أَتَقُولُونَ

16:91.

Commentary:

This verse, applied generally, gives an apposite description of those who follow Satan as stated in the preceding verse. It may also particularly apply to Christians who allege that Adam sinned and that it is from him that sin came as a heritage to his posterity who, therefore, cannot get rid of it. The Quran condemns this doctrine most forcibly; firstly because it is simply absurd and foolish, and secondly because the Quran exonerates Adam from the charge of having committed a sin.

By saying, Allah has enjoined it upon us, disbelievers mean that it is God Who has given them the power to commit sins or that He it is Who has created Satan that leads them astray. They thus seek to absolve themselves of the responsibility of their evil deeds. The latter part of the verse embodies an effective answer to this lame excuse. God never enjoins foul deeds, says the verse. As for Satan, the people do not understand the object of his creation. Satan is only a trial for men. He serves the purpose of a hurdle in a hurdle race. The hurdles are placed there not to block our progress but to make us vigilant and to cause us to increase our efforts. The careless and negligent person who stumbles over a hurdle and thus loses the race should blame himself and not the person who puts it in his way in order to try and prove his mettle.

2:117; 4:172; 9:31; 17:112; 18:5, 6.

Commentary:

In v. 67, it had been hinted that in the false doctrines of disbelievers lie hidden the seeds of their destruction. In the present verse, the Quran proceeds to refute the doctrine of the plurality of gods, the most heinous of all false beliefs, and of the various forms of this doctrine it selects the belief that God has a son. This doctrine differs from other known polytheistic dogmas in that, whereas in other forms of shirk, idolaters claim only that they can attain nearness to God through the instrumentality of their gods, by this doctrine a person is believed to be an actual partner in Godhead.

Four arguments have been given here in refutation of the doctrine that a person can be a Son of God. The first is contained in the words, Holy is He, which mean that God is free from all defects and imperfections. But the belief that God has a son presupposes the presence of carnal passions in Him as well as His being subject to the laws of decay and death, for only such beings or things are perpetuated in their progeny as are subject to decay and death. The earth, the sun and the moon, for instance, have no issue because they are above the familiar law of death and decay; but animals and plants wither and die. Therefore they produce their substitutes which take their place when they are gone. Thus the existence of the progeny of a thing presupposes its mortality.

The second argument is embodied in the words, He is Self-Sufficient, which mean that in His work of running the universe God does not need anybody’s help. Progeny, besides saving a person from extinction, helps him to carry on his work. But God being Self-Sufficient needs no helper in that respect either.

The third argument is contained in the sentence, To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. Sometimes one can make or originate a thing but lacks the power or ability to keep it in his possession or under his control and therefore needs assistance. But God does not need anybody’s help to keep the universe in His possession or under His control.

The fourth argument is implied in the expression, You have no authority for this, which signifies that the doctrine of the plurality of gods is based on no sound or solid ground. Its whole basis lies in the fancy and caprice of men. This fact alone constitutes an argument against this foolish doctrine. All efforts to find some real evidence in support of shirk, do not go beyond mere indulgence in idle philosophical discussion, and no real basis has so far been found for it.

The argument embodied in the words, Do you say against Allah what you know not?, is given in 13:34, in the words, Would you inform Him of what He does not know in the earth? The difference in the wording is due to the fact that in the verse under comment it is pointed out that shirk springs from the ignorance of man and is not based on any sound reasoning, while in 13:34 it is said that the doctrine of shirk involves the charge of ignorance on the part of God, for it means that He failed to know and make known the existence of gods and it was left to idolaters to disclose the godhead of their deities by the force of their own knowledge.

20:70.

Commentary:

The expression, Is this enchantment?, constitutes an effective refutation of the charge implied in the words سحر مبین (manifest enchantment) in the preceding verse. Moses is described here as asking his people how his teaching could be called an enchantment when it crushed all falsehood, deceit and trickery. The words, And the enchanters never prosper, provide the second refutation of the same charge. Enchanters, the verse purports to say, merely practise deception and propagate falsehood. They can never attain the success that comes to the Prophets, who have a great mission. The Prophets come to bring about a complete change in the lives of their followers and they succeed in this great and difficult mission despite all obstacles and impediments. In the face of this undeniable fact, how could the Prophets be called enchanters and spreaders of falsehood?