الۡکِتٰبَ

26:227; 61:3, 4.

Important Words:

تنسون (forget) is derived from نسی meaning: (1) he forgot; (2) he ignored; (3) he left off a thing (Aqrab).

تعقلون (you understand) is derived from عقل meaning: (1) he understood; (2) he realized his mistake. عقل الغلام means, the boy reached the age of puberty. عقل البعیر means, he tied up the camel with a piece of rope. Thus عقل also embodies the sense of restraining (Aqrab).

بر (good) means, acting well towards relations and others; truthfulness; fidelity; righteousness; obedience; obedience to God (Aqrab). It also means, extensive goodness or beneficence (Mufradat).

Commentary:

The Quran questions the Jews, as if saying: Do you enjoin men to practise extensive beneficence, to deal kindly with one another, to be truthful, to act righteously and to serve and obey God, yet you neglect your own selves, while you claim to read the Book sent by God? Again, your Book contains prophecies concerning the Holy Prophet of Islam, yet you do not accept him. Thus you break a great commandment of the Lord but bid others to observe lesser commandments. Will you not then understand? The word 'Book' here refers to the Bible, but the clause, while you read the Book, does not imply that all the contents of the Bible have been admitted to be true and indisputable. The words have been used with the object of bringing home to the Jews the fact that while they think they are the People of the Book, they behave like ignorant men. Should the People of the Book behave as they behave?

The words, do you enjoin others to do what is good and forget your own selves, may be interpreted in another way also. As explained under Important Words, the word means, acting well towards relations. The Jews are thus invited to ponder over the fact whether they have acted well towards their brethren, the Ishmaelites? They went about enjoining others to act kindly towards relations but for more than two thousand years they themselves acted most shamefully towards their own kinsmen, and their rejection of the Holy Prophet was also due to the jealousy they bore towards the house of Ishmael.

2:88; 23:50; 32:24; 37:118; 40:54.

21:49.

Important Words:

موسیٰ (Moses), the Founder of Judaism, was the deliverer of the Israelites from the hands of Pharaoh. He was an Israelite Prophet who, according to Biblical data, lived about 500 years after Abraham and about 1400 years before Jesus. Moses was a Law-giving Prophet, the other Israelite Prophets that came after him being only followers of his system. As a Law-giving Prophet and the founder of a great religious system, Moses bears striking resemblance to the Holy Prophet of Islam to whom he has been likened in the Quran itself (73:16).

As for the name Moses, it may be briefly noted that موسی (Moses) is really a Hebrew word in which language it is written and pronounced as موشے (moshe) and means, "a thing drawn out of water" or simply "a thing drawn out" (Enc. Bib.). The Bible itself supports that significance where Pharaoh’s daughter, speaking of the name Moses, says, "because I drew him out of the water" (Exod. 2:10). This derivation also finds support in Arabic, from which language Hebrew is derived. The Arabs say اوشی الشیء i.e. he extricated or drew out the thing (Aqrab). Thus the word موشی which is the passive participle from اوشی would mean "a thing extricated" or "a thing drawn out". Another possible derivation is from اوسی(derived from وسی) They say اوسی الشیء i.e. he cut the thing asunder (Aqrab). As Moses was cut off from his family, he was given that name.

Recently, however, the view has been expressed by certain Western scholars, e.g., by Breasted in his Dawn of Conscience and by Freud in his Moses and Monotheism that Moses is not a Hebrew name but an Egyptian. It is also claimed that Moses was not an Israelite by birth and did not belong to Hebrew stock. There can be no objection if we accept the first-mentioned view regarding the etymology of the name Moses, because as Moses was, in his childhood, cut off from his own people and was reared in Pharaoh’s house, it was not unnatural for Pharaoh’s daughter, herself an Egyptian, to give him a name of her own liking. But, as pointed out above, the fact is that Moses is a Hebrew name and Pharaoh’s daughter, if indeed it were she who gave him that name, must have certainly been influenced to give the child a Hebrew name, thinking that he belonged to the Israelite people. It is probable, however, that the name was suggested by the sister of Moses herself who was personally known to the household of Pharaoh, being present at the time when Pharaoh’s daughter picked up the lad from the river (Exod. 2:7; Quran, 28:9-13).

But there is absolutely no ground for accepting the view that Moses was not an Israelite or that the children of Israel never settled in Egypt. The idea is repugnant to all established facts and runs counter to the accepted history of the Jewish people and to the Bible and the Quran, both giving the lie to it. Among the arguments Western critics have advanced in support of their view, two appear to be the more noteworthy. One is that موسیٰ (Moses) is an Egyptian name occurring in many combinations of that language e.g., Amenmesse, Ahmosi, Thotmes, Ramose, etc. the last-mentioned being the same as Rameses, the name of the Pharaoh in whose time Moses lived. Though a deeper study of these words would indicate that these Egyptian names are really different from the Hebrew or Arabic word discussed above, yet even if we admit the name Moses to be of Egyptian origin, there is no justification for assuming that the man Moses was not Israelite but Egyptian by birth. As Israelites were a subject people in Egypt, living under the rule of the Pharaohs, it is no wonder if they adopted some of the Egyptian names of the ruling class, just as in India many Indians are fond of, and actually adopt, English names. But, as shown above, the fact remains that موسی is a Hebrew name, having definite derivation in both Hebrew and Arabic.

The second argument advanced by these critics is that the idea of God’s Oneness is originally Egyptian, having been first conceived and adopted by an ancient Egyptian king named Amenhotep IV who came to the throne in 1375 B.C. and passed away about 1358 B.C. when probably not 30 years of age. Later he gave himself the title of Ikhnaton (or Akhenaton) which means "the servant of the one God". This, these critics allege, shows that Moses was an Egyptian who borrowed the idea of God’s Oneness from Ikhnaton and then preached it among the Israelites. The inference is simply absurd. In the first place, it is against all reason to suppose that a certain conception is the monopoly of one people only. More than one people may independently form similar ideas without having borrowed them from one another. Secondly, even supposing that the idea of God’s unity is of Egyptian origin, there is no justification for the inference that Moses was not an Israelite. If an Indian can borrow an idea from an Englishman, why cannot an Israelite borrow an idea from an Egyptian? The truth is that the idea of God’s Oneness is neither the produce of Egypt nor of Palestine nor of any other place. It has its origin in divine revelation which has been independently vouchsafed to different peoples in different lands and at different times. It is never claimed that Moses was the first to conceive or preach that idea. He got it through divine revelation just as Jacob and Isaac and Abraham and Noah and Adam got it before him.

In short, there is no justification for supposing that the name Moses is of Egyptian origin or that the man Moses was not an Israelite. The linguistic evidence of Hebrew and Arabic, combined with reason and the evidence of Jewish history and tradition, not to speak of the story of the Bible and the Quran, all go to support the already established fact that Moses was an Israelite and not an Egyptian by birth, and that his name is also of Hebrew origin. (For a full discussion of the point see Tafsir-e-Kabir by Hadrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, Head of the Ahmadiyya Community, under 2:54).

الکتاب (the Book) is derived from کتب which means: (1) he wrote; (2) he made a thing obligatory, or he prescribed a law. The word کتاب bears the following meanings: (1) a thing in which or on which one writes; (2) a book; (3) a revealed book; (4) an epistle or letter; (5) an injunction or a commandment prescribed for a person or a people (Aqrab).

