.

Moreover, محکمات (decisive verses) generally deal with the Law and the doctrines of Faith, while متشابھات generally deal with topics of secondary importance or describe incidents in the lives of Prophets or the history of peoples and, while so doing, sometimes make use of idioms and phrases capable of different meanings. Such verses should not be so interpreted as to contradict the clear-worded tenets of the Faith.

The Arabic clause which has been translated as and none knows its right interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge; they say, ‘We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord', may be rendered in two ways, according as the pause is made after the word الله (Allah) or after the word العلم (knowledge). If the pause is made after العلم (knowledge), the clause would be translated as above and the term would in this case apply to verses pertaining to events of the past or verses containing general exhortation. If, however, the pause is made after الله (Allah), the term متشابھات would refer to prophecies of which the real interpretation is known to God only. In this case the clause would be translated as, "and none knows its interpretation except Allah; and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say, "We believe in it, the whole is from our Lord". Grammatically, both constructions are correct.

Finally, it may be noted that the use of metaphors, the main basis of متشابھات verses, in religious scriptures is necessary; (1) to assure vastness of meaning in the fewest of words; (2) to add beauty and grace to the style; and (3) to provide for the people a trial (ابتلاء) without which spiritual development and perfection is not possible.

3:194; 7:156; 23:110; 60:6.

Important Words:

ذنوب (faults) which is the plural of ذنب (fault) is derived from the root ذنب (dhanaba). They say ذنبه (dhanaba-hu), i.e. he followed his tail, not quitting its track; he followed him in any case, never quitting his track, the word ذنب (dhanab) meaning a tail, or, in man, the part of the body corresponding to the tail. ذنب (dhanb) means a fault, a misdeed, an offence, a thing for which one is blameable, if one does it intentionally. It differs from اثم (sin) in that whereas ذنب may be either intentional or committed through inadvertence, اثم is peculiarly intentional (Lane). According to Ar-Raghib, ذنب means, such errors and mistakes as bring about a harmful result or make one liable to be called to account (Mufradat). Really ذنب (dhanb) signifies such failings or shortcomings as adhere to human nature, just as dhanab ذنب (tail, or in man, the corresponding part of the body) adheres to the body, i.e. natural failings and shortcomings in man.

8:12.

3:169.

Important Words:

امر (government) means: (1) order or command; (2) matter or affair; (3) state or condition; (4) authority, government or management. اولوا الامر means, those who hold command or exercise authority (Aqrab).

قتل (fighting) being noun-infinitive means both to kill and to be killed. Another reading of the word قتل here is قتال(Muhit iii. 90 & Kashshaf) which shows that the word قتل (qatl) has been used here in the sense of fighting and not killing. The word has been used elsewhere also in the Quran in the sense of fighting (see 2:192). See also Jarir under 3:155.

Commentary:

The words, a slumber that overcame a party of you, refer to an incident connected with the Battle of Uhud. AbuTalhah says, "I lifted my head on the day of Uhud and began to look about, and there was none among us on that day but was bending down his head with slumber." This incident has been narrated by Tirmidhi, Nasa’i and others (see Kathir, ii. 303). As sleep or slumber is a symbol of a peaceful condition, being a sign of hearts that are calm and at rest, the Quran refers to this incident as a sort of favour. The incident evidently occurred when the battle was practically over and the Muslims had returned to the neighbouring height.

The reference in the words, the other party, is to the hypocrites who were at Medina and who had not taken part in the battle. When they heard of the reverse which overtook the Muslims and of the reported death of the Holy Prophet, they, in spite of rejoicing at the misfortune that had befallen the Muslims, became anxious about their own lives and feared what would happen to them in case the Meccans should attack Medina. The words cannot apply to the party of Muslims that took part in the battle, of whom the Quran says, He has surely pardoned you and Allah is gracious to the believers (3:153 above).

The words, Is there for us any part in the government of affairs? uttered by the hypocrites mean, "nobody listens to our opinion in matters of administration; we had advised the Muslims not to go out of Medina to fight, but our advice was ignored, with the result that they were defeated." The sentence might also mean, "now, (i.e. after this reverse) real government and power have gone into the hands of the idolaters and nothing has been left for us."

The words, All government belongs to Allah, signify that the decision in all matters rests with God; or that whatever might happen in the intervening period, God has ordained that eventually power and government shall be vouchsafed to Muslims, who will have dominion in the land.

The words, we should not have been killed here, mean, "If we had any voice in the management of affairs and if our advice had been accepted, our brethren would not have been killed in the battle," it being insinuated that while they were wise, the Muslims were simply foolish. The words may also be understood to mean, "if we were to have any government (as the Prophet had promised), we should not have been defeated in the battle." By saying so, the hypocrites hinted that the prophecies of the Holy Prophet regarding the triumph of Islam had turned out to be false.

It may be noted here that by saying, we should not have been killed here, the hypocrites did not evidently mean that they themselves would not have been killed. What they meant was that their brethren or comrades who were killed would not have been killed. This shows that by the slaying of one’s self is sometimes meant the slaying of one’s brethren or companions. This explains the words اقتلوا انفسکم in 2:55, and تقتلون انفسکم in 2:86. See also note on 2:55.

