قَالَتْ

Important Words:

مریم (Mary) was the mother of Jesus. She was probably named after the sister of Moses and Aaron, known as Mariam (later pronunciation Miriam). The word, which is probably a compound one consisting of مر and یم it possesses, in Hebrew, a variety of interpretations, some of them being "bitter sea"; "drop of the sea"; "star of the sea"; "bitterness"; "mistress" or "lady". From two alternative roots Mariam might also mean, "the rebellious", or "the corpulent" (Enc. Bib. under Mary). It also means "exalted" (Cruden’s Concordance). Muslim traditionists ascribe to the word the meaning of "pious worshipper" (Kashshaf).

الرجیم (the rejected) is passive participle from رجم. They say رجمه i.e. he pelted him with stones; he smote and killed him; he drove him away; he cursed him; he boycotted or forsook him; he reviled or abused him. رجم الرجل means, the man said a thing on conjecture. رجم القبر means, he put up a stone at the tomb to serve as a sign. الرجیم means: (1) one whom God has driven away from His presence and mercy, i.e. the one rejected; (2) one whom God has cursed; (3) one who has been forsaken and abandoned; and (4) one who has been pelted with stones (Aqrab & Lane). It also means, one driven away or deprived of all goodness and virtue (Mufradat).

Commentary:

Mary’s mother had made the vow in the hope that she would be blessed with a son whom she would dedicate to the service of God. Instead a daughter was born to her. So she was naturally perplexed.

The words, Allah knew best what she had brought forth, form a parenthetical clause spoken by God whereas the following words, the male was not like the female, may be taken to have been either spoken by God or by Mary’s mother. Most probably they are God’s words and mean as rendered in the text, that the female child she had brought forth was superior to the male child she desired to have. If taken to have been spoken by Mary’s mother, they would mean that the female child she had given birth to could not be like the male child she desired, inasmuch as only a boy was fit to do the special service to which she desired to dedicate him.

The clause, I have named her Mary, contains an implied prayer to God to make the girl as exalted and as good and virtuous as the name Mary, meaning exalted or a pious worshipper, signified.

The words, I commit her and her offspring to Thy protection from Satan, the rejected, offer some difficulty. If Mary’s mother intended her child to be dedicated to the service of God, she must have known that the child would remain unmarried for life. What is, then, the sense in offering prayer for the child’s offspring? The most probable explanation is that God had told her in a vision that her daughter would grow up to womanhood and would have a child, whereupon she prayed that Mary and her child might both be granted God’s protection from Satan, the rejected. In spite of this, however, she appears to have left the future of Mary in God’s hand and dedicated her, as she had originally intended, to the service of God (3:38; 3:45; also Gospel of the Birth of Mary). This must have been an exceptional case, for ordinarily only males were eligible for such dedication. The assumption that Mary’s mother had a vision that her daughter would have a son is not unfounded. It finds mention in the Gospel of Mary (3:5) though perhaps in a somewhat different form.

There was nothing unusual about the prayer of Hanna, Mary’s mother, that Mary and her offspring might be protected from satanic influences. All pious parents are actuated by such a desire for their children and pray that they should grow up to lead good and virtuous lives. But unfortunately this simple and natural prayer of Mary’s mother, coupled with a saying of the Holy Prophet to the effect that Mary and her son Jesus were free from the touch of Satan, has given rise to widespread misunderstanding and has been made the basis of an entirely erroneous and misleading belief among a section of Muslims, besides affording to Christians a welcome excuse for attacking Islam. A section among the latter-day Muslims has come to believe that of all men and women, Jesus and his mother, Mary, alone were immune from the evil influences of Satan.