الفرقان (the Discrimination) is an Arabic word derived from فرق i.e. he divided or differentiated. It is wrong to think that it is not an Arabic but a Syriac word. The Arabic language abounds in words derived from the same root, which are also commonly met with in pre-Islamic literature of Arabia. The root meaning of the word فرقان is to differentiate. Hence فرقانis applied to that which differentiates between the true and the false, between sound reasoning and fallacy. Furqan also means 'an argument', because an argument serves to discriminate between the true and the false. 'Morning' or 'Dawn' are also termed furqan because they separate night from day. فرقان also means 'aid' or 'support', because the man helped and supported becomes distinguished from those against whom he receives assistance (Taj). From the above it is clear that all revealed Books are فرقان as well as all "signs" granted by God.

Commentary:

Here the word الکتاب (translated in the text as the Book) is used for the "tablets" on which the Ten Commandments given to Moses were written. The Quran itself makes it clear in 7:146, 151, 155 that it was only the tablets and not the Pentateuch that were given to Moses on Mount Sinai, and, as explained under Important Words, the word الکتاب does not necessarily mean a book, but anything on which something is written. Thus the word kitab here refers, not to the Pentateuch, but to the Ten Commandments that were written on the tablets. The verse would therefore mean that God gave Moses not only the Book or the Commandments written on the tablets but also such clear Signs and arguments, and brought about such events as led to clear discrimination between truth and falsehood. According to the Quran, فرقانis not the name of any particular thing; but every Sign and every instance of divine assistance discriminating truth from falsehood and every argument which serves the same object is termed فرقان.

The Quran uses the word فرقان about itself (25:2) and also calls the Battle of Badr, which so eminently helped to break the power of the Quraish, یوم الفرقان i.e. the Day of Discrimination (8:42).

Dr. Wherry’s criticism that the Quran is wrong in stating in this verse that the Torah was revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai betrays his ignorance of the Arabic language. He was apparently unaware that in Arabic the word کتاب is used in a much wider sense than "book". His inadequate knowledge of the Arabic language has also led Wherry to observe that the Prophet of Islam must have borrowed the word فرقان from the Syrians.

Important Words:

امیون (illiterate persons) is the plural of امی which means, one who can neither write nor read. The word is said to have been derived from ام (mother), for an امی (illiterate person) continues, as it were, the same as when born of his mother (Aqrab). امیalso signifies: (1) one not having a revealed Scripture; (2) one belonging to the Arab nation (Lane).

امانی (false notions) derived from منی is the plural of امنیة meaning: (1) a desire; (2) an object of desire; (3) falsehood; (4) reading or recitation (Aqrab).

Commentary:

There is yet a third class among the Jews who have no knowledge of the Book at all. They have only their own false notions or desires, and, instead of trying to understand the Book and basing their faith on conviction, they depend upon their own whims. Their knowledge is not based on God’s Book. They rather twist the Book according to their own vain desires and false notions. It is a case of the wish being father to the thought. As the word also means, reading or recitation, the verse in this sense would mean that the Jews only know the letter of the Law and have lost all contact with its spirit. They read the Book but do not understand it.

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.

See 2:54.

5:47; 57:28.

2:254; 3:185; 5:111; 43:64.

16:103.

Important Words:

قفینا (We caused to follow) is derived from قفا which means, the back of the neck. Hence قفا أثره means, he followed him. قفی(qaffa) means, he made a person or thing follow or come after another (Aqrab).

بینات (manifest Signs) is derived from بین meaning, he explained a thing so as to make it clear or manifest. So بینات means, such signs and arguments as make a thing manifest and clearly establish the truth of a claimant (Mufradat & Aqrab).

روح القدس (Spirit of Holiness) is a compound word made up of روح and القدس. The first-mentioned word, i.e. روح means, a spirit, an angel, a word of God; and قدس means, sanctity, holiness. روح القدس would thus mean, the holy or blessed word of God; the spirit or angel of holiness (Aqrab & Lane). It is generally taken to signify the angel Gabriel.

Commentary:

In this verse, the Israelites are told that they had opposed all the Prophets of God, beginning from Moses and ending with Jesus, for no other reason than that some of the teachings of these Prophets were at variance with their cherished desires.

The verse, while speaking generally of the Prophets who came after Moses, makes a special mention of Jesus. The reason for this lies in the fact that somehow or other, the Jews accepted all those Prophets who appeared prior to Jesus, but they stubbornly refused to accept him. It was, therefore, in the fitness of things that particular mention should have been made of Jesus, and it should have been declared that he was as good and as holy a Prophet as so many others who had gone before him and in whom the Jews had believed, inasmuch as he possessed, in common with them, that characteristic Spirit of Holiness which distinguished God’s Prophets from other men of the world. The most powerful proof of the truth of the claims of Jesus as a Prophet was his being favoured with Signs and the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and this is the very proof on the basis of which the Jews had believed in the previous Prophets. The بینات(manifest Signs) and روح القدس (the Spirit of Holiness) have been mentioned here not because they were the unique characteristics of Jesus, but because both these evidences, which must accompany every true Prophet, were denied him by the Jews. From Matt. 12:38-40, it is apparent that the Jews denied that Jesus showed any Sign, while from Luke 11:15 and Matt. 10:25 we learn that, according to the Jews, Jesus, far from being favoured with the Holy Spirit, was influenced by the Evil Spirit and was (God forbid!) himself a devil.

That بینات (manifest Signs) and روح القدس (the Spirit of Holiness) are the common characteristics of all the Prophets of God and not an exclusive distinction of Jesus is apparent from other verses of the Quran as well. Says the Quran: That was because their Messengers came to them with بینات (manifest Signs) but they disbelieved; so Allah seized them. Surely, He is strong and severe in chastising (40:23). Also see 2:100. And elsewhere the Quran says about the Holy Prophet, Say, theروح القدس (Spirit of Holiness) has brought it (the Quran) down from thy Lord with truth that He may strengthen those who believe and as a guidance and glad tidings for Muslims (16:103). The Quran goes still further and declares that the Spirit of Holiness descends not only on Prophets but also on true believers (58:23).

In this connection we have also the testimony of the Holy Prophet who is reported to have said to the poet Hassan, "Reply, O Hassan (to the disbelievers), on behalf of the Prophet of God, and O God, help Thou Hassan with روح القدس i.e. the Spirit of Holiness" (Bukhari & Muslim).

Hassan also declares in a couplet of his that روح القدس i.e. the Holy Spirit was always with the Muslims. Says he:

و جبریل رسول الله فینا

و روح القدس لیس له كفاء

"And Gabriel, the Messenger of God, is among us and the Spirit of Holiness has no match" (Muslim).

From the above it is clear that البینات (manifest Signs) and روح القدس (the Spirit of Holiness) are not the exclusive privileges of Jesus but were vouchsafed to all the Prophets of God. Even holy men other than Prophets have received the Spirit of Holiness from God. The specific mention of "manifest Signs" and "the Spirit of Holiness" in this verse is thus meant only to bring home to the Jews that the rejection of Jesus was entirely unjustified.

It is commonly believed that روح القدس is another name of the angel Gabriel (Jarir & Kathir). As explained under 2:31, out of His infinite wisdom, God has appointed different angels to execute His will and manifest His attributes in the universe; and the angel to whom the work of bringing about purification in the world and of reflecting God’s attribute of holiness has been assigned is called, روح القدس. The expression "Holy Spirit" is also met with in the Old Testament (Ps. 51:11). Some commentators have also interpreted روح القدس as a special manifestation of God’s اسم اعظم i.e. His chief attribute of Holiness (Kathir).

