يَكُونُ

3:27.

Important Words:

طالوت (Talut) is the attributive name of an Israelite king who lived about two hundred years before David and about the same number of years after Moses. Most commentators regard Talut to be a name of Hebrew origin and consider him to be synonymous with Saul (1. Sam. ch. 9). As Hebrew is only an offshoot of Arabic, the word Talut appears to be derived from the Arabic root طال i.e. he became tall or high___a description coinciding with the one given in the verse under comment viz. one increased abundantly in knowledge and body. It is, however, not right to identify Talut with Saul. The description of the Quran fits more with Gideon (Judg. chs. 6-8) than with Saul. Gideon lived in about 1250 B.C. and the Bible calls him a "mighty man of valour" (Judg. 6:12) which is the same as Talut.

Commentary:

There has been a difference of opinion as to the identity of the person to whom the name Talut has been applied. According to a number of Muslim commentators, Talut stands for Saul, and the passage refers to the reign of Saul. Christian writers have, however, taken exception to this view. According to them the incidents related in this passage refer to two different periods which are separated from each other by the long interval of 200 years; and these critics refer to this passage as an instance of historical anachronism, found in the Quran. The passage does indeed refer to two different periods, but if Christian critics had carefully thought over their own history, they would have seen that there is no confusion of dates in the passage in question and that the Quran has here referred to both these periods. Its object in doing so is to show how the unification of the different tribes of Israel began in the time of Gideon (i.e. Talut) two hundred years before David, and was finally consummated in the time of David.

In order to determine the identity of Talut, let us glance over the main incidents related in verse 247 to 252. These are as follows: 1. The people of the period to which Talut belongs had been driven forth from their homes and their children (2:247). 2. One who was not originally a king was appointed as such (2:248). 3. God helped the followers of this king, giving them the Talut as a token of His sovereignty (2:249). 4. The people were tried by means of water (2:250). 5. There existed a great disparity in numbers between these people and the enemy, and the trial reduced their number still further (ibid). 6. In spite of the small number of his followers, this king overcame the enemy (2:252).

Now some of these details do indeed apply to Saul, but there are others which do not. The key words which afford a clue to the identity of Talut are, Hast thou not heard of the chiefs of the children of Israel after Moses. The words "after Moses" indicate that the incident belongs to an early period when the Jews as a nation had just begun to take a definite shape in history. For two hundred years after Moses, the Israelites were divided into different tribes and had no king and no fighting force. In 1256 B.C., owing to their iniquity, God delivered them into the hands of the Midianites who plundered and ravaged them for seven long years, and they were compelled to take refuge in caves (Judg. 6:1, 2). This is why they are represented in the Quran as saying, we have been driven forth from our homes. The Midianites attacked them and carried away their sheep and oxen and asses, and destroyed their crops and pillaged them as far as Gaza (Judg. 6:4-6). The Israelites then cried to their Lord, and God raised among them a Prophet; and an angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon, appointed him king and promised him divine help. Then Gideon said to God, "Oh my Lord, wherewith shall I save Israel? Behold, my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house" (Judg. 6:15). This tallies with the description given in the Quran which represents the chiefs among the Israelites as saying with regard to the new king, How can he have sovereignty over us while we are better entitled to sovereignty than he and he is not given abundance of wealth (2:248). What makes the identification of Talut with Gideon still more certain is the fact that it was in the time of Gideon and not Saul that the Israelites were tried by means of water and the description of the trial as given in the Bible (Judg. 7:4-7) is the same as that of the Quran.

From Judg. 7:6, 7 we learn that after the aforesaid trial, there remained with Gideon only 300 men. It is interesting to note that a Companion of the Holy Prophet is reported to have said, "We were 313 men in the Battle of Badr, and this number corresponds to the number of men who followed Talut" (Tirmidhi, ch. on Siyar). Thus this tradition also lends support to the conclusion that Talut was no other than Gideon.

What further confirms the identity of Talut with Gideon is that the Hebrew word Gideon is identical in meaning with the Arabic word Talut. The former is derived from a root which in Hebrew means "to fell" (Enc. Bib.) or "to hew" (Jew. Enc.). Thus, Gideon means "one who cuts down his adversary and fells him to the ground" and the Bible itself speaks of Gideon as a "mighty man of valour" (Judg. 6:12), and we have already noted that in Arabic Tala means one who is tall and towers above others (see Important Words above).