As hinted above, this doctrine is based on a tradition of the Holy Prophet which says: "No child is born but Satan touches it at the time of its birth and makes it cry, except Jesus and his mother Mary" (Bukhari). Unfortunately, this saying of the Holy Prophet has been shorn of its true setting and utterly misunderstood. These words of the Prophet, besides being not strictly relevant as they refer only to the touch of Satan at the time of the birth of a child and not absolutely, were necessitated by the fact that the Jews, out of their enmity towards Jesus, charged him and his mother with the infamous accusation that, God forbid, Mary led an immoral life, and conceived out of legal wedlock, and that consequently Jesus, her son, had an illegal birth. It was to refute this filthy charge that the Holy Prophet uttered the above-quoted words. So this saying of the Prophet is not intended to be general but has only a particular significance with a specific setting. In fact this hadith mentions the names of Jesus and his mother Mary only by way of citing an instance and what is meant is that all mortals born of a woman are likely to come under the influence of Satan except such as possess moral and spiritual qualities like unto those possessed by Mary and her son. The Arabic language is not wanting in instances where a person is named not in his individual capacity, but as representing a class of people (Kashshaf & Manawi). The names of Jesus and Mary have been specifically chosen because of the aspersion upon them by the wicked Jews. Another equally good interpretation is that the words "no child is born" occurring in this hadith are, as hinted above not general but have been used in a restricted sense, signifying not all children absolutely but only such children as were born out of wedlock in the days of Jesus, and the name of Mary has been added because it was her abnormal conception that occasioned such birth of Jesus. Another saying of the Holy Prophet supports this interpretation. Says he, "every child is born in the likeness of Islam; it is only his parents that make him a Christian, a Jew or a Fire-Worshipper" (Bukhari). So the "touch" of Satan referred to in the foregoing hadith cannot be general; it must be taken in a restricted sense.

That Jesus and his mother are not alone in being free from the touch of Satan is clear from a number of Quranic verses and several sayings of the Holy Prophet. To quote only one instance from each, the Quran says: (O Satan,) surely thou shalt have no power over My servants, except such of the erring ones as choose to follow thee (15:43). And the Holy Prophet says: "If a person goes in unto his wife praying, 'O my Lord, keep me away from Satan and so too, keep away the child you grant me', and the wife conceives on such an occasion, the child born will be free from the touch of Satan" (Bukhari).

As for himself personally the Holy Prophet says, "Every one of you has a satan attached to him (who tries to lead him astray) but God has helped me against my satan who has turned Muslim, i.e. obedient and submissive" (Musnad). This means that so far as the Holy Prophet was concerned, Satan had become virtually non-existent. This is certainly a much more exalted position than mere protection against the attack of Satan. Truly has the Prophet remarked, "If Moses and Jesus had been alive, they would have found themselves forced to follow me" (Kathir).

Finally, it may be noted that though Islam declares all Prophets of God to be virtually safe from the influence of Satan, the Bible does not ascribe this protection to Jesus for the New Testament clearly states at a number of places that he was tempted by the Devil for no less than forty days (e.g. Mark 1:12, 13).

Important Words:

کفلھا (made him her guardian) is derived from کفل. They say کفله i.e. he was or became responsible for him; he became his guardian. کفل خالدا زیدا means, he made Zaid the guardian of Khalid; he gave Khalid in the guardianship of Zaid (Aqrab).

زکریا (Zachariah or Zacharias) was the name of an Israelite holy person whom the Quran presents as a Prophet (6:86-90) but of whom the Bible speaks only as a priest (Luke 1:5). The person presented as a Prophet by the Bible is Zechariah (Zech. 1:1; mark the difference in spelling) of whom the Quran, however, makes no mention. زکریا of the Quran was the father of Yahya (John) who was a cousin of Jesus.

المحراب (chamber) is derived from حرب for which see 2:280. محرابmeans, a room in the uppermost story of a house; a chamber to which one ascends by stairs; the chief sitting place in a room or a house; the place or niche where the Imam stands while leading the Prayers in a mosque; a mosque or a place of worship (Aqrab & Lane). محراب (chamber of Prayer or the place of the Imam in a mosque) is probably so called because it is a place where one fights the forces of evil or where one gets divorced from the affairs and concerns of the world, the word حرب meaning fighting as well as being despoiled or deprived of all possessions (Mufradat).

Commentary:

Many fantastic stories have been woven round Mary’s reply to Zachariah’s question as to whence she got the gifts he found lying about her. The gifts were evidently brought by worshippers visiting the place and there was also nothing extraordinary in her reply that the gifts were from Allah, for every good thing that comes to man is really from God, He being the final agency. In fact, from a girl of Mary’s religious upbringing any other reply would rather have been surprising. The accounts of Mary having been provided with heavenly fruits by angels are, therefore, nothing but the figment of the commentators’ own minds and find no support whatsoever from the Quran or the sayings of the Holy Prophet. The pious reply of the child, however, made a deep impression on the mind of Zachariah and awakened in the depths of his soul the latent and natural desire of possessing a similarly virtuous child of his own.