The Divine Words, If you had remained in your homes, refer to the hypocrites; and by the words, those on whom fighting had been enjoined, are meant the true believers. The injunction referred to is contained in 2:191.

In the clause, would have gone forth to their deathbeds, the word مضاجع (deathbeds) has been used in order to point to the abject cowardice of the hypocrites on the one hand, and the steadfast devotion of the true believers on the other. It reminds the hypocrites that whereas they returned to Medina, thinking that fighting in the existing circumstances was sure death, such was the faith of the true believers that even if the hypocrites had kept back from the very beginning they would have cheerfully gone forth to the battlefield, or the place of death, as it was commonly thought to be. All this happened that God might purify and ennoble the Faithful.

48:12.

Commentary:

Trials come to bring about a distinction between true believers and those weak of faith or insincere. In this way, the sufferings of the Muslims at Uhud proved a blessing in disguise. They served to distinguish the true believers from the hypocrites who had so far remained intermixed with the true believers. While professing to be true Muslims, they were, at heart, enemies of Islam; and their passing for Muslims was injurious to the Muslim community. The believers, taking them for true Muslims, remained unaware of the secret machinations by which they sought to injure the cause of Islam. So it was in the interests of Islam that their hypocrisy became unmasked and the Muslims became on their guard against them. On the other hand, just as the exposure of the hypocrites proved beneficial to the believers, similarly the coming to light of their own sincerity and devotion served a most useful purpose. It served not only to disappoint the enemies of Islam who came to realize that with such devoted followers they could make no headway against Islam, but it also opened their eyes to its truth; for it became clear to them that a religion which could inspire its votaries with such selfless zeal and steadfast devotion could not but be true.

The particle او rendered as "and" in the clause, fight in the cause of Allah and repel the attack of the enemy, literally means "or" and is equivalent to "in other words", or "what is the same thing," etc. It is used here: (1) to explain the meaning of the preceding clause, i.e. fight in the cause of Allah. So the whole sentence would read something like this: "It was said to them (the hypocrites): Come ye, fight in the cause of Allah, which was the same thing as repelling the attack of the enemy." This rendering would go to prove that the Companions of the Holy Prophet waged no aggressive war and all their fighting was undertaken in self-defence. (2) Or the word او (and) is used here in the sense of "at least". According to this rendering, the sentence would mean: "Fight in the cause of Allah; and if you cannot fight in the cause of Allah, at least fight in defence of your own homes and hearths," i.e. your own interests require that you should defend Medina against the attack of the enemy. (3) Or as rendered in the text the word is used in the sense of "and". With this meaning of او, the whole sentence would mean, "fight in the cause of Allah and repel the attack of the enemy."

The expression لو نعلم قتالا translated in the text as, If we knew how to fight, may have three meanings: (1) If we knew that there would be fighting, i.e. we thought there would be no fighting. By using this expression the hypocrites meant that seeing the strength of the enemy, the Muslims would at once run away and there will be no fighting. (2) If we knew it to be a fight, i.e. it was no fight in which the Muslims were going to be engaged, but certain destruction in view of the appalling difference between the numbers and equipment of the opposing forces. (3) Or, as rendered in the text, the expression may mean, if we knew how to fight. In this case, it must be taken to have been used ironically, signifying: "We are unaware of the art of war; if we had been acquainted with it, we would have fought along with you."

The allusion in the verse is obviously to the defection at Uhud of a party of 300 hypocrites under their leader ‘Abdullah bin Ubayy, who, at a crucial moment, deserted the Muslims and went back to Medina, saying, "He (the Prophet) has disregarded my advice and has followed the advice of mere lads". Seeing this, ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr, father of Jabir, approached him and asked him not to desert the Prophet in that manner, upon which ‘Abdullah replied in the very words quoted by the Quran, i.e. لو نعلم قتالا لا تبعنا کم meaning, "If we knew there would be fighting, we would have surely followed you." At this ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr exclaimed, saying: "God’s curse be upon you. Surely, He Himself will help His Messenger" (Jarir, iii. 104).

4:99.

Commentary:

The verse is a clear proof of the fact that Muslims were not the first to open hostilities. They only fought a war of defence with a view to protecting their religion and saving their weaker co-religionists.

9:47.

2:76; 3:79; 4:47.

Commentary:

The expression سماعون للکذب (who would fondly listen to any lie) is capable of bearing two meanings: (1) they listen to you in order to lie, i.e. they come to you so that they may listen to your words, and then go out and distort and twist your words and their meanings before their own people and ascribe to you things which you did not say or mean; (2) they hearken to lies and accept them, i.e. they believe the lies which others utter about you and accept them as true. Similarly, the clause سماعون لقوم آخرین (who listen for conveying it to another people) means: (1) they listen (to you) for the sake of another people; i.e. they come and listen to what you say in order to report it to another people; (2) they believe what others say about you and take it as true.

32:30, 31.