The clause, how can he have sovereignty over us while we are better entitled to sovereignty than he, and he is not given abundance of wealth, indicates that the people raised two objections against Talut or Gideon: (1) that he did not belong to a highly placed family and was therefore not entitled to kingship, and (2) that he did not possess the requisite wealth for exercising influence. Both of these are plausible objections that are usually made by ordinary people of the world; but a chosen people guided by the will of the Just and Wise God must think otherwise. With them the real title to sovereignty is neither family status nor wealth but the personal qualities of a man; hence the clause, surely Allah has chosen him above you and has increased him abundantly in knowledge and body. The superiority of a man in physical and mental faculties coupled with knowledge and prowess must remain the basis for all title to rulership. And in the case of Talut the title had the additional strength of coinciding with the choice of God Who is the best and, in fact, the only true Judge of all titles.

19:9, 10.

Important Words:

غلام (son) is derived from غلم i.e. he became excited by lust or carnal desire. اغتلم الشراب means, the beverage became strong in its influence upon the head. غلام means: (1) a young man, one whose moustache is growing forth; (2) a son, a male child; (3) a man of middle age; (4) a male slave or servant (Lane).

Commentary:

Zachariah’s question contained in the words, how shall I have a son? implies no disbelief on his part in God’s promise, as alleged by the Bible (Luke 1:20). It is simply a spontaneous expression of innocent surprise at the divine promise. It also contains a veiled prayer that he might live long enough to see the child born and grow up into a young man. Zachariah has referred to his old age and the barrenness of his wife to make God’s mercy take a practical shape all the more speedily.

The expression کذالك الله یفعل ما یشاء may be rendered as: (1) thus Allah does what He pleases; (2) this is really so, but Allah does what He pleases; (3) such is the way of Allah, He does what He pleases.

19:21.

See 2:118.

Commentary:

The news of a son, however happy in ordinary circumstances, greatly perplexed Mary who was not only as yet unmarried but was also meant to remain so for life. The verse reflects her justified perplexity. It also shows that Jesus had no father, as hinted in Mary’s words, no man has touched me. Having been dedicated to the service of the Temple, Mary could not, consistently with her vow of celibacy, marry. If she was to marry and have children in due course there was no occasion for her to be surprised when the birth of a child was announced to her by the angel in a vision. No normal girl would be surprised if she were told in a vision that a son would be born to her; for she would naturally infer that the promised child would be born to her after marriage. In the Gospel of Mary, the vow of celibacy is clearly referred to. In chapter 5 of the said Gospel we read that when the high priest made a public order that all the virgins living in the temple who had reached their fourteenth year should return home, all the other virgins yielded obed-ience to this command, but "Mary the virgin of the Lord" alone answered that she could not comply with it; and for this refusal of hers she assigned the reason that both she and her parents had devoted her to the service of the Lord, and that she had vowed virginity to the Lord, which vow she was resolved never to break (Gospel of Mary, 5: 4, 5, 6).

Mary’s subsequent marriage with Joseph was thus contrary to the vow and against her own wish. She was, however, compelled by circumstances to marry when found with child. The priests had to arrange her marriage with Joseph in order to avoid scandal. It does not, however, appear from the Gospels how Joseph was prevailed upon to consent, for he was obviously in the dark about her being pregnant at the time of marriage (Matt. 1:18, 19). Presumably some plausible excuse was found to justify the breaking of the vow.

Christians and Jews are both agreed that the birth of Jesus was something out of the ordinary–the Christians holding it as supernatural and the Jews as illegitimate (Jew. Enc.). Even in the family birth register, Jesus’ birth was recorded as such (Talmud). This fact alone should constitute a sufficient proof of Jesus’ birth being out of the ordinary. But it was neither supernatural nor illegitimate. To quote only one medical authority: "Medical men have not ruled out altogether the possibility of natural parthenogenesis of the production of a child by a female, without any relation to a male. Such a statement off-hand appears ridiculous, yet its possibility, from a purely biological standpoint, under certain conditions cannot be disregarded. Dr. Timme calls attention to this possibility as the result of a certain type of tumours, known as arrhenoblastoma (from the Greek words for "male" and "germ") which are occasionally found in the female pelvis or lower body. These tumours are capable of generating male sperm cells. Naturally, if these male sperm cells were alive and active and came in contact with the female’s own egg cell or ovum, conception might occur. There is nothing illogical in this process of reasoning…Dr. Timme states that there are twenty authentic cases reported in Europe in which an arrhenoblastoma had been found to develop male sperm cells…The arrhenoblastoma is a tumour that contains blastodermic cells...These cells are creative structures and are capable of development at any time and the fact, therefore, that arrhenoblas-tomacontaining these "embryonic cells" might create testicular tissue, capable of producing male sperm cells seems scientifically not impossible. If living male sperm cells are produced in a female body by arrhenoblastoma, the possibility of self-fertilization of a woman, even though a virgin, cannot be denied. That is to say, her own body would produce the same result as though sperm cells from a man’s body had been transferred to hers in the more usual way, or by a physician’s aid" (American Medical Journal).