See 2:90.

3:188.

Commentary:

As pointed out in the preceding verse, the Jews had pledged themselves to their own Prophets that they would accept the Prophet who was to appear from among their brethren, the Ishmaelites, in fulfilment of the prophecies mentioned in the Bible. But although all the signs mentioned in the prophecies concerning the promised Prophet had been fulfilled in the person of the Holy Prophet, yet they persisted in their denial and thus broke their promise and belied their own Scriptures.

The word مصدق has been construed to mean: (1) that the Quran declares the Bible to be true, and (2) that the Quran fulfils the prophecies contained in the Bible. The latter meaning only is applicable here. For here the People of the Book are spoken of as casting the Book of God (the Torah) behind their backs as a result of the fulfilment of its prophecies in the Quran. This cannot be the case, if we follow the first meaning ascribed to the word; for if the Quran declared the Bible to be true, this could not be the cause of the Jews casting their own Book behind their backs. Evidently, the correct meaning is that in spite of the fact that the Quran fulfils the prophecies contained in the Bible, the Jews reject it, and thereby cast their own Book behind their backs.

5:69.

5:69.

Important Words:

الیھود (the Jews) signifies the followers of Moses or of what is known as Judaism. The word as already explained is either derived from ھاد which means, he turned to God or to the truth with repentance (Aqrab); or it is derived from یھودا (Judah) who was one of the sons of Jacob. As the descendants of یھودا formed an independent kingdom at Jerusalem which became the religious centre of the Jews, therefore the Jewish religion came to be known as Judaism and the people professing that religion as یھود or Jews (Enc. Brit. under the word Jews. See also 2:63 and 2:112).

یتلون (they read) is derived from تلا which means: (1) he followed; (2) he read or recited (Aqrab). The Quran says والقمراذا تلاھاi.e. by the moon when it follows the sun; and again یتلوا علیھم آیاته i.e. the Prophet reads or recites to them God’s Signs. In the present verse the word یتلون may be taken to signify either of these two senses, i.e. they both read the same Book or they both follow the same Book. See also 2:103.

Commentary:

Nothing is more foreign to the spirit of Islam than opposition to truth, wherever it may happen to be. Islam teaches that all faiths possess certain truths and the true religion is so called not because it has a monopoly of truth, but because it possesses all truth and is free from all defects. While, therefore, claiming to be a perfect and complete religion, Islam does not denounce other faiths but frankly acknowledges the truths and the virtues they possess. If this golden principle of Islam be properly understood and appreciated, much existing religious rancour and bitterness would disappear. But unfortunately, there is a general tendency among the followers of different religious systems to refuse to acknowledge the truth found in faiths, other than their own. The Quran declares this attitude of mind to be the result of lack of knowledge and wisdom, and this verse strongly condemns Jews and Christians for refusing to see any good whatever in the rival faith, in spite of the fact that they have a good deal in common, being the followers of the same Book—the Bible.

3:114.

Commentary:

The words, they to whom We have given the Book, clearly refer here to Muslims and not to Jews and Christians, because it is the Muslims that were the true and sincere followers of the Quran and not Jews and Christians who refused to believe in the Quran and rejected it as a piece of fabrication. Jews and Christians have been referred to in the concluding portion of the verse where, owing to their rejection of the Quran, they are spoken of as the losers. The verse provides very high and well-merited praise for the Companions of the Holy Prophet who have been described as true followers of God’s guidance.

2:152; 3:165; 62:3.

Important Words:

آیات (Signs) is the plural of آیة which means, a sign, token, or mark by which a person or thing is known or recognized; it properly signifies any apparent thing inseparable from a thing not equally apparent, so that when one perceives the former, one knows that one also perceives the latter which one cannot perceive by itself; it also means a miracle, a wonder. The word is also used in the sense of a sentence; a part of speech; a verse (Lane & Aqrab).

کتاب (Book) means, anything written; a book; a prescribed law (Aqrab). See also 2:54.

حکمة (Wisdom) is derived from حکم (hakama). They say, حکمه i.e. he prevented or restrained him (from acting in an evil manner). حکم بالامر means, he judged and decreed in the matter. حکم (hakuma) means, he became wise (Aqrab). حکمةmeans, what prevents or restrains one from ignorant behaviour; knowledge or science; knowledge of the true nature of things; wisdom or wisdom under­lying a commandment; an action according to the requirements thereof (Mufradat & Lane).

یزکیھم (purify them) is derived from زکی (zakka) which again is derived from زکا meaning, he or it grew and increased and developed; he or it be­came purified. زکی means, he purified; he caused to grow and increase. تزکیة means, the act of purifying and increasing (Aqrab).

العزیز (the Mighty) is derived from عز i.e. he was or became mighty, potent or powerful; or high, elevated or illustrious; or hard and resisting. عزیز means, mighty and powerful or high and elevated; or hard and resisting. It also sometimes means, distressing or grievous. العزیز used as the attributive name of God means, the Mighty Who overcomes everything; the Incomparable or Unparalleled (Lane). See also 2:207 and 5:55.

الحکیم (the Wise) is derived from the same root from which حکمة (for which see above) is derived. حکیم means, possessing knowledge or science or wisdom; wise; a sage; a philosopher; a physician; one who performs or executes affairs firmly, soundly, thoroughly, skilfully and well. الحکیم is one of the names of God meaning the All-Wise (Lane). Applied to the Quran the word would signify the book that is full of wisdom and is free from all defect and imperfection, having no incongruity or unsoundness; or the book which judiciously decides religious differences.

Commentary:

In this verse which is one of the most important, attention is drawn to the prayer of Abraham when he was leaving his wife Hagar and his son Ishmael to live in the arid valley of Mecca. The great prayer was to the effect that God might raise from among the Meccans a Prophet, who should (1) lay before the people Signs of God that may carry conviction to their minds; (2) teach them the Law of God; (3) initiate them into the philosophy of divine commandments, because until the wisdom underlying a commandment is brought home, one does not feel disposed to attend to it, but rather looks upon it as a burden, as was the case with the Christians who, unable to understand the underlying wisdom of the Mosaic Law, began to look upon it as a curse (Rom. 4:15; Gal. 3:13); and finally (4) purify the lives of men and open out to them the avenues of progress. See also 2:152.

This prayer of Abraham, offered from the very depth of his heart, was fulfilled in the person of the Holy Prophet. The wonderful way in which the Holy Prophet combined in his person the four characteristics mentioned in this prayer is a fact of history to which even his most hostile critics have testified. By universal consent the Prophet of Islam has been acclaimed as "the most successful Prophet".

The fact that Abraham did not here pray for many Prophets, but for one Prophet only shows that while offering this prayer, he had in view a very great Prophet, a Master-Prophet who was to transcend all. This prayer of Abraham has been applied by the Holy Prophet to himself. He is reported to have said انا دعوة ابراھیم i.e. "I am the prayer (personified) of Abraham" (Jarir & ‘Asakir).

As mentioned in the introductory remarks in the beginning of this chapter, the verse under comment serves as a summary of the entire chapter which is not only an enlargement of the subject matter of this verse but treats its various subjects in exactly the same order in which they have been mentioned in this verse, i.e. first come the Signs, then the Book, then the Wisdom of the Law, and last of all the means of national progress.