Important Words:

دائرة (misfortune) is derived from دار meaning, he or it went or moved round; or he or it circled or revolved or returned to the place from which he or it began to move. داربالبیت means, he went round about the house; or he surrounded or encompassed it. They say دارت الایام meaning, the days came round in their turn, i.e. repeated themselves. The expression دارت به دوائرالزمان means, the revolutions of fortune or time made him turn around from one state or condition to another. They say: دارت علیھم الدوائر meaning, calamities befell them. دائرة therefore, means: (1) the circuit, ambit or circumference of a thing; (2) a ring, a circle; (3) a turn of fortune, especially an evil accident; a misfortune; a calamity; defeat or rout; slaughter or death (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The verb سارع (he hastened) from which یسارعون (hastening) has been formed is generally followed by the preposition الی;but according to Arabic usage sometimes a verb takes after it a preposition which properly belongs to another verb mentioned or under­stood before it, thus retaining not only its own sense but also acquiring that of the verb whose preposition it takes. In the present verse the verb یسارعون (hastening) has been followed not by the preposition الی meaning, to or toward, but by the preposition فی which means in, among or into, thus adding to its own sense the further significance of the verb یدخلون (they enter). Hence the expression یسارعون فیھم (hastening towards them) would really mean "hastening towards them, they enter among them".

The word "victory" mentioned in the verse may either refer to the Fall of Mecca or to victory in general. The word امر (event) coming after victory evidently refers to something greater than victory. Obviously, it refers to the entry into Islam of the whole Arabian peninsula and the establishment of the power of Islam in it.

4:172.

Commentary:

The reference in this verse is to the doctrine of Trinity, that mysterious and abstruse dogma of the three persons of Godhead—Father, Son and Holy Ghost—co-existing and co-equal in all respects, combining to make one God and yet remaining three. It was the Nicene Council and especially the Athenasian Creed that first gave the dogma its definite shape. The doctrine forms the basic Article of the Christian Faith. What a fall for the enlightened West!

3:54, 194.

Commentary:

The description given in this verse of some of the Christians of the time of the Holy Prophet applies to all those who have a real hankering after truth and are ready to accept it wherever they find it. The verse has also been applied to Najjashi in particular. When Ja‘far, a cousin of the Holy Prophet and the spokesman of Muslim refugees to Abyssinia, tried to make clear their attitude towards Jesus and to dispel the suspicion caused by the Meccan emissaries about the alleged derogatory language used by the Quran concerning Jesus and read to Najjashithe opening verses of the chapter Maryam, the latter, along with such of his companions as feared God, was visibly moved, and tears rolled down his cheeks and he said in a voice full of pathos that that exactly was his belief about Jesus, and that he did not look upon him by even a twig more than that (Hisham, i. 305, 306).

15:98; 16:104.

Commentary:

The verse signifies that the Holy Prophet was grieved at the attitude of disbelievers, not because they accused him of falsehood but because their denial of him meant the denial of the signs of God. Thus the grief of the Holy Prophet was not personal, the cause of his grief being that God was being denied. It pained him to see people denying God. He did not mind denial of himself, but he could not bear to see men rejecting God and His Signs.

2:24; 11:14; 17:89; 52:34-35.

Commentary:

Notwithstanding the great excellences of the Quran mentioned in the preceding verse, disbelievers had the hardihood to allege that it was a fabrication of the Holy Prophet. The verse under comment asks, if a book with such excellences as the Quran possesses could be a human fabrication, then why do disbelievers not produce a similar one themselves? Similar challenges have been made in the Quran at different places, in different words. At one place the Quran calls upon disbelievers to produce a book like the whole of the Quran; at another it challenges them to produce ten chapters comparable to the Quranic Surahs; at yet another place it requires them to produce even a single Surah like those of the Quran. This shows that each of the passages containing these challenges deals with the subject from a different standpoint and offers a different challenge. In the verse under comment, for instance, the pronoun "it" in the expression مثله (like unto it) does not refer to the whole of the Quran but only to the previous verse of the present Surah. As we have seen, the previous verse has advanced five arguments to show that the Quran is the revealed word of God and in the present verse disbelievers are told that if they still persist in looking upon the Quran as the word of man, then let them produce a book which, let alone all the five arguments embodied in the previous verse, should possess only one of them. It is a patent fact, however, that not one of these five arguments about the Divine origin of the Quran is to be found in any work of man. This is a claim which nobody has ever dared to contradict, nor is there a possibility of future contradiction. The challenge stands for all time. The heavens and the earth may pass away, but no man will ever be able to produce a book like the Quran.

If the word Surah in this verse be taken to mean a chapter, then the verse would mean that disbelievers are called upon to produce even a chapter comparable with the Quran. But then the challenge will not be so pointed. For, in that case disbelievers would be called upon to bring a full chapter characterized by all the five qualities mentioned in the previous verse, while in the other case they are required to produce any composition containing only one of the five qualities. For a detailed treatment of this important subject see 2:24.

2:24; 10:39; 17:89; 52:34-35.