There are cases on record of children having been born without fathers: "A young girl of great moral purity became pregnant without the slightest knowledge of the source… There is a case of pregnancy in an unmarried woman, who successfully resisted an attempt at criminal connection and yet became impreg-nated and gave birth to a perfectly formed female child" (Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine by George M. Gould, A.M., M.D., and Walter L. Payle, A.M., M.D., published by W. B. Saunders & Co., London).

Commentary:

The use in the present verse of the word انتم (you) which is in the plural number clearly shows that in the previous verses it was not the Holy Prophet, but Muslims in general who were addressed. The Holy Prophet could not be expected to dispute on behalf of dishonest people. The Quran addresses him merely because he is the recipient of the Word of God and it is through him that people receive Divine commands.

5:118.

Important Words:

The pronoun "it" in the clause, believe in it, stands for the false belief (referred to in the preceding verses) that Jesus met his death on the cross. So the verse signifies that both Jews and Christians will continue to believe in the supposed crucifixion of Jesus till the time of their death, when the veil will be lifted and everything will become clear. They are indeed bound to believe in the alleged death of Jesus on the cross. If the Jews do not do so, his truth becomes established and their whole position becomes indefensible. Similarly, if the Christians do not believe in it, the doctrine of Atonement becomes untenable and the entire fabric of Christianity crashes to pieces. So both these peoples go on sticking to this absurd and unfounded belief in the face of all reason and all established facts of history.

The attempts to make the words لیؤمنن به قبل موته (will believe in it before his death) mean "will believe in him (Jesus) before his (Jesus’) death" is simply ridiculous. The context spurns the idea, as does the second reading of the expression موته (his death) viz. موتھم (their death) reported by Ubayy (Jarir, vi. 13).

5:110; 9:78; 34:49.

Important Words:

The words ما یکون لی (I could not) may be interpreted in various ways, such as, it was not fitting or proper for me to do so; or it did not behove me; or it was beyond my power or position; or it was impossible for me; or I had no right to do so, etc. See also 3:80.

نفس (mind) means, among other things, knowledge; purpose or intention (Lane). See also 3:29.

Commentary:

The expression, Holy art Thou, besides hinting that it is only God Who is free from error, embodies a beautiful reply on the part of Jesus to the question put to him by God in the words, didst thou say to men, 'Take me and my mother for two gods', which seemed to imply a sort of reproach and an expression of displeasure. The reply of Jesus appears to be something like this: "I was only a humble Messenger, O God, therefore I could not ask men to take me and my mother as gods beside Thee, for if I had done so, that would have been a reflection on Thee that Thou didst choose as Thy Messenger a person who turned faithless to Thee and asked his followers to take him and his mother as gods beside Thee. But Thy choice, o God, cannot be wrong; hence it was impossible that I, a Messenger of Thine, should have bidden men take me and my mother as gods, and Thine own all-embracing knowledge, o God, is a testimony of my innocence."

The word نفس (mind) when used about God implies "intention." Thus the last sentence of the verse would mean, "I do not know what Thou meanest by this question. Thou, being All-Knowing, well knowest that I did not say so; hence, I fail to understand the object or purpose of Thy ques-tion." This reply of Jesus shows that in his heart he was afraid that some shortcoming in the execution of his duty might have displeased the Almighty.

2:118.

Important Words:

ولد (son) is from the verb ولد meaning, he or she begot or brought forth a child or a young one. The word ولد (waladun) or ولد (wuldun) or ولد (waldun) is very comprehensive in its meaning. It not only signifies male and female but is also used as singular or plural, extending even to remote offspring. Thus the word means, a child, a son, a daughter, or any young one; children, sons, daughters, or young ones; also offspring (Lane).