It may be of interest to note here that the Quran speaks of two separate prayers of Abraham—one about the progeny of Isaac and the other about that of Ishmael. The former prayer has been mentioned in 2:125 and the latter in the verse under comment. In his prayer about the progeny of Isaac, Abraham asks that Imams or Reformers may be raised from among them, but he makes no mention of their special work or status—they are ordinary Reformers who will follow one another for the reformation of the Israelites. On the other hand, when Abraham prays about the progeny of Ishmael, he begs his Lord to raise among them a special Prophet with a specific and lofty mission. Again, when God answers the first-mentioned prayer of Abraham, He does not make any mention of the Reformers to be raised but leaves their appearance to be inferred only by implication; but He does make a pointed reference to the fact that in spite of these Reformers, the Israelites will end as transgressors. On the contrary, God makes no such mention about the progeny of Ishmael, thereby hinting that after the Promised Prophet has been raised, their glorious days will continue till the end of the world. This is indeed a marvellously true portrait of the two branches of the House of Abraham.

In making mention of the prayers of Abraham in verses 127 to 130 the Quran makes an allusion to the fact that Abraham did not only pray for the prosperity of the children of Isaac but also for the posterity of Ishmael, his firstborn. When the offspring of Isaac lost the gift of prophethood on account of their evil deeds, the next descendants of Abraham were the children of Ishmael and thus the Promised Prophet must belong to the House of the latter. In order to point out that the expected Prophet was to be an Ishmaelite, the Quran makes mention of the construction of the Ka‘bah by Abraham and Ishmael and of the prayers offered by Abraham for the posterity of his eldest son.

To this natural conclusion Christian critics generally bring forward two objections (1) that the Bible makes no mention of any promise having been made by God to Abraham concerning Ishmael, and (2) that, admitting that God did make such a promise, there is no proof of the fact that the Prophet of Islam was descended from Ishmael.

As regards the first objection, it should be borne in mind that even if the Bible be shown to contain no prophecy about Ishmael, the absence of such a mention in it cannot be considered as conclusive testimony that such a prophecy was not actually made. It is no secret that Sarah, the mother of Isaac, hated Ishmael and his mother, Hagar. This hatred of their mother for the House of Ishmael was inherited by her sons, the Israelites (Gen. 16:12). In these circumstances it would be idle to search for any express prophecy in favour of Ishmael and his progeny in the Bible; particularly when it was for a long time subjected to all sorts of interference on the part of the Israelites. Moreover, if the Biblical evidence can be taken to establish the existence of a promise about Isaac and his sons, why should not the evidence of the Quran and, for that matter, of the children of Ishmael, be accepted to establish the fact that promises were held out by God to Ishmael and his sons also. But the undeniable fact is that the Bible does contain references to the future prosperity of the sons of Ishmael similar to those it contains about the sons of Isaac. The following are some of these references:

(1) "And God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my covenant, therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised" (Gen. 17:9, 10). This covenant was made with Abraham before the birth of Isaac and after Ishmael had been born, which shows that it applied to Ishmael and his children.

(2) "And the angel of the Lord said unto her (Ishmael’s mother), I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man (it appears that here some expression like "Arab" or the dweller of a desert country, has been translated as "wild"); his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren"; i.e., although all will constantly oppose him and be jealous of him, yet he will succeed (Gen. 16:10-12).

(3) Further evidence of Ishmael and his posterity being included in the covenant which God established between Himself and Abraham and his seed after him is furnished by Gen. 17:6-8 which says, "And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." Now, has not the land of Canaan remained in the possession of the Ishmaelites for over 1,300 years? If the Arab Muslims are not the seed of Abraham, why has Canaan continued in their possession for so long?

(4) Again in Gen. 17:18-20, we read:

"And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! and God said,…And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee. Behold I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation." It will thus be seen that the promises made for Ishmael are similar to those made for Isaac; nay, they are even greater in number, for, with regard to Ishmael, God says, (a) "I have blessed him"; (b) "I will make him fruitful"; (c) "I will multiply him exceedingly"; (d) "twelve princes shall he beget"; and (e) "I will make him a great nation".

(5) Further evidence of the fact that Ishmael was included in God’s covenant is furnished by the fact that circumcision which was instituted by God as a token of His covenant with Abraham and his seed after him, has continued among the descendants of Ishmael. Though Islam also enjoined it, yet it was already in vogue among the Arabs, which shows that they were the seed of Abraham and were consequently included in the covenant of which circumcision was instituted as a symbol.

In order to exclude Ishmael from God’s covenant, Christian writers sometimes bring forward the plea that the offspring of a handmaid cannot be included in Abraham’s seed. But this is entirely baseless; for, even conceding, for the sake of argument, that Ishmael’s mother was a handmaid, it has been clearly said with reference to Ishmael: "And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation because he is thy seed" (Gen. 41:13).

The above-quoted verses of the Bible show (1) that Ishmael was born according to the promise of God given to Abraham before Ishmael’s birth; (2) that God blessed Ishmael and his mother, Hagar; (3) that He promised to make Ishmael and his mother fruitful and to multiply them exceedingly; (4) that God was with Ishmael; and (5) that the covenant of God with Abraham about the circumcision of every male child among his progeny applied to Ishmael and his children.

As a matter of fact, the promise made to Ishmael does not differ very much from that made to Isaac; they are both to be blessed, both to be made fruitful, the descendants of both to multiply exceedingly and both are to be made great nations, and kingdom and dominion is promised to the progeny of both. So when the nature of the promise made to both the brothers does not substantially differ, the kind of reward granted to the children of Isaac will have also to be admitted for the children of Ishmael. It would be wrong to think that as in Gen. 17:21 it is written that God will establish His covenant with Isaac, so Prophets were meant to be raised from among his children only, for a similar covenant was made with Abraham even before the birth of Isaac, and this clearly applied to Ishmael. This covenant is contained in Gen. 17:10, 11 according to which Ishmael was circumcised at the age of 13 and thenceforward circumcision became a religious rite with the posterity of Ishmael. It is therefore beyond any shadow of doubt that the covenant referred to above was intended for the children of Ishmael quite as much as for the children of Isaac. This fact has even been admitted by some eminent Christian writers of established authority (The Scofield Reference Bible, p. 25).

So far about verbal promises. Now let us see how God practically treated Ishmael. We read in Gen. 21:14-20, "And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba. And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lifted up her voice, and wept. And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer."

This shows that God rendered miraculous help to Ishmael and brought into existence a well of water for his sake. It is now for the Christians to show what extraordinary thing God wrought for Isaac that may be compared with this. In the above passage it is also said that "God was with the lad", which means that Ishmael grew up under the special protection of the Lord.

Further evidence of the fact that Ishmael was looked upon as the seed of Abraham, on a par with Isaac, is furnished by the following circumstances:

In Gen. 25:6, we read that when Abraham grew old and was nearing his end, he sent away the sons of the concubines. And then the Bible goes on to say: "And these are the days of the years of Abraham’s life which he lived, an hundred three score and fifteen years, and Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man full of years; and was gathered to his people. And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah." (Gen. 25:7-9). Now, if Ishmael was also treated as the offspring of a concubine, he ought to have been treated as the other children, who were the issue of concubines, were treated. But such was not the case; for when Abraham died, the children of the concubines were away and only Ishmael and Isaac were present, and both of them participated in the burial ceremony of their father. This shows that Ishmael was not treated as the offspring of a concubine, but was looked upon as the equal of Isaac and was treated accordingly.