Commentary:

This verse corroborates the interpretation put on the previous one. The latter gave two answers to the disbelievers’ vain hope that the Holy Prophet might abandon a portion of the Quran for fear of their objections, viz.: (1) that the Holy Prophet was only a Warner; he did not lay claim to Godhead that he might be required to have with him treasures and angels; (2) that he was only the bearer of a Message from God and his duty was confined to delivering that Message to the people. Now disbelievers could have replied to these arguments by saying that his claim to have come from God was but an empty assertion and that he was an impostor, as he was not attended with any special power. The verse under comment answers this objection by saying that although the Holy Prophet did not possess treasures of gold or silver, yet he possessed vast spiritual treasures the like of which were not possessed by the whole world collectively; and that those treasures were embodied in the Quran. So if they objected that the Holy Prophet was not a true Prophet and that certain portions of his Message were defective and needed to be altered, then let them bring forward a work comparable not to the whole of the Quran, but only to ten such chapters of it as they deemed to be defective. If, however, they could not produce a book comparable even to these so-called defective portions, which they thought needed to be changed, then they would have to admit that the Prophet of Islam did indeed possess a treasure the like of which none could produce. For full discussion of this subject, see under 2:24 where all similar verses of the Quran have been collectively treated.

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.

6:34; 11:13.

Commentary:

The verse does not mean that the Holy Prophet was grieved because the disbelievers mocked at him but because they associated other gods with God, as referred to in the preceding verse. His grief was due to his jealous love for God, on the one hand, and to his sincere solicitude for his people, on the other, because he knew that by rejecting him they were incurring the displeasure of God and courting their own destruction.

10:11; 13:25; 36:59; 39:74.

Commentary:

It may be noted here that whereas, as mentioned in verse 29, disbelievers will be the first to make overtures of submission at the appearance of the angels of death, in the case of the righteous it is the angels themselves who will receive them with the salutation of peace.

Important Words:

یلحدون (they unjustly incline in making this insinuation) is derived from لحد. They say لحد المیت i.e. he buried the corpse. لحدالسھم عن الھدف means, the arrow deviated from the target. الحد الی فلان means, he inclined towards such a one. They say الحد فی الدین i.e. he deviated or swerved from the right way with respect to religion; he impugned religion. الحد فی الحرم means, he desecrated the haram and violated its sanctity. The Quranic expression لسان الذی یلحدون الیه means, the tongue of him unto whom they incline (Lane & Aqrab).

اعجمی (foreign) is derived from عجم (‘ajama) which means, he bit it: and he chewed it. عجم (‘ajuma) means, he had an impotence or an impediment or a difficulty in his speech or utterance and a want of clearness, chasteness, or correctness therein. They say اعجم الکلام i.e. he made the speech or language to want or be without or to have a quality the contrary of clearness, perspicuous-ness or distinctness or to want or be without chasteness or correctness. اعجم الکتاب means, he dotted the book or pointed it or he removed its want of clearness by means of diacritical points. The Arabs say, اعجم البابi.e. he closed the door. عجم means, foreigners as meaning others than Arabs; such as are not Arabs, especially Persians. عجمی signifies one who is of the race of the عجم though he may be chaste or correct in Arabic speech. قوم اعجم means, a people not of the Arabs. اعجم means, one having an impotence or impediment or difficulty in speech though he may be clear, perspicuous, chaste or correct in speaking a foreign language; and not clear, perspicuous, chaste or correct in speaking Arabic though he may be an Arab; and اعجمی signifies the same, (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

Names of different persons have been mentioned in the traditions from whom disbelievers alleged the Holy Prophetreceived help in composing the Quran. According to some reports, it was a Christian slave named Jabr, who read the Christian Scriptures while making swords. The Prophet used to go and sit with him. According to another report, it was ‘Aish or Ya‘ish, a servant of al-Huwaitib Ibn ‘Abdul-‘Uzza, who knew the previous Scriptures and had embraced Islam and held firmly to the Faith. According to yet another report a slave named Abu Fuqaih who was also known as Yasar and was a Jew assisted the Holy Prophet in preparing the Quran. He was subjected to much persecution for his adoption of Islam and probably died sometime before the Hijrah. Again, ‘Abdullah bin Muslim al-Hadrami is reported to have said that his two Christian slaves named Yasar and Jabr, natives of ‘Ain at-Tamar, followed the trade of sword-cutters at Mecca. They used to read the Gospels while engaged in their work. When the Holy Prophet passed by their shop and saw them reading the Gospels he would stop there for a while. A report says that when one of them was asked whether he taught Muhammad the Bible he replied, ‘No, but he teaches me.’ Ibn ‘Abbas reports that the Holy Prophet gave instruction in Islam to a Roman slave named Bal‘am. The Quraish taunted the Prophet that he learned many things from him. The same is said of ‘Adas or ‘Addas, a slave of Ausa bin Rabi (Ma‘ani & Fath). The names of sundry other persons have also been mentioned from whom the Prophet was alleged by the Quraish to have received help, among them being ‘Ammar and Suhaib. The names of Salman, the Persian, and of ‘Abdullah bin Salam and of the Nestorian monk, Sergius, who according to Mas‘udi is the well-known Buhairah, have also been mentioned in this connection.

