بِخَيْرٍ

16:102.

Important Words:

ننسخ (We abrogate) is derived from نسخ which has two meanings: (1) he abrogated or annulled, irrespective of the fact whether he brought another in its place or not; (2) he prepared a true copy of a book (Aqrab). It is from the latter sense that the word نسخة or "copy" is derived. From the former sense we derive the words ناسخ i.e. the thing which comes to abrogate another, and منسوخ i.e. the thing which is abrogated.

ننسھا (We cause to be forgotten) is derived from نسی meaning, he forgot, or he failed to preserve in his mind. انسی is the causative form of نسی meaning, he made a person forget a thing (Aqrab).

مثل (like) has three distinct uses: (1) either it is used to denote the like of a thing; (2) or it is used to denote a thing itself; (3) or sometimes it is redundant, giving no special meaning (Aqrab & Misbah).

Commentary:

Some commentators have attempted to infer from this verse that some of the verses of the Quran have been abrogated by others. But this conclusion is grievously erroneous and unwarranted. There is nothing in this verse to indicate that the word آیة (Sign) occurring here refers to the Quranic verses. Both in the preceding and the following verses, a reference is made to the People of the Book and their jealousies for the new revelation, which clearly shows that the word آیة spoken of in this verse as being abrogated, refers to the previous revelation. It is pointed out in this verse that the previous Scriptures contained two kinds of commandments. Firstly, those which, owing to the changed conditions of the world and the universality of the new revelation, required abrogation; secondly, those containing eternal truths which did not require abrogation but simply resuscitation so that people might be reminded of the forgotten truth. It was, therefore, necessary (1) to abrogate certain portions and bring in their place new ones, and (2) to restore the lost ones. So, God abrogated some portions of the old Books, replacing them with new and better ones, and at the same time He re-introduced the missing portions by similar ones. This is the only meaning which is consistent with the context and the general spirit of Quranic teaching. In the verse the word ننسخ (We abrogate) relates to the words بخیر (one better) and the words ننسھا (cause to be forgotten) relate to the words بمثلھا (the like thereof) meaning that when God abrogates a certain thing He brings a better thing in its place and when He causes a thing to be forgotten, i.e. when people forget a thing, He brings it over again, i.e. He resuscitates it.

The Jews themselves admit that after the Israelites were carried as captives to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, the whole of the Pentateuch was lost (Enc. Bib, 653-654).

The meaning put on the verse by some Translators, viz., that certain verses of the Quran stand abrogated is not only opposed to the words of the Quran and the context of the verse, but is also against reason; nor can any authentic saying of the Holy Prophet be quoted in its favour. On the contrary, the Holy Prophet is reported to have said that the whole of the Quran must be strictly followed and he himself acted upon all its teachings throughout his life. Besides this, the Quran itself testifies to its own purity and integrity. The well-known verse: Verily, We Ourself have sent down this Exhortation and most surely We will be its Guardian (15:10) leads to no other conclusion. If the abrogation of any part of the Quran be conceded, the promise about its protection becomes null and void, for in that case it would be impossible to distinguish the abrogated portions from the rest of the Book. Again, there is absolutely no self-contradiction in the Quran, and therefore there is no need of resorting to the theory of abrogation. So-called contradictions only betray lack of deep study on the part of those who proclaim them. When one fails to understand two verses in their true relations, one is inclined to see a contradiction between them and then takes recourse to the convenient theory that one of the two verses must have been abrogated by the other. As soon as they appear to be reconcilable, the abrogation theory becomes gratuitous. This is why those who have upheld the abrogation theory have gradually been compelled to reduce the number of abrogated verses; for whereas the abrogated verses were formerly thought to be as many as 500, they have, by later scholars, been gradually reduced to only five. But even this is incorrect; for there is absolutely no verse in the Quran which is abrogated and we challenge any critic to come forward and prove that any verse of the Holy Book is abrogated. It is a pity that such beautiful significance of the verse under comment should have, as has been briefly portrayed above, become marred through ignorance and thoughtlessness. The verse has a reference to yet another significance as well. The People of the Book have been told that the Quran has come to abrogate all previous Scriptures; for, in view of the changed conditions of mankind, it has brought a new شریعة (Law) which is not only better than all the old codes of Law, but is also meant for all men and all times. An inferior thing with a limited mission must give place to a superior thing with a universal mission. Having explained this point, the Quran proceeds to say that although its teachings are meant for all time, yet a period is destined to come in the life of Islam when, though the letter of the Quran would still be intact, its spirit would be forgotten and lost by Muslims. When such a time comes, God will arrange to resuscitate the Quranic teachings, i.e. bring back "the like thereof" by raising a special Reformer from among Muslims. This prophecy is referred to more pointedly in 62:4 where God promises to raise a Reformer in the likeness of the Holy Prophet in the Latter Days. This Reformer, it is pointed out, would bring back the true faith to the world, even if it had soared away as high as the Pleiades (Bukhari, ch. on Tafsir). The prophecy has been fulfilled in the person of the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement.