In reply to the second objection that even if the covenant be understood to include the sons of Ishmael, it is yet to be proved that the Holy Prophet belonged to the House of Ishmael, the following points may briefly be noted:

(1) The best way to know the origin of a race is to refer to the traditions and the testimony of the race itself; and, as we all know, the Quraish, the tribe to which the Holy Prophet belonged, always believed and declared themselves to be the descendants of Ishmael and this claim was recognized by all the people of Arabia.

(2) If the claim of the Quraish and, for that matter, that of other Ishmaelite tribes of Arabia, to Ishmaelite descent had been false, the real descendants of Ishmael would have protested against such a false claim; but no such objection is known to have been ever raised.

(3) In Gen. 17:20 God had promised to bless Ishmael, to multiply his progeny, to make him a great nation and the father of twelve princes. If the people of Arabia are not his descendants, where is the promised nation? The Ishmaelite tribes of Arabia are indeed the only claimants in the field,

(4) According to Gen. 21:8-14 Hagar had to leave her home in order to satisfy the vanity of Sarah. If she was not taken to Hedjaz, where are her descendants found, and which is the place of her banishment?

(5) After her banishment Hagar dwelt in the wilderness of Paran (Gen. 21:21). Christian writers have tried to prove that Paran is Feiran near Jebel Serbal in the Sinai Peninsula. But the great English commentator of the Old Testament, who devoted his whole life to the study of the Bible, Dr. S. R. Driver, has had to confess after all that "the site of Paran, from which the wilderness derives its name, is, however, unknown" (Deut. p.4). On the contrary, the Arab geographers are all agreed that Paran is the name given to the hills of Hedjaz (Mu‘jamul-Buldan).

(6) We are told that the generations of Ishmael "dwelt from Havilah unto Shur" (Gen. 25:18) and the phrase "from Havilah unto Shur" designates the opposite extremes of Arabia (Bib. Cyc. by J. Eadie, London, 1862).

(7) The Bible calls Ishmael "a wild man" (Gen. 16:12) and the word اعرابی (A‘rabi) "a dweller of the desert" conveys almost the same sense.

(8) Even Paul has admitted Hagar’s connection with Arabia (Gal. 4:25).

(9) Kedar was a son of Ishmael and it is admitted that his descendants settled in the southern part of Arabia (Bib. Cyc. London, 1862).

(10) Prof. C. C. Torrey says: "The Arabs were Ishmaelites according to the Hebrew tradition…The 'twelve princes' (Gen. 17:20) subsequently named in Gen. 25:13ff, represent Arabian tribes or districts; notice especially Kedar, Duma (Dumatul-Jandal), Teima. The great nation is the people of Arabia." (Jewish Foundation of Islam, p.83).

(11) Similarly, the learned authors of the Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, New York, (1877, p. 685) admit that "the Arabs, from physical characteristics, language, the occurrence of native traditions…and the testimony of the Bible are mainly and essentially Ishmaelites."

(12) Lastly there is the opinion of Narsai, a Syrian writer who lived about a hundred years before the birth of the Holy Prophet. Mingana quotes Narsai as saying: "The raid of the sons of Hagar was more cruel even than famine, and the blow that they gave was more sore than disease; the wound of the sons of Abraham is like the venom of a serpent and perhaps there is a remedy for the poison of reptiles but not for theirs—let us always blame the foul inclination of the sons of Hagar, and specially the people (the tribe) of Kuraish who are like animals." (Leaves from Three Ancient Qurans, edited by the Rev. A. Mingana, D.D. Intro. xiii).

In the face of these conclusive proofs both the objections, that (1) Ishmael was not included in the covenant which God made with Abraham, and that (2) Ishmael did not settle in Arabia or that the Holy Prophet of Islam was not a descen-dant of Ishmael, fall to the ground.

Before passing on to the next verse a brief reference to Hagar, mother of Ishmael, will not be out of place here. C. J. Ellicott, Lord Bishop of Gloucester, says in his Commentary: "Hagar…was to be, not Abraham’s concubine, but his wife" (Vol. 1, p. 69). The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel tell us that "Sarah…took Hagar…and set her free, and gave her to Abraham, her husband, to wife" (Translation by J. W. Etheridge, London, 1862, p. 205). This setting free of the "handmaid" or "bondwoman" does not imply that Hagar was a barbarian slave or that she was a slave from her very childhood. Sir Leonard Wooley says that she was a "civilised creature sprung from the second great centre of culture in the ancient world" (Abraham, London, 1936, p. 144).

"According to Midrash", says another authority, "Hagar had been given as a slave to Abraham by her father, the Pharaoh of Egypt, who said, "My daughter had better be a slave in the house of Abraham, than mistress in any other" (Translation of the Targums by J. W. Etheridge, note 8, on page 204).

2:150, 151.

Important Words:

قد (verily) means, already; sometimes; often; verily, etc. (Lane).

تقلب (turning) is derived from قلب. They say قلب الشیء i.e. (1) he made the thing change direction; (2) he turned it about so that its face and back changed directions; (3) he turned it upside down; (4) he turned it inside out; (5) he changed its condition. The word قلب (qallaba) gives almost the same meaning but with greater intensification. تقلب الشیء means, the thing turned over and over, doing so much and repeatedly (Aqrab). The expression تقلب وجھك would therefore mean, turning thy face with eagerness and anxiety to receive an order.

فلنولینك (We will make thee turn) is derived from ولی (walla) which again is derived from ولی (waliya). The expression ولاهgives two distinct meanings: (1) he made him ruler or master or guardian of it; (2) he made it change direction or he made it turn towards a thing or away from it as the case may be (Aqrab).

الحرام (Sacred) is derived from حرم which means, it was or became forbidden, prohibited or unlawful whether from sanctity or owing to its being injurious. حرمه الشیء means, he denied or refused him the thing. Thus

حرام means: (1) forbidden and unlawful; (2) sacred and inviolable (Aqrab). المسجدالحرام signifies, the Sacred Mosque at Mecca, i.e. the Ka‘bah.

Commentary:

While at Mecca, the Holy Prophet had orders to turn his face in Prayers towards the sacred Temple at Jerusalem. The Prophet, of course, obeyed the divine behest; but, as in his heart of hearts he desired the Ka‘bah to be his Qiblah and had a sort of intuition that eventually he would be ordered to turn his face towards it, he generally tried to choose such a place for worship where he could keep both the sacred Temple at Jerusalem and the Sacred Mosque of Mecca before him. When, however, the Holy Prophet migrated to Medina, it became impossible for him to turn his face to both the places at one and the same time, and in compliance with divine command he was forced to turn his face to the Temple at Jerusalem alone. With this change the inner desire of the Holy Prophet naturally became intensified, and though, out of deference to God’s command, he did not actually pray for the change, yet he anxiously and eagerly looked towards heaven for an order to that effect. The clause, verily We see thee turning thy face often to heaven, is therefore highly eulogistic of the Prophet, inasmuch as it indicates (1) that the Holy Prophet had such great insight into spiritual matters that in spite of the interim command from God he knew that sooner or later the order for turning the face towards the Ka‘bah would come; (2) that despite his great desire that the Ka‘bah should be appointed as Qiblah, the Holy Prophet had such extraordinary respect for his Lord’s command that he refrained from even praying to that effect; (3) that God the Almighty had such great love for His Messenger that He most graciously refers to his turning his face towards heaven and expedites the command about the change of Qiblah, lovingly adding, We will make thee turn to the Qiblah which thou likest; and (4) that God had such great regard for the wish of the Prophet that He not only ordered him to turn his face towards the Qiblah of his liking but at the same time hinted that He would soon make him master and guardian of it; for, as explained under Important Words, the expression نولینك also means, "We will make thee master or guardian". Truly did ‘A’ishah say to her illustrious husband, "I see that God hastens to fulfil your wishes" (Bukhari, ch. on Tafsir).