From the verse under comment, it appears that Meccans accused the Prophet of receiving help from a certain person in preparing the Quran and the verse answers the allegation by saying, But the tongue of him to whom they unjustly incline in making this insinuation is foreign, while this is Arabic tongue, plain and clear. The Christian critics say that this answer is irrelevant, for, as Arnold says: "admitting they were foreigners, they might nevertheless supply him with material" (Sherr’s Commentary of the Bible). It was the necessary material or subject matter, they allege, with which the foreigners supplied the Prophet and to say in reply that the tongue of the person who was alleged to teach him was not Arabic betrayed the irrelevancy of the answer. But these reverend gentlemen seem conveniently to ignore the patent fact that this was not the only objection with which the Quran was assailed. It has not hesitated to mention many other similar objections of disbelievers and has refuted them thoroughly. If the Quran could successfully rebut so many other objections of disbelievers, it could answer this one also. In fact it has adequately done so even in the verse under comment, but the reverend gentlemen themselves have not been able to understand the answer. Moreover, if the reply given in the Quran was so manifestly irrelevant as Christian critics pretend to find it, why did not the Meccans of the Prophet’s times who first made this objection, failed to detect this manifest irrelevancy and why did they not express their dissatisfaction with the answer? But not the slightest reference is to be found in any tradition to this so-called irrelevancy of this answer of the Quran. If Meccans had signified their dissatisfaction with this answer and had pointed out its absurdity and irrelevancy, the traditions would have mentioned it as they have mentioned so many other incidents calculated to impugn the Quran and render its position apparently indefensible.

The fact is that these critics themselves have not understood the objection. The traditions quoted above bring to light two objections of the Meccans. One was that Christian and Jewish slaves who had been converted to Islam secretly helped the Holy Prophet in composing the Quran. They furnished him with the necessary material which was subsequently rendered into Arabic. The other was that he listened to certain non-Muslim slaves while they recited the Gospels and incorporated into the Quran what he heard from them.

Thus Meccans made two objections. One of these the Quran has answered in this verse, while the other has been answered in vv. 25:5, 6, 7. This second objection along with its answer runs thus: And the disbelievers say, It is nothing but a lie which he has forged and at which other people have assisted him. But they have been guilty of a great injustice and have uttered an untruth. And they say: These are legends of the ancients; he has got them written down and they are dictated to him morning and evening, Nay, He Who knows the secrets in the heavens and the earth has revealed it. He truly is Most Forgiving and Merciful. The difference between these verses and the verse under comment is quite manifest. In the verse under comment disbelievers refer to a single man as having taught the Holy Prophet, while in Surah 25, it is not one man but many who are alleged, by disbelievers, to have assisted him in writing the Quran. To both these allegations different answers suiting the nature of the allegations have been given. Thus it is clear that Meccans had made two distinct and separate objections and both these have been answered in the Quran at different places, and traditions support this conclusion. It was with regard to several of the slave converts to Islam that it was alleged that they furnished material to the Prophet. To this allegation of the Meccans, chapter 25 refers in the words, at which other people have assisted him. From the same chapter it also appears that those who were alleged to have assisted the Prophet were Muslims, for the passage in question says: They are dictated to him morning and evening. Now it is an historical fact that while at Mecca Muslims assembled in the morning and evening in the house of Arqam for prayers and sat round the Holy Prophet with doors closed in order to avoid interference by disbelievers. Disbelievers alleged that the meetings were held to compose the Quran in secret, when the slave converts from Judaism and Christianity would tell the old histories of their religions, and the Prophet would have these accounts written down by his Companions. This is how disbelievers declared the Quran to be a forgery which was prepared by many persons, incidentally admitting by implication that a work of the unique excellence of the Quran could not be prepared by one man. Some Christian critics even in our own time have identified themselves with this allegation and have the hardihood to suggest that the letters with which some of the chapters of the Quran begin are the initial letters of the names of the Companions who composed them.

The objection gives rise to two inevitable questions: (a) whether those slave converts who were alleged to have assisted the Holy Prophet in writing the Quran were so learned and intelligent as to teach the Prophet what they were alleged to have taught him and (b) whether the Quran is a human production.

It is not difficult to find answers to both these questions. It does not require extraordinary intelligence to understand that those who helped the Prophet in producing and preparing the Quran and to whom he was indebted for what the Quran contained could not believe it to be the word of God and could not, for his sake, undergo willingly those inhuman cruelties and tyrannies which they suffered at the hands of disbelievers. Could these accomplices of the Holy Prophet in forging the Quran possibly endure the most cruel persecution for believing in a book which they themselves had fabricated? Are these Christian critics unaware of the persecution which these so-called forgers of the Quran bore without wavering and flinching?

With regard to the second question, viz. whether those great truths which are alleged to have been taught to the Prophet by the slave converts could possibly have been taught by them, the Quran says that what are spoken of as 'the legends of the ancients' and what are represented as being taught by the slave converts from Judaism and Christianity are not legends but great truths and mighty prophecies which have been made by Him 'Who knows the secrets in the heavens and the earth, and which it is beyond the power of any mortal to foretell'.