The words, Surely Allah gives to whomsoever He pleases without measure, are most probably the words of God and not those of Mary. But if they are Mary’s words, they make her reply all the more impressive and Zachariah’s earnest prayer, referred to in the following verse, all the more justified.

19:21.

See 2:118.

Commentary:

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

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

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

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

38:62.

Important Words:

ادارکوا (successively arrived) is derived from درك. They say درك المطر i.e. the rain dropped with close consecutiveness. ادرکهmeans, he attained, reached or overtook him. ادارکوا which is the same as تدارکوا means, they attained, reached, overtook or came up with one another; or the last of them attained, reached, overtook or came up with the first of them. The expression حتی اذا ادارکوافیھا جمیعا means, until when they have overtaken one another; or until they have successively arrived therein all together (Lane).

Commentary:

The words, For each preceding party there shall be double punishment, are explained in a saying of the Holy Prophet which is to the effect that he who starts a good practice, i.e. he who does a good deed in such a manner that others copy and follow him, shall have a double reward, and he who starts a bad practice shall have a double punishment. In fact, a person who does a good or a bad deed not only benefits or suffers by it himself, but leaves it as an example to follow for those who come after him. He, therefore, deserves a double reward or punishment as the case may be. The above-quoted words of the verse are also intended to point to the fact that each party that follows another also precedes the one that follows it. So there is no question of awarding double punishment to one and letting the other go with only single punishment.

Commentary:

This verse shows how necessary it is to preach the truth to others. We must not fail to tell our brethren what is good for them and what is not. The thought that those in whom we inculcate the doing of good will not benefit by our advice should not deter us from doing our duty. Our preaching may or may not produce any good result, but we will have done our duty and will not be held answerable before God for neglecting to do what we should have done. The verse mentions two possible results of preaching and both are equally meritorious: (1) either our preaching will take effect and the people preached to will become righteous, or (2) we will at least have done our duty to God.

51:30.

Important Words:

عجوز (old woman) is derived from عجز which means, he lacked strength or power or ability. عجز عن العمل means, he was unable to do the work; he was too old to do it. عجزت المرأة means, the woman became old. The word عجوز has a variety of meanings, some of which are, an old and aged woman; a woman old and weak; a man’s wife whether old or young; also a woman’s husband; an old or aged man; a man old and weak (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The verse does not mean that the expression of surprise on the part of Abraham’s wife implied that she doubted the truth of the news that had been communicated to her by God. It is far from an ordinary believing woman to express doubt with regard to the great and wonderful powers of God, much further from the wife of a Prophet who had already witnessed many signs of the power of God. In fact, she wondered at the unusual news that a son would be born to her at such an advanced age. Her surprise was, therefore, at the magnitude of the boon that was about to be conferred on her. Abraham himself had expressed similar surprise when the glad tidings about the birth of a son in his extreme old age was given to him (see 15:55-57).

Commentary:

When Joseph saw that all his exhortations and admonitions to his master’s wife to desist from her evil course were of no avail, he thought he should no longer stay in the room, lest it might give rise to unfounded suspicions. So he hastened to leave her presence. Thereupon the woman, in order to prevent him from leaving the room, ran to the door to reach it before Joseph succeeded in getting out. There was thus a sort of race for the door. It was most probably at the door that the woman pulled Joseph’s shirt in order to pull him back and in so doing she tore his shirt at the back.

Here, again, the Bible differs from the Quran. The Bible says that when the woman caught hold of Joseph’s garment, he left it in her hand (Gen. 39:12). But as the Hebrews used to wear one garment only, which was generally long enough to cover the whole body, it is inconceivable that Joseph should have run away naked, leaving the only garment he was wearing in the woman’s hand. So the Quranic account that Joseph’s shirt was torn in the scuffle seems to be more reasonable.

Commentary:

Having made the women admit that their suspicions were baseless and that the sinful act had not yet been committed, Potiphar’s wife made an open confession before her guests who were her friends that she had failed in her efforts to tempt Joseph into sin. This unqualified confession of Potiphar’s wife gives the direct lie to the absurd allegation of some commentators that Joseph had become almost inclined towards committing the foul deed.