After the above introduction follows the commandment about the change of Qiblah in the words, So turn thy face towards the Sacred Mosque; and wherever you be, turn your faces towards it. This commandment was given after the Holy Prophet had migrated to Medina and had stayed there for about sixteen months. The words "Sacred Mosque" do not merely stand for the Ka‘bah but also provide an argument in favour of the change ordered. The Mosque was sacred and full of blessings and would prove a sanctuary for the faithful. The words, wherever you be, turn your faces towards it, have been added with a threefold purpose: (1) to make it clear that the order was not meant for the people of Medinaonly but for all Muslims wherever they might be; (2) to point to the fact that one of the reasons underlying the order relating to the Qiblah was to bring about unity and uniformity among all Muslims, wherever they might be; and (3) to hint that the commandment did not apply to the Holy Prophet only but extended to all Muslims, for whereas, in the preceding clause the Quran says, turn thy face, in the clause under comment it says, turn your faces.

The words, They to whom the Book has been given know that this is the truth from their Lord, mean that Jews and Christians were convinced on the basis of prophecies found in their Scriptures having special reference to the Ka‘bah and the Holy Prophet (Isa. 45:13, 14; John 4:21; Deut. 33:2; Gen. 21:21), that the commandment about the change of the Qiblah from the Temple at Jerusalem to the Ka‘bah at Mecca was truly from God. Mecca lies in what is known as the Desert of Faran or Paran mentioned in some of the above-mentioned verses of the Bible, and therefore the Jews knew that the prophecies contained in them applied to the Ka‘bah and the Holy Prophet.

It may be noted here that, though in ordinary circumstances, the Muslims are enjoined to turn their faces to the Ka‘bah when saying their prayers, yet as direction is of secondary importance, Islam ordains that, if in special circumstances, it becomes difficult for a man to turn his face to the Ka‘bah or to keep it so turned, he can say his Prayers in any direction that may be convenient. For instance, when a man does not know in which direction the Ka‘bah lies, while travelling at night in a Railway train or on the back of an animal, etc., he can pray facing any direction. Similarly, a sick man lying in bed may pray in a lying posture facing any direction that he may find convenient.

109:3, 7.

6:57; 13:38.

Commentary:

This verse points to the hostility of Jews and Christians not only to Islam but also to one another. The Jews had Jerusalem as their Qiblah (See I. Kings 8:22-30; Dan. 6:10; Ps. 5:7; Jonah, 2:4) while the Samaritans, a disowned section of the Jews, who also followed the Mosaic Law, had adopted a certain mountain in Palestine, named Gerizim, as their Qiblah (John, 4:20 and Commentary on the New Testament by Right Rev. W. Walsham How, D.D., published by Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, under this verse). As regards the early Christians, they followed the Qiblah of the Jews (Acts 3:1; Enc. Brit., 14th edition, v. 676; Jew. Enc. vi. 53) but we learn from authentic sources that when a party of the Christians of Najran paid a visit to Medina to have a discussion with the Holy Prophet on some doctrinal point, they worshipped in the Holy Prophet’s mosque at Medina with their faces turned to the East (Zurqani, iv. 41). Thus the Jews, the Samaritans, and the Christians followed different Qiblahs owing to their mutual jealousy and enmity. In these circumstances it was vain to expect them to follow the Qiblah of the Muslims, and when obsolete faiths refused to follow the true Qiblah, how could a true believer follow a Qiblah that had become obsolete.

The concluding clause speaks of the practice of the People of the Book as vain "desires," not because they were not originally based on revelation but because they were opposed to the new revelation that had appointed the Ka‘bah as Qiblah. He who insists on sticking to an order that is no longer in force, really follows naught but his own desire.

The words, then thou shalt surely be of the transgressors, do not evidently refer to the Holy Prophet, because, (1) he could in no circumstances go against Allah’s commandment, and (2) the foregoing part of this very verse says about him, nor wouldst thou follow their Qiblah, and (3) it is clearly stated in the preceding verse that he loved to turn his face towards the Ka‘bah and eagerly awaited a divine commandment to that effect. It is, therefore, unthinkable that the Prophet could forsake the Qiblah of his own liking. The words obviously refer, as supported by the rules of the Arabic language as well as the usage of the Quran, either to the reader in general or to every individual Muslim who followed the Holy Prophet.

6:21.

2:175; 5:16; 6:92.

Important Words:

یعرفون (recognise) is derived from عرف which means, he knew or recognized or perceived a thing. Though the word is also used of such knowledge as is derived through the senses, it is particularly used of such knowledge as is obtained by thinking and meditating (Mufradat & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The pronoun hu (him or it) occurring in the clause "recognise him or it" may be taken as referring either to the change of Qiblah or to the Holy Prophet. The clause means that the People of the Book know, on the basis of the prophecies found in their Scriptures, that a Prophet would appear among the Arabs and that he would be connected with the Ka‘bah.

The sentence, some of them conceal the truth knowingly, refers to the learned men of the Jews who were well versed in their scriptures and knew the prophecies relating to the advent of the Holy Prophet of Islam but deliberately suppressed those prophecies in order to conceal them from the people.

2:204; 8:46; 62:11.

Commentary:

The word کما meaning "even as" has been used to connect this verse with the preceding one by pointing out that God will bestow upon the believers the favours mentioned in the preceding verse even as, or just as, He has favoured them with a Prophet.

With a slight change in the arrangement of the words this verse refers to the work of the Holy Prophet in exactly the same words in which Abraham prayed to God about the appearance of a Prophet among the Meccans (2:130), which clearly shows that Abraham’s prayer had found fulfilment in the person of the Holy Prophet. The change in arrangement is that, while recounting the favours of God, this verse, unlike verse 2:130, mentions the work of purification before that of the teaching of the Book and Wisdom, because though in theory the teaching of the Book may come first, in actual practice purification is more important than the teaching of the Book and Wisdom; for whereas the former is the end, the latter is simply the means to that end.

Another difference between this verse and 2:130 is that whereas the latter ends with the words, Thou art the Mighty, the Wise, the former concludes with the words, And (he) teaches you that which you did not know. The reason for this change is not far to seek. Abraham had used the words, Surely, Thou art the Mighty, the Wise, in his prayer, meaning that God being Mighty, it was not difficult for Him to accept his prayer; and as He was also Wise, He knew best what the requirements of his posterity would be. But when God spoke of the actual fulfilment of this prayer, it was quite unnecessary to repeat these words. So in place of the above-quoted words, the words, (he) teaches you that which you did not know, have been added to signify: firstly, that, while accepting the prayer God had granted even more than Abraham had prayed for; and secondly, that the teachings of the Holy Prophet were far in advance of the teachings of the former Prophets and were such as the world really needed but had not so far known.

17:106.