Now, if the objection mentioned in the verse under comment was the same as had been quoted and answered in 25:5-7 (which by common consent was revealed before the present Surah) viz. that some other persons had supplied the Prophet with material, the same convincing answer should have been given here also. But the answer given here is quite different from the one given in chapter 25. This shows that the objection referred to in the verse under comment has not been understood by these critics of the Quran. The present verse does not refer to the objection that a certain man provided material for the Quran. It refers to the second allegation of disbelievers viz. that the Prophet incorporated into the Quran what he heard from the Christian slave when the latter read the Gospels at his shop. The tradition says that there were two Christian slaves, Jabr and Yasar, who worked as sword-cutters at Mecca and read the Gospels at their shop and, when the Prophet passed by them, he used to stop there and listen to them. But on closer scrutiny it appears that really there was only one slave, Jabr, who was alleged to teach the Prophet. Another tradition, to which reference has already been made, supports this view and gives the name of Jabr only. Yet another tradition tells us that only one of the two Christian sword-cutters was asked whether he taught the Prophet, and he replied that, far from his teaching the Prophet, it was the Prophet who taught him. This not only shows that it was only one slave who read the Gospels, but also throws light on the purpose for which the Prophet sometimes stopped at his shop. He did not stop there to learn but to teach the man whom he considered to be religious-minded.

It has now been clearly established that the Quran refers to two objections of disbelievers, one relating to certain slave converts from whom the Prophet is alleged to have received help in preparing the Quran which is mentioned in chapter 25 and the other relating to what he heard of the Gospels from Jabr and incorporated in the Quran.

This second objection has been answered in the verse under comment. The verse purports to say that the tongue of him to whom they attribute the teaching of the Prophet being اعجمی i.e. foreign and defective, he could not impart to the Prophet in his faulty Arabic those great and eternal truths for explaining which the possession of sound and deep knowledge of Arabic was essential.

Other pertinent questions which arise here are, did the slave in question read an Arabic version of the Gospels and were the Gospels translated into Arabic in the Prophet’s time and were the Arabic versions so common that even slaves read them while working at their workshops? The original language of the Gospels was, according to Muslims, Hebrew, and according to Christians, Greek. If the existence of an Arabic version of the Bible in the time of the Prophet cannot be proved, it would follow that the slave in question read either a Hebrew or a Greek version. But if he read a Hebrew or a Greek Gospel, the question arises, how was the Prophet able to understand him, since he did not know either of these languages? Hence in order to understand the significance of the verse under comment, it has to be seen whether the Gospels had been translated into Arabic at the time of the Holy Prophet. That they had not been translated into Arabic is clear from the following facts:

Up to the time of the Prophet translations of the Gospels had not been made in any language. It was in the 13th or 14th centuries of the Christian era that the Gospels first began to be translated into other languages. The study of the Commentaries of the Quran by Muslim scholars also shows that Arabic versions of the Bible were not available to them, because when in their Commentaries they quote the New or the Old Testament they make very serious mistakes. They ascribe to these books stories which are not found in them. This clearly shows that Arabic versions of the Bible did not exist in their time, otherwise they would not have made such blunders.

Traditions also show that in the time of the Holy Prophet the Gospels were to be found only in Hebrew or Greek. In Bukhari we have the following about Waraqah bin Naufal; "He had become Christian in the days of ignorance and he used to write the Gospels in Hebrew." True, another tradition gives Arabic in place of Hebrew, as the language in which Waraqah wrote the Gospels but preference must be given to the tradition quoted from Bukhari because if the Arabic versions of the Bible could be available in the days of the Prophet many Muslims would have read them. But no such scholars of the Bible among early Muslims were to be found. We are even inclined to the view that the reporter had, by mistake, substituted the word "Hebrew" for "Greek" in the above tradition, because only Greek versions were current in those days and Hebrew versions had almost ceased to exist. That the Christian Scriptures had not been translated into Arabic by the time of the Prophet receives further support from the fact that even the Jewish tribes of Medina had not translated the Torah into Arabic by that time, and whenever he needed a reference to this book, he consulted ‘Abdullah bin Salam, a great Hebrew scholar. This view is also supported by the following testimony of a well-known Christian writer, Dr. Alexander Souter, M.A., LL.D., who writes in his book, "The Text and Canon of the New Testament" (Second Edition, 1925 p. 74), under the head, 'Arabic Versions': "These come partly and directly from Greek, and partly through Syriac and partly through Coptic. Mohammad himself knew the Gospel story only orally. The oldest manuscript goes no further back than the 8th century. Two versions of the Arabic are reported to have taken place at Alexandria in the 13th century." In short, there is no doubt about the fact that the Gospels had not been translated into Arabic at the time of the Prophet and those who had to consult them used the Greek or Hebrew version.