Strange are the ways of God. The very way by which this woman sought to bring disgrace upon Joseph proved to be the means of his future greatness.

6:15; 12:102; 35:2; 39:47.

11:28; 23:25.

Important Words:

فاطر (Maker) is the active participle from فطر. They say فطرہ i.e. he clove, split, rent or cracked it; He (God) created it, or produced it or brought it into existence, namely, for the first time, it not having existed before; originated it; commenced or began it. فاطرالسموات means, the Originator or Creator of the heavens. Ibn ‘Abbas says, "I did not know what was the meaning of فاطرالسموات until two Arabs of the desert came to me, disputing together respecting a well, and one of them said, انا افطرتھا i.e. 'It was I who originated or began it.' " فطرالعجین; means, he made the dough into bread, or baked it, without leavening it, he kneaded the dough and made it into bread or baked it immediately (Lane & Aqrab). From the Quran it appears that there are four stages of creation: (a) the stage when nothing existed and the process of creation began for thefirst time, nothing having existed before; (b) the stage when matter had come into existence but had not yet taken a definite material form; (c) the stage when, as the result of combination, matter began to acquire diverse properties, the consummation of this process being known by the name of the law of nature; and (d) the last stage when, in accordance with the law of nature, the process of procreation or repetition in creation began, viz. man was born out of man and grain out of grain, etc. The attribute of فاطر (Maker) points to the second stage.

Commentary:

The verse gives the creation of the heavens and the earth as an argument to prove the Divine origin of the teaching given to the Prophets. The Prophets are here represented as saying to their opponents: "It is by the command of Allah that we preach. We say nothing of our own accord. How can you entertain doubt about the fact that God can send down revealed guidance? He is the Creator of heaven and earth, and it is unreasonable to think that, after having created man, He should have left him without guidance. Equally, it is inconsistent with reason to think that, whereas God has made ample provision for the material welfare and advancement of man by creating heaven and earth, He should have neglected to provide for his spiritual welfare."

The words, He calls you that He may forgive you your sins, and grant you respite till an appointed term, refute an objection of disbelievers that God was too dignified and exalted to invite humble beings like themselves to Him. They are told that it is indeed inconsistent with the dignity of God to call humble beings to His aid, but it is not at all below His dignity to come to their help. Nay, such an act is quite in keeping with His supreme dignity. God had therefore sent His Messengers that, through them, He might satisfy the moral and spiritual needs of man and grant him a new and higher life.

The expression, you are but men like ourselves;…Bring us then some clear proof, contains another objection of disbelievers that, if God at all was to have raised Messengers, they should have been beings befitting His dignity and not weak and humble men like themselves. The answer is given in the succeeding verse.

18:111; 41:7.

3:165; 6:125.

Commentary:

This verse constitutes a reply to the objections of disbelievers mentioned in the preceding verse.

The reply is to the effect that a Messenger of God who is sent for the guidance of men and to serve as a model or exemplar for them must be a man like themselves; for, without being a human being like themselves, he could not be a model for them. If he were a "co-partner" of God or a so-called "son" or an angel or any other superhuman being, he could not be a model for men. So God chooses of His servants whom He pleases. There is none to set limits to His powers and choice.

The words, And it is not for us to bring you a proof except by the command of Allah, do not mean that the Messengers of God could not adduce a proof in support of their claim. They are meant only to answer the demand of disbelievers that the Prophets should prove their power and superiority over them. They are told by the Messengers that power and victory all come from God and that, as human beings, they (the Messengers) possess no superiority over them.

Commentary:

It is worthy of note here that the Divine attribute الرحمن (Gracious), has been repeatedly used in this Surah. This Surah deals with all the basic dogmas of Christianity and it is this attribute of God which cuts at the root of these false doctrines and demolishes them. If God is Gracious, then He can forgive the sins of His servants and if He can forgive their sins, then there is no need for anybody to give his blood in order to save mankind. As is apparent from the previous verse it was a mere vision that Mary had seen, and it generally happens that when a person sees a thing in a vision which he does not like in his waking state, he does not like it when he sees it in a vision. When Mary saw the angel standing before her in the form of a man she, being a virtuous young woman, was naturally frightened and perplexed as she would have been frightened and perplexed if she had seen him in her state of wakefulness and it is therefore quite natural that she sought Divine protection from him.