Commentary:

The estrangement of the disbelievers from the truth and their long association with falsehood have made them callous and incapable of knowing and accepting the Quranic revelation. Just as a sick person sometimes loses his faculty of taste and consequently declines to partake of delicious things, similarly these people, owing to their lack of contact with truth for a long time, have become inclined to reject the word of God. They prefer small worldly gains to the great spiritual and material advantages that would certainly have accrued to them, if they had accepted the truth. The words فی شقاق بعید i.e. "gone far in enmity" signify that there has come to exist a wide gulf between these people on the one hand and the truth on the other.

4:166; 6:49; 18:57.

Commentary:

In the preceding verses different classes of people––believers and disbelievers together with their sub-divisions––have been mentioned. The verse under comment not only traces the genesis of these classes but also hints to Muslims that, just as the world began with all people as one community, God now wishes them again to become one community through the Holy Prophet who, unlike previous Prophets, came with a universal mission.

The clause, Mankind were one community, may mean: (1) mankind, i.e. all men were originally one people; (2) all disbelievers are one people. In the first-mentioned case, the verse would mean that, in the beginning of the world, all mankind were one people. They had no social rules, no polity, no civic laws. Then in the course of time, differences arose among them with regard to these things. So God sent to them Prophets to guide them how to live good and useful lives.

In the second case, the meaning of the clause would be that before the advent of a Prophet all men are like one people in the sense that they are all disbelievers, and disbelief and wrongdoing reign supreme in the world. But when a Prophet appears, all people, in spite of their mutual differences, form one united front against him. This meaning is in harmony with the well-known saying of the Holy Prophet, الکفر ملة واحدة i.e. all disbelievers (to whatever creed or religion they may belong) are one people.

The clause, and sent down with them the Book, does not mean that God revealed a separate Book to every Prophet. In that case, "Books", instead of "the Book", would have been the appropriate word. In fact, the "sending down of a Book" to a Prophet does not always mean the actual revelation of it to him in person. The Quran uses similar words with regard to those Prophets who were not the direct recipients of any revealed Book (6:115, 157, 158; 3:73, 200; 29:47; 21:11). The clause, therefore, only means that every Prophet has received a Book from God, whether it was revealed to him direct or whether it was revealed to a previous Prophet whose mission he was called upon to serve.

The "difference" referred to in the verse at two separate places signifies two different kinds of disagreement. Before the advent of a Prophet people differ among themselves about false beliefs and idolatrous practices. But after the appearance of the truth, they begin to differ with regard to the truth itself. The advent of a Prophet, however, does not, as may be wrongly imagined, create differences. The differences are already there; they merely assume a new form. But whereas before a Prophet has made his appearance the people, in spite of their differences, look like one people, they become divided into two distinct camps, believers and disbelievers, after he has appeared.

The clause, out of envy towards one another, points to the important fact that invariably the root-cause of the rejection of a Prophet is jealousy. Disbelievers cannot reconcile themselves to the idea that an ordinary person from among them, generally inferior to many of them in wealth, power or social status, should be made their teacher and leader. Disbelievers also consider it below their dignity to ally themselves with a community a large majority of whose members are of humble origin, as is often the case with the early followers of Divine Messengers.

The clause, Now has Allah, by His command, guided believers to the truth in regard to which they (the unbelievers)differed, refers to the advent of the Holy Prophet who was raised by God with a universal mission to remove the differences of all the peoples of the earth. The expression باذنه translated as "by His command" may also mean "according to His eternal decree". In the beginning of the world God willed that the final Law-giving Prophet should come with a universal mission and should constitute, as it were, the zenith of the system of النبوة or prophecy. Says the Holy Prophet "I was a Prophet of God while Adam was yet in the making between the body and the soul" (Tirmidhi).

Viewed collectively, the verse describes five different stages through which mankind has passed: (1) When there was unity among the people, all forming one community. This was in the beginning of the human race. (2) When, with the increase in population and the extension of interests and the complexity of problems confronting man, people began to differ among themselves. (3) When God raised Prophets among different peoples and different countries to show them the right path and revealed His will to the various contending sections. (4) When the very revelation of God sent to remove differences was made a cause of difference by the mischievous people. (5) When God finally raised the Holy Prophet with His last Book and a universal mission, calling upon entire humanity to rally round his banner. Thus a beautiful circle was completed and the world which began with unity was designed to end with it.

4:106; 5:49; 29:52; 39:3.

Important Words:

بالحق (containing the truth). الحق is derived from حق i.e. it was or became just, proper, right, true, authentic, genuine, substantial or real; or it was or became an established or confirmed truth or fact; or it was or became binding, incumbent or due. So حق means, a truth; an established fact; a right; equity and justice; a thing that is decreed or destined; a thing suitable to the requirements of wisdom, justice, truth and right. الحق is one of the names of God, meaning the Really Existing God; or the Creator according to the requirements of wisdom, justice and right. The word is also applied to the Quran and the religion of Islam (Lane). See also 2:181.

توراة (Torah) is believed to be a Hebrew word. In Arabic it is said to be derived from وری. They say وری النار i.e. the fire burnt. وری الزند means, he made the fire-producing wood or steel produce fire. وری الخبر means, he concealed the news. وری عن کذا means, he meant one thing but by using equivocal expressions made the listener think of another (Aqrab). In view of these significations of the word, توراة (Torah) is so called probably because in its pristine purity reading it and acting upon its teaching kindled in the heart of man the fire of Divine love. Possibly, the word also contains a hint that bright prophecies about the advent of the final Law-giving Prophet lie hidden in the Book. In Hebrew the root meaning of the word is "to teach", the word Torah meaning, "instruction or precept or law" (Gesenius). Torah is the name applied to the five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. The name may have its origin in the popular Jewish belief that "the original Pentateuch, like everything celestial, consisted of fire, being written in block letters of flame upon a white ground of fire" (Jew. Enc. xii. 197). The name Torah is also sometimes applied to the Ten Commandments.

انجیل (Gospel) is probably of Greek origin from which the English form "Evangel" (good news) is derived. The word Evangel was formerly freely used in place of Gospel, but is now archaic. In Arabic نجله ابوہ (najalahu) means, his father begot him. نجل الشیء means, he laid bare or disclosed the thing. نجل الارض means, he tore open or ploughed the land for the purpose of sowing seed. نجل الرجل (najila) means, the man’s eyes were large and beautiful. The word انجیل which, according to Aqrab, is a Greek word underived from any Arabic root, means بشارة i.e. good news.

مصدقًا (fulfilling). See 2:42.

الفرقان (Discrimination). See 2:54.

Commentary:

The expression بالحق rendered as "containing the truth" (lit. "with truth") means:(1) that the Quran comprises true teachings which are based on eternal truth and are incapable of being successfully assailed; (2) that the Quran has been sent rightly, meaning that the first recipients of it were the fittest people to receive it; (3) that it has come in the fullness of time and fulfils a true need; (4) that it has come to stay and no effort on the part of its opponents can succeed in destroying or tampering with it. See Important Words above.

انجیل means "good news", and the Gospels are so called because they contained not only "good news" for those who accepted Jesus, but also because they contained prophecies about the advent of the Greatest of the Prophets whose coming Jesus described as the coming of the Lord Himself (Matt. 21:40) or as the advent of the kingdom of God (Mark 1:15). They also contain prophecies about the advent in the Latter Days of Jesus’ own counterpart, the Promised Messiah.