Thus it is clear that when Jabr, the Christian slave, read the Gospels, he must have read the Greek or the Hebrew version. And how could the Holy Prophet benefit by listening to a book in a language which he did not understand? The fact seems to be that when disbelievers saw the Prophet standing at Jabr’s shop they imagined that he must have learnt something from him. The Quran removes these doubts by saying, the tongue of him to whom they unjustly incline in making this insinuation is foreign, while this is Arabic tongue plain and clear, meaning that the man from whom the Prophet was alleged to have received material for the Quran must have read the book in Hebrew or Greek because his "tongue being foreign" he could not explain to the Holy Prophet in his defective Arabic those great truths which the Quran comprises. But the Prophet knew only Arabic and so he could not follow him, much less incorporate in the Quran what he heard from him.

In short, disbelievers brought two distinct charges against the Prophet. First, that he listened to a Christian slave while the latter read the Gospels at his workshop, and incorporated into the Quran what he heard from him. Secondly, that he received help from those slaves who had been converted to Islam from Judaism and Christianity and who met him in secret in the house of Arqam. Both these objections have been separately answered by the Quran, the first in the verse under comment and the second in 25:5-7.

It would be of some use to mention here the following facts which are relevant to the objections stated above.

1. The Quran has either abrogated or improved upon the teachings of former Scriptures. The Holy Prophet must have derived the knowledge of the teachings of those Scriptures from the same source—from God—from which he had derived the knowledge of the new teachings of the Quran which have supplanted previous Scriptures.

2. It has condemned some of the fundamental teachings of Christianity and has improved upon others. There is no known Christian sect with which it has not disagreed on one point or other. Now it is for Christian critics to say to which sect that man who is supposed to have "taught" the Holy Prophet belonged and how he could teach him things which were against his own beliefs. Certainly the Prophet’s so-called helpers could not have helped him in abrogating the teachings of their own religious Scriptures.

3. It has corrected many Biblical statements. For instance, it declares that Aaron did not take part in the worship of the calf. It clears David, Solomon and Noah of the sinful acts ascribed to them in the Bible. These are facts to the truth of which even Christian writers have had to bear witness today when more than 1350 years have passed since these truths were, for the first time, proclaimed by the Quran. Surely, no Christian slave could teach the Prophet these historical truths.

4. The Quran has made some very important prophecies with regard to some of the events mentioned in the Bible. No Jewish or Christian sect had any knowledge of them. But their truth has now come to light. For instance, the Quran states that God preserved the body of Pharaoh so that it might be a sign for the generations to come. No Christian slave could impart this knowledge to the Prophet.

5. It appears from the traditions that the Holy Prophet used to visit Jabr’s shop in the fourth or fifth year of the Call, when he was boycotted by Meccans. But chapters 18, 19, 20 and 25 of the Quran which deal with Jews and Christians had been revealed before that time. Ibn Mas‘ud who was one of very early converts to Islam says that chapters 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 belong to the early Meccan period (Bukhari, Kitabut-Tafsir). All these Surahs abound in facts relating to Jews and Christians. How could the Prophet know these facts if the source of his information was the Christian slave, Jabr, the sword-cutter of Mecca?

Commentary:

This verse furnishes an illustration of the fact that when the Quran reverts to a subject it does so to deal with it in a new light. The verse has reverted to the subject of setting up equals with God. But here it gives quite a new argument in its refutation. It demolishes the claim of idolaters that they worship their idols to seek nearness to God through their mediation (39:4) by saying that if by this worship they had really sought nearness to God, they should have achieved this object but there are no signs of any one of them ever having attained nearness to God.

Incidentally some light may be thrown on some of the signs and marks which a person who has established real connection with God must possess: (a) his prayers are accepted; (b) he becomes very much immune from sin or indulgence in vain discourse; (c) he enjoys a sort of Divine protection and (d) he treats God’s creatures with kindness and benevolence and lives peacefully and amicably with them, i.e. he is at peace with God and man. Idolaters are completely devoid of all these characteristics of God’s beloved and His Elect.

The expression, they (idolaters) would have surely sought out a way to the Owner of the Throne, may also be understood to mean that if the false gods of idolaters had possessed any truth or power, then with their help idolaters would have learnt from the Supreme Lord of the Throne some way or means to counteract and nullify the Holy Prophet’s efforts. The fact, therefore, that the Prophet marched from success to success and all their schemes and machinations failed to impede his progress furnishes proof positive of the fact that these so-called gods possess no truth or power.

6:101; 39:68.

Commentary:

It is inconsistent with the dignity and greatness of God to grant nearness to His creatures through the medium of others and thus make difficult the path of those who seek His nearness. The Prophets of God come to make that path easy. They do not stand between God and His creatures.

22:72; 40:43.

19:91-92.