Commentary:

After making a reference to man-made teachings, the Quran proceeds to give Divine teachings.

There are only two ways by which one can have a son, either by a wife or by adoption. As for the first way, God has no spouse, so He cannot have a son. Christians call Jesus the son of God, but they do not call Mary the consort of God. If, however, Jesus was the son of God by adoption, then that does not entitle him to a higher spiritual status than other human beings, for any other man might as well have been adopted by God as His son. Again, as God is the Creator of everything and possesses perfect knowledge, He does not stand in need of a son.

15:35; 38:78.

Commentary:

There being no noun mentioned in the verse to which the pronoun ھا (it) implied in the expression منھا (hence) refers, it may be taken to denote the condition or state or position in which Iblis was before he refused to submit to Adam. Thus the expression, go down hence, signifies, "be thou degraded from thy present position".

2:256; 40:8.

Commentary:

The argument of the followers of Shu‘aib for not renouncing their religion is continued in this verse. There could be only two reasons, they said, for giving up their faith; firstly if they had been false and insincere in their profession of faith; secondly, if their religion itself had been false. But as neither of these two things was true, therefore, it was impossible for them to give up their faith. They further reinforce their argument by the words, Our Lord comprehends all things in His knowledge, meaning that when they are fully convinced of their religion being the religion of God and of God being always in the right, it is impossible for them to recant their faith. There is only one possibility of their doing so, i.e. that Allah, our Lord, should so will, viz. that some hidden weakness or sin of theirs may move God to cut them asunder like a diseased limb. But they have faith in their Lord and trust in Him Who has given them the opportunity and the power to accept the truth. He would not let them go astray because His permitting them to forsake the path of rectitude would be inconsistent with His attribute of being their رب or Lord.

The words, In Allah have we put our trust, are also intended to imply that, as the votaries of truth have perfect faith in God, so no amount of persecution can intimidate them into giving it up. They are encouraged and strengthened by constantly praying to God to protect them from the plots and machinations of their enemies.

9:4.

Commentary:

The words, So, as long as they stand true to you, stand true to them, show that war was permissible only against such non-Muslims as were faithless to their covenants and attacked Muslims treacherously. As for the rest, Muslims have been bidden to observe their engagements strictly and faithfully with them. It will be noted that like 9:4, this verse describes the observance of covenants and treaties as an act of piety and righteousness which is pleasing in the sight of God. No wonder that the Quran repeatedly exhorts Muslims to be faithful to their treaties.

See 10:8.

17:74.

6:51; 7:204; 46:10.

Important Words:

تلقاء (accord) is derived from لقی. They say لقیه i.e. he came face to face with him; he found or met him. توجه تلقاء النار means, he went in the direction of the fire, or towards the fire. جلس تلقاء فلان means, he sat facing him or opposite to him. فعله من تلقاء نفسه means, he did it himself; he did it of his own accord, i.e. without being led to it by someone else or without being forced to do it (Aqrab).

Commentary:

Signs (آیات) are of two kinds: (1) simple signs, and (2) clear or manifest signs. To the first class belong all things, even the smallest atom of the universe, because every one of these things points to the existence of a Creator, though it is our own faculty of reasoning that draws the inference that every created thing must have a Creator. But the signs shown at the hands of Prophets speak for themselves. They are shown to establish the truth of things hidden from our eyes, viz. the existence of God, the Day of Resurrection, the truth of the Prophets, and the nature of Divine attributes. As these signs serve as evidence for matters that concern belief, they have been spoken of as آیات بینات (clear signs), while the Signs from nature are spoken of simply as آیات (signs). All pestilences, for example, are آیات while a pestilence predicted by a Prophet of God to prove the truth of his claim is آیة بینة i.e. a clear and manifest sign, for such a pestilence serves its purpose much more clearly and definitely than a general one.

The words, those who look not for the meeting with Us say, Bring a Quran other than this or change it, show that when the leaders of disbelief saw that the hearts of their followers were becoming gradually inclined towards the truth and they were beginning to accept the new faith, they became anxious and, in order to incite their followers against the Prophet, assumed the garb of peacemakers. As men naturally love peace, the leaders of disbelief exploit this natural human desire and suggest a compromise, viz. that the Prophet should introduce no new teaching but should only assume the leadership of the people which would maintain the homogeneity of the community and save it from discord or dissension. If, however, this proposal should not meet with the Prophet’s acceptance, he should at least omit from his teachings such portions as offend against the cherished ideas of the people. When making these proposals, the ringleaders know full well that the Prophet would never accede to these unreasonable demands, which cut at the very root of his divine mission, and that in this way the people would come to think that he was too narrow-minded to give up even some of his ideas for the sake of national unity and concord. Thus they think they would succeed in making the people ignore the important fact that truth and the acceptance of a Divine Call were much more precious than mere patched-up unity and that the decline of nations was always due to the denial of divine truth. In reply to these demands of his opponents the Holy Prophet is commanded to say in this verse that he could not change a teaching which was revealed by God and which was the only means of their regeneration, for such change, instead of proving useful, was sure to prove ruinous.