18:47; 19:77.

See 2:26.

3:163, 175; 5:3; 9:72; 48:30; 59:9.

Important Words:

رضوان (pleasure) is derived from رضی i.e. he was pleased; he was well pleased; he was satisfied or contented; he regarded (him) with good-will or favour. رضوان which is the noun-infinitive from رضی means, the state of being well pleased; satisfaction; good-will (Lane). As رضوان signifies abundant pleasure or satisfaction, the word has come to be used in the Quran in connection with God only (Mufradat). رضوان is also the name of the keeper or guardian angel of Paradise (Lane).

Commentary:

Though Islam does not object to the acquisition of the good things of this world, yet the good things of the life to come are far greater and nobler for man. And greater still is the pleasure or good-will of God which the Quran mentions as the greatest blessing (9:72). For one who succeeds in attaining it, even worldly things become a source of peace of mind. The Companions of the Holy Prophet attained it (9:100) and so they have been rightly called "the best people" (3:111).

10:108.

Commentary:

It is his own actions that are the cause of all harm that befalls a man. The words, if Allah touch thee with affliction, therefore, do not mean that God is the cause of affliction. They are meant to convey the idea that God being the first cause of all things, everything that happens in the universe is in a way attributable to Him. The expression is also intended to hint that it is God alone Who can remove man’s afflictions.

Happiness indeed comes from God, Who is the real source of all good. This is why, when speaking of happiness coming to man, the Quran uses the expression, He has power to do all that He wills.

6:18; 39:39.

Commentary:

This verse sheds light on the fact that good and evil are of two kinds. There is a kind of good or evil which comes into being under the general divine law. It is subject to the laws of nature and therefore can be brought about or averted, through the efforts of man himself by defying or obeying the laws of nature, as the case may be. But there is another kind of good or evil which is brought about only by the special decree of God. By saying this the verse hints that God’s dealings with the Holy Prophet are subject to God’s special decree. This is why all the schemes and machinations of his enemies proved utterly futile.

7:86; 29:37.

26:182, 183.

Important Words:

محیط (destructive) is derived from حاط. They say حاط به i.e. he guarded, kept, protected or took care of him or it; he defended him or he paid frequent attention to him or it. احاط به means, he or it surrounded, encompassed or enclosed it or him. They say احیط فلان i.e. such a one was destroyed, or his destruction drew near. The Quranic words ان ربك احاط بالناسmean, verily thy Lord hath men in His grasp or power, or He hath destroyed them or is about to destroy them. محیطmeans, surrounding, encompassing or enclosing. The words, عذاب یوم محیط mean, the punishment of a day which shall beset people on every side so that there will be no way of escape from it; or the punishment of a destructive day (Lane).

مدین (Midian) was a son of Abraham from his third wife, Keturah (Gen. 25:1, 2). His descendants were all called Midian, in accordance with ancient usage. Or it may be that originally they were called "Banu Midian" (children of Midian) but these words later became abbreviated into Midian. The metropolis of these people was also called Midian, which itself may be an abbreviation of some such name as Duri Midian (the houses of Midian). This town was situated on the Gulf of ‘Akabah, on the Arabian coast, at a distance of some six or seven miles from the sea. This is why in some ancient books of geography it is mentioned as a sea port, while in others it is shown as an inland town. The trade caravans going from Arabia to Egypt passed through it. There are still several small townships known as Midian, but the original town no longer exists. The descendants of Midian lived in the north of the Hijaz and it is they who built this town. It was hither that Moses fled for refuge when Pharaoh and his nobles sought to kill him and it was in the neighbourhood of Midian that he stayed with the Israelites after crossing the Red Sea. The fact that the word مدین(Midian) possesses a close resemblance to مدینه (Medina), the town of the Holy Prophet, constitutes one of the many similarities Moses had with the Holy Prophet. See also 7:86.