Commentary:

The expression کبرت کلمة (grievous is the word) is really کبرت ھی کلمة which means that the saying of this word is very grievous, or that it is very grievous even to open the lips with this word and it is against reason and common sense to utter it. The verse constitutes a severe indictment of the doctrine that Jesus is the son of God. This doctrine is not only blasphemous but also revolting to human intellect. It is an insult to human understanding to say that a weak and helpless man who could not save himself from being hung on the cross was God or the Son of God. Misguided and erring leaders of the Christian Church fabricated a most heinous and blasphemous doctrine without even a modicum of sense or reason to support it. They were fully aware of the fact that the disciples of Jesus and early Christians were strict monotheists and yet they departed from their pristine Faith. The later Christians, however, had with them the excellent Islamic teaching about the Unity of God, but they did not benefit by it, nor by the monotheistic beliefs of their own forebears. Without rhyme or reason they ascribed Godhead to a weak human being.

The words, they speak naught but a lie, signify that Jesus never taught such a foolish doctrine but later Christians themselves invented it and they are to blame for it. In fact, even the canonical Gospels lend no support to this blasphemous doctrine. No doubt the Bible has used the epithet "son of God" about Jesus but so has it also done about several other persons. For instance in Exod. 4:22 we have, "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first born." See also Gen. 6:2, John 10:35, etc.

Commentary:

یوما (a day) here signifies one thousand years referred to in 22:48 where it is said: verily, a day with thy Lord is as a thousand years of what you reckon. This یوم (a day) corresponds to عشراً (ten days) of the preceding verse, i.e. ten centuries or a thousand years.

یوم also means time absolutely. In this sense of the word the disbelievers, when they are seized with Divine punishment, are depicted as saying that the time of their prosperity and progress was but a day i.e. very short. In fact the period of ease and comfort, however long, looks very short when misfortunes and miseries overtake a person. So this word may have been used here in the sense of "a short time."

17:79-80; 30:18-19; 50:40-41.

Important Words:

آناء (hours) is the plural of إنی (inyun) and إنی (inan) and أنی (anyun). All these are derived from أنی (ana) which means, its time came; it was or became or drew near; it attained to its full state. إنی (inyun) means, an hour or a short portion of time, or an indefinite time; a time of the night; any hour of the night. مضی إنو من اللیل means, a time of the night passed (Lane & Aqrab).

اطراف is the plural of طرف and means, sides of the day; parts of the day (Aqrab).

Commentary:

Some commentators of the Quran are of the view that by the glorification of God at the hours mentioned in the verse are meant the hours of the five daily Prayers; the words "before the rising of the sun" signifying the morning Prayer; and the words "before its setting" the late afternoon (‘Asr) Prayer; and the expression "and glorify Him in the hours of the night" signifying the evening (Maghrib) and night Prayer (‘Isha), while the words "at the sides of the day" signifying afternoon (Zuhr) Prayer. But whatever the words of the verse may mean it is quite clear that in order to obtain success in life and satisfaction of the mind it is very essential to remember God and glorify Him. God’s constant remembrance is specifically suited to illumine the soul and to bring about peace of mind.

7:185; 34:47.

Commentary:

This verse continues the theme of the preceding one and embodies a repudiation of the foolish charge of disbelievers that the Holy Prophet has been smitten with insanity, and mentions also the cause and reason for their denial of him. It throws a challenge to them by saying that there could possibly be no insanity or madness about the Holy Prophet inasmuch as maniacs have never produced such wonderful results as he has done. He has changed the whole face of Arabia. Nor have the teachings of madmen or impostors offered such satisfactory solutions of all the difficult human moral, social and economic problems as the Quran has done. The verse gives the reason for the disbelievers’ rejection of the Message of Islam in the words that they hate the truth, meaning thereby that they know that by accepting it they will have to undergo untold hardships and privations and to suffer loss of power, prestige and property. This they by no means are prepared to do.

3:17,194.

8:75; 22:51.

Commentary:

The word الخبیثات meaning evil deeds or obscene words, the verse purports to say that evil persons do evil deeds or indulge in obscene and foul talk and scandal-mongering, while nothing comes out of good and virtuous persons but righteous deeds and pure and ennobling words. The subject of calumny and slander is thus closed with this beautiful epigram and the verse itself ends with giving a certificate of righteousness to ‘A’ishah to whom the words: "they are innocent of all that which the calumniators allege" primarily refer.

Important Words:

غراما (most vehement torment) is derived from غرم which means, he paid or discharged a thing after it had become obligatory upon him. غرم الدین means, he discharged the debt. غرام means, a thing from which one is unable to free himself; a thing such as cleaves fast; lasting evil; perdition, persistent and such as cleaves fast; most vehement punishment or torment; hardship or difficulty and an affliction or a calamity or misfortune that befalls a man; eager desire (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

The word إمام meaning "leader" and "model" (2:125 & 15:80), the verse purports to say that a truly righteous man is not satisfied with only becoming righteous himself but aims at being a model and pattern for other righteous men to copy.

13:27; 29:63; 34:37.

Important Words:

ویکان (Ah).ویک is a compound expression made up of وی and ک and is used for surprise and reproach, وی meaning woe and ک being a letter of address. They say ویک i.e. woe to thee. Some say ویک is ویلک (thy perdition), ل having been omitted. ویک being an expression of surprise or reproach means, oh; ah. وی لزید also means, well done Zaid, bravo Zaid (Aqrab).