The word انجیل occurring in the verse does not refer to the present four Gospels which were written by the followers of Jesus long after his so-called crucifixion and which give merely an account of his life and teachings. The word refers to the actual revelation received by Jesus from God. The present Gospels do indeed contain a part of that revelation, but Divine words have become so mixed up with the sayings of Jesus himself that in many cases it is difficult to distinguish between the two. The Gospels contain a good deal of matter which is admittedly not of Divine origin.

The saying of the Holy Prophet, صدورھم اناجیلھم i.e. "the breasts of my Companions are like Gospels" (Lisan), sheds some light on the significance and position of the Gospels. This saying of the Prophet means that the breasts of his Companions were repositories of his life history and teachings which are indeed a great gospel. It may be inferred from this that the position of the present Gospels is analogous to that of the collections of Hadith, such as Bukhari, Muslim, etc.

The clause, He sent down the Torah and the Gospel before this as a guidance, means that before the Quran was revealed, the Torah and the Gospels provided spiritual guidance for men but that their place was now taken by the Quran which has come as a guidance for all time and all mankind.

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.

3:86.

Important Words:

اسلام (complete submission) which is derived from اسلم which again is derived from سلم signifies: (1) complete submission to God; (2) the religion of Islam, the latter meaning being also based on the first-mentioned meaning (Taj). See also 2:113.

Commentary:

The verse throws light on the fact that though other religious systems also claim to inculcate belief in the Oneness of God and submission to His will, yet it is only in Islam, the religion brought by the Holy Prophet, that the idea of submission to God’s will has found its consummation; for complete submission requires complete manifestation of God’s attributes and it is in Islam alone that such manifestation has taken place. So Islam alone of all religious systems deserves to be called the religion of God in the real sense of the term. All true religions were indeed more or less Islam in their original form and their adherents Muslims in the literal sense of the term, but not till the time when religion became complete in all its different aspects was any faith given the name of Islam, which was reserved for the final dispensation perfected in the Quran.

The clause, And those who were given the Book did not disagree but after knowledge had come to them, out of mutual envy, signifies that if Jews and Christians had been truly submissive to the will of God, as they claim to be, they would not have refused to accept Islam, which is submission to Divine will in its completest and most perfect form. By their rejection of Islam they have brought ruin upon themselves and have been deprived of God’s grace and bounties of which they had had an ample share before.

4:126.

5:93, 100; 13:41; 16:83.

Important Words:

امیین (the unlearned), see 2:79.

الذین اوتوا الکتاب (those who have been given the Book), i.e. the People of the Book. The two expressions, i.e. امیین and الذین اوتوا الکتاب comprise the whole of mankind. الذین اوتوا الکتاب are those people who possess and profess to follow a revealed scripture; and امیون are those who accept and follow no such Book.

Commentary:

If the People of the Book and those who follow no revealed Scripture were to submit to God, they would surely accept the Holy Prophet and be rightly guided, the former because clear prophecies are found in their Scriptures regarding him and the latter because of the combined testimony of nature, human conscience and common sense. Submission to God is the source of all true guidance. One stumbles and loses the right path only when one deviates from the course of submission, bowing to authorities other than God.

5:111.

Commentary:

The word کتاب (Book) signifies both "the Book" and the "art of writing". If the word be here taken to mean "the Book", then it would apply to the "Torah", the Law of Moses, and in this case the concluding words, "the Torah and the Gospel" would be taken as explanatory, the word "Torah" standing for the "Book" and the word "Gospel" for "Wisdom".

5:117, 118.

Important Words:

ربانیین (solely devoted to the Lord) is the plural of ربانی which is a relative noun derived from رب (Lord) just as لحیانی (long-bearded) and شعرانی (having long hair) are derived from لحیة (beard) and شعر (hair) respectively. Keeping in view the different meanings of رب (see 1:2 and 3:65) the word ربانی would mean, one who devotes himself to religious service, or applies himself to acts of devotion; one who possesses knowledge of God; one who is learned in religious matters; a good or righteous man; a worshipper of the Lord; a teacher of others who begins to nourish people with the small matters of knowledge or science before taking the great ones; a learned man who not only practises what he knows but also instructs others; one of high rank in knowledge; a lord or master; a leader; a reformer (Lane, Sibawaih & Mubarrad).

The expression ماکان له (it is not possible for him) is, according to Arabic idiom, used in three senses: (1) it does not become him; as in the hadith ماکان لا بن ابی قحافة ان یصلی بین یدی رسول الله صلعم i.e. it does not become the son of Abu Quhafah, (i.e. AbuBakr) to lead the Faithful in Prayers in the presence of the Prophet of God (Bukhari); (2) it is rationally impossible for him to do so; or, it does not stand to reason that he should have done so; (3) he cannot possibly do so, i.e. it is physically impossible for him to do so. It is in the second sense that the expression has been used in this verse. See also 2:35.

Commentary:

It is quite inconceivable that a man whom God has raised as a Prophet and to whom He has given a revealed Book for the guidance of men should teach them to take him as God beside Allah. Such a supposition would imply a serious reflection on God Himself Who chose for His Messenger a man who undid the very work which he had been commissioned to do, and who, instead of calling upon men to worship God, set himself up as God and called upon them to adore him. Such a thing can never occur. A Prophet would always exhort men to become the devotees of God only.

The words, because you teach the Book and because you study it, show that it is the duty of all those who succeed in acquiring spiritual knowledge to impart it to others and not to let men grope in the darkness of ignorance.

2:110; 3:150.

Commentary:

The words, any party of those who have been given the Book, refer to that party of the People of the Book who were most hostile to Islam, there being a section of them who had turned believers and others who were indifferent. Muslims have already been warned of this danger in 2:110.

2:130, 152; 9:128; 62:3; 65:12.

Commentary:

The expression, by raising among them a Messenger from among themselves, is intended to awaken in the hearts of Muslims a desire to follow the example of the Holy Prophet, who was like them and one of them. The Prophet was not only a man like them but was actually one of them. If he could rise to such spiritual heights, why could not they?

All Messengers of God are raised from among human beings and they possess the same faculties and are actuated by the same desires and aspirations as other human beings, and, therefore, they can serve as true models for their fellow beings. But a so-called "Son of God" does not possess the same desires and the same faculties as we have, and cannot, therefore, be a model for us. Our model should be from our own kind. He who is not of our kind, being a divine being, free from human passions and human weaknesses, cannot be held out to us as a model for imitation.

The verse also points to the fulfilment of the prayer of Abraham contained in 2:130, in which the different functions of the Promised Prophet have been mentioned just as they are mentioned here.

2:156; 8:29; 64:16.

5:83.

Commentary:

Tests and trials are necessary and serve a four-fold purpose: (1) They distinguish the waverers and the weak of faith from those sincere and steadfast votaries whose faith is strong and firm. (2) They become a means of spiritual advancement for those sincere in faith. (3) Those who are tried come to know of the strength or otherwise of their own faith and are thus enabled to shape their conduct accordingly. (4) Trials also establish the title to reward of those deserving it.

Indeed there never was a Prophet who, along with his followers, was not called upon to put up with abuse and hardships.

2:102.

Commentary:

The reference here is to no particular covenant, but to a general covenant taken from the followers of every Prophet that they would preach and promulgate the Message they had accepted and would live up to it. The pronoun "it" in the clause, and not conceal it, may refer either to the Book or the covenant.