The expression "of my own accord" occurring in the words, It is not for me to change it of my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me, contains a subtle hint that Divine teachings are always in accordance with the condition of the people for whom they are sent, and hence nobody can change them of his own accord. If the Holy Prophet should himself change the teachings revealed to him, it would lead to the ruin of the people because Divine teachings, being in fitness of prevailing circumstances, can alone bring about a real spiritual and moral reformation among people and any change in these teachings would certainly be not to their good. The words, Bring a Quran other than this or change it, may also refer to the prophecies of punishment and destruction contained in the Quran. Disbelievers naturally did not like these prophecies and wanted them to be changed. The verse tells them that they could have these warnings changed only if they changed their own condition, because if a change takes place in them, the nature of the warnings would automatically change.

The words, I only follow what is revealed to me, may also mean, "In respect of the Quran I follow nothing but what is revealed to me" i.e. not only are all the words of the Quran divine but its divisions into verses and Surahs as well as the arrangement thereof are also divine. Incidentally this also does away with the objection raised by certain critics of Islam that the opening verse of each Surah, viz. بسم الله was not of Divine origin but was placed there by the Prophet himself.

Some Christian writers pretend to see this verse as an effort by the Holy Prophet to justify the alleged abrogation of certain verses of the Quran. By the words, It is not for me to change it of my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me, the Holy Prophet is supposed by these writers to have disclaimed all responsibility for abrogation in the Quran. But this assumption is absurd. Far from justifying abrogation, the verse shows that not a single verse of the Quran has ever been abrogated. When disbelievers demanded that the Holy Prophet should make some alteration in the Quran, they did not mean that they would accept it after the demanded changes had been made. Their object in making such a demand was that, if the Holy Prophet agreed to make any change in the Quran, in compliance with their demand, they would at once say that it was not the word of God but his own composition which he altered at will to meet their wishes. But if he refused to accede to their demand, they would get a ready tool to incite the masses against him, condemning him as one who had no regard for national peace and harmony. Christian writers seem to forget the fact that if, as alleged by them, certain verses of the Quran had already been replaced by others, disbelievers had no need to resort to the above device, but could justify their objection on the basis of the abrogation that had already taken place in the Quran and could seize on it as evidence of the Quran not being the word of God. Thus the verse under comment incidentally furnishes evidence that there has been no abrogation in the Quran.

The words, the punishment of an awful day, signify a national disaster. The words mean that the teachings which are revealed by God are for the good of the people themselves and it is on acting upon them that all progress depends. So, if any change is made in these teachings, it is sure to prove detrimental to the best interests of the entire people.

3:41; 21:91.

Important Words:

عتیا (extreme limit) is derived from عتا which means, he behaved proudly and was immoderate and inordinate; he was excessively proud or corrupt; he became advanced in age. عتت الریح means, the wind blew fiercely. The Quranic expression وقد بلغت من الکبر عتیا means, And I have reached the extreme degree of old age, or hardness and dryness in the joints and the bones like dry wood. The word also signifies that state of extreme old age which is incurable (Mufradat, Lane & Aqrab).

The word غلام as stated above (v.8) implied that Zachariah would see his son grow before his eyes and that he would also be able to train and educate him. The glad tidings was indeed a source of great comfort but at the same time it was a surprise for a man who had reached such an advanced old age as Zachariah.

The words, How shall I have a son, do not express despair. V.5 above shows that Zachariah had not despaired of God’s mercy. On the contrary he had perfect faith in the power of God to grant him a son. Moreover, a true believer never despairs of God’s mercy. "None despairs of Allah’s mercy save the unbelieving people", says the Quran (12:88). The verse only expresses Zachariah’s innocent and spontaneous surprise at the greatness of the favour which God was about to bestow upon him. Every person situated as Zachariah was would be naturally surprised at the unusual glad tidings that he had received.