شعیب (Shu‘aib). See 7:86.

Commentary:

Some commentators think that Shu‘aib was the father-in-law of Moses and that Moses had gone to live with him after he had killed an Israelite. The Bible, however, gives the name of the father-in-law of Moses as Jethro (Exod. 3:1). Now Jethro and Shu‘aib cannot be the same person, nor was Shu‘aib the father-in-law of Moses. The following facts support this view:

(1) Shu‘aib has been mentioned in the Quran at several places and so has the father-in-law of Moses, but nowhere in the Quran is there the slightest hint that Shu‘aib and the father-in-law of Moses were the same person nor has the father-in-law of Moses anywhere been referred to as a Prophet of God.

(2) The Quran clearly states that Moses was raised as a Prophet after the destruction of the people of Midian (7:104), which definitely shows that they were not contemporaries.

(3) The Quran also states that Shu‘aib appeared not long after Lot, so he could not be a contemporary of Moses (v. 90 below).

(4) If Shu‘aib had been the contemporary and father-in-law of Moses, he would not have failed to refer to the destruction of Pharaoh and his people, which had taken place only recently, when he had referred to the destruction of the peoples of Noah, Hud and Salih (v. 90), but he did not do so.

The following important facts about the people of Shu‘aib also emerge from this and other verses of the Quran: (a) that, like the Holy Prophet, it was chiefly at the hands of the people of his town that Shu‘aib met with opposition (7:89); (b) that his people not only practised idolatry, but were also fraudulent in their dealings with one another; (c) that they were a well-to-do and prosperous people; (d) that they had adopted the calling of the road and were given to plundering and dacoity (7:86 & 11:86 below). As these people lived on the trade route to Egypt, they used to plunder the caravans which passed by that way. This inference receives further support from the fact that near Midian there was a wood which was peopled by the descendants of Dedan, a nephew of Midian, being the child of another son of Abraham from Keturah (Gen. 25:3). These people are referred to in the Quran as اصحاب الایکة i.e. the People of the Wood (15:79 & 26:177) and Shu‘aib preached to them as he preached to the people of Midian (26:178-192). From 15:80 it appears that this wood or jungle lay on a trade route, so it served as a good hiding place for the people of Midian to plunder travellers.

The words, the punishment of a destructive day, signify that the punishment of that day will be thoroughly destructive. The words may also mean that the day will not end until the whole people are annihilated. See the meaning of the word محیط (destructive) above.

Commentary:

This verse contains another parable concerning the Holy Prophet and his enemies. It says that the Prophet’s enemies are mute and dumb. All sorts of crimes and sins are committed before their eyes, but they do not even open their lips to condemn them or to dissuade or check people from them. They have never said a word to safeguard the honour of God, their Lord and Master. It is only the Prophet who has always raised his voice against sin and iniquity.

Again, says the verse, if the Prophet’s adversaries could not bid others to do good works and not associate equals with God, they could, at least do good works themselves and declare the Holiness of God by their own example. But they did none of these things. They could neither carry their own burdens nor help others carry their burdens. But the Holy Prophetnot only himself practised virtue but exhorted and enjoined others to be just, equitable and God-fearing. Therefore he, and not they, deserved to be chosen for Divine favours.

The theme in this and the preceding verse is the same, but these two verses refer to two different classes of disbelievers. The preceding verse refers to such disbelievers as are slaves to superstitious beliefs and idolatrous practices and customs and though possessing the means and the ability to do some useful and effective work, abstain from doing it for fear of incurring public opprobrium; while the present verse refers to such disbelievers as are not only slaves to superstitious practices but also lack the means and the ability to do any good work. As contrasted with these two classes of disbelievers the Holy Prophet is not only free from all sorts of superstitious beliefs and foolish customs but is also endowed with great natural powers. He uses his great God-given gifts in the service of mankind while disbelievers are a burden and a sort of a stigma on the Holiness of God Who has created them.