3:48; 19:9.

Commentary:

The incident referred to in this and the preceding verses took place in a vision, and in a vision or dream a person experiences different kinds of sensations at different occasions. Sometimes his feelings and talk in the dream are subject to and under the effect of the dream that he sees while at another time they are not, and he feels and talks as he would feel and talk if he were awake. For example, if in a dream a person is glad over the death of his son, his feelings will be regarded as under the effect of the dream because in his state of wakefulness no sane person would be glad over the death of his son. So if the words spoken by Mary when she saw the angel in her vision were under the effect of the vision, then they would signify that when the glad tidings were given to her about the birth of a son she had a pleasant surprise whether God would work such a miracle as to give her—a virgin—a son. But if the words be regarded as a natural expression on her part when the tidings of the birth of a son were given to her then they would signify that she was completely perplexed and horror-struck at the thought that a son should be born to her—a virgin. In the former case hers would be a very pleasant surprise at the great favour that God was going to do her and in the latter case it would be an expression of bewilderment indicating the horrified state of her mind.

The words 'no man has touched me' show that Mary thought that the glad tidings about the birth of a son to her meant that the child would be born to her without contracting a regular marriage, otherwise there was no sense in her denying having known any man. The words, 'neither have I been unchaste' show that whereas in the previous clause she had denied having known any man lawfully i.e. in a married state, these words refer to her denial of having known any person unlawfully i.e. outside legal wedlock. In her reply to the angel she seemed to be thinking of the circumstances of her life in the Temple and of her vow of celibacy which obviated the possibility of her having any offspring. If she thought that the promise made in the preceding verse referred to the birth of a son as a result of her conjugal relations in some future time, as some commentators of the Quran think, then there was no occasion for her to express any surprise.

Important Words:

یعبؤ (cares) is derived from عبأ which means, he packed up goods, put one upon the other. They say ما أعبأبه i.e. what shall I do with it or I do not care for, mind, heed or regard him, or I do not receive anything from him, with approbation, or I do not hold him to be of any weight or worth; or I do not esteem him (Lane & Mufradat).

Commentary:

The verse means to say that God has created man to serve a grand and noble object. If he turns his back on the object of his creation, he forfeits God’s mercy and makes himself deserving of His displeasure. That sublime purpose of man’s creation is referred to in vv. 51-57.

Commentary:

Because it is beyond human mind to conceive of the dreadfulness of the calamity, a few of its horrible effects have been pointed out. This and the next verse give some idea of the confusion and distress it will cause.

The terrific and cataclysmic happening will scatter the people like flakes of carded wool, not finding refuge anywhere.

6:33; 29:65; 47:37.

56:66.

Important Words:

الکفار (tillers) is the plural of کافر which is act. part. from کفر. They say کفر الشیء او کفرہ (kaffara), i.e. he concealed, hid or covered the thing. کفر نعمة اللّٰه او بنعمة اللّٰه means, he denied or did not acknowledge the favour of God, he denied and concealed it. The husbandman is called کافر because he concealed the seed under earth, and a disbeliever is so called because he conceals and denies the favour of God (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

Life spent in forgetfulness of God and disregard of its higher values is, as described in the verse under comment, but a sport and a pastime, otherwise man’s life on earth is a most serious fact. It has a great mission and a noble object to fulfil. The verse implies that at the time when the great Promised Reformer to whom reference is impliedly made in the preceding verse would make his appearance, men would neglect the grim and noble purpose of their lives and would give themselves up, body and soul, to the pursuit of petty and paltry pleasures of life and there would be a mad craze and unhealthy competition among them, and vying with one another, for amassing wealth and material resources. But the end of all this competition and rivalry, says the verse, would be like the end of a blooming and blossoming crop over which a scorching wind has blown turning it into broken pieces of straw.

Commentary:

The subject which was only indirectly introduced in v. 6 has been elaborated in this and the next few verses. The present verse refers to the secret plots and conspiracies against Islam of the Jews and hypocrites of Medina. It condemns this evil practice and warns them that their plots are not hidden from God. He has sent the Holy Prophet and He is his Guardian and Protector, and their conspiracies would do him no harm. They are further warned that they would be punished for their wicked designs. The expulsion of the three Jewish tribes from Medina was the result of their repeated acts of defection and infidelity and of their secret plots against Islam and against the life of the Holy Prophet.