3:48; 19:9.

Commentary:

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

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

Important Words:

مخاض (pains of childbirth) is derived from مخض. They say مخض اللبن i.e. he churned the milk and took the butter out of it. مخض الشیء means, he violently agitated the thing.مخضت المرأة means, the woman suffered the pains of childbirth. مخاض means, the pains of childbirth (Lane & Aqrab).

منسیاً(a thing forgotten) is derived from نسی (nasiya). نسیا لشیء means, he forgot the thing. نسیاًmeans, anything forgotten or worthy of being forgotten or anything that must be forgotten. It also means, one who is counted for nothing, who is despised; a thing which the members of a caravan leave behind as worthless or of little use or importance. منسیاً also means, a thing that is forgotten or neglected. The use of these two words together in this verse denoting the same sense is intended to intensify the sense of forgetting or neglect (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

As it appears from the Gospels there was no room in the inn in which Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Joseph and Mary must have stayed in the open field and Mary might have betaken herself to the trunk of a palm-tree in order to take rest under its shade and possibly also to find some support in her throes of childbirth.

The words, 'had become a thing quite forgotten' indicate the extreme severity of the pains of childbirth. In the case of first delivery the throes of childbirth ordinarily are extremely severe and in the intensity of pain women generally give utterance to some such words as those spoken by Mary.

Commentary:

نمل (Naml) being a proper noun, واد النمل (the valley of Naml) does not mean the valley of ants as is generally misunderstood but the valley where a tribe named Naml lived. In Qamus under the word برق we have الابرقة من میاہ النملة i.e. Abriqah is one of the springs of Namlah. So Naml is the name of a tribe just as Mazin (مازن) which means the eggs of ants is the name of an Arab tribe. In Arabia it was not an uncommon practice that tribes were named after animals and beasts such as Banu Asad, Banu Taghlab, Banu Kalb, Banu Naml, etc. Moreover, the use of the words ادخلوا (enter) and مساکنکم(your habitations) in the verse lends powerful support to the view that Naml was a tribe, since the former word is used only for rational beings and the expression مساکنکم (your habitations) has been used in the Quran exclusively for human habitations (29:39; 32:27). Thus نملة means a person of the tribe of النمل; a Namlite. The said Namlite was possibly their leader and had ordered the people to get out of the way of the army of Solomon and enter their houses.

According to some authorities this valley is situated between Jibrin and ‘Asqalan. ‘Asqalan is a town on the sea coast, twelve miles to the north of Gaz, near Sinai (Taqwimul-Buldan). Jibrin is a town in the north, situated in the vilayat of Damascus. This shows that the Valley of Naml is situated near the sea coast, opposite to or near Jerusalem, lying on the route from Damascus to Hijaz, at a distance of about a hundred miles from it. This part of the country was up to the time of Solomon inhabited by the Arabs and the Midianites. (See ancient and modern maps of Syria and Palestine). According to other authorities, however, it is situated in Yemen. This latter view seems to be more akin to reality. In view of this historical fact fabulous legends woven round this valley are mere conjectures of the commentators of the Quran. The simple fact seems to be that while on a military expedition to Saba’, Solomon might have passed by the valley where the tribe called Namlah lived.

It further appears from the verse that the piety and godliness of Solomon’s soldiers was famed far and wide. They would not knowingly harm or injure any people. This seems to be the implication of the words "and they knew not" and this is what pleased Solomon as is clear from the next verse.

Commentary:

The Queen explains to her ministers and nobles the dangers of offering opposition to Solomon.

Commentary:

The words, "We had been given knowledge before this," signify that the Queen had already become conversant with the great power and resources of Solomon and had made up her mind to give her allegiance to him.

Important Words:

کشفت عن ساقیھا (she uncovered her shanks) ساق (saqun) is derived from ساق (saqa). ساق means, leg; shank; the part between ankle and knee. ساق الشجر means, the trunk of the tree. The Arabs say, کشف الامر عن ساقه i.e. the affair became distressful. الکشف عن الساق is a well-known Arabic idiom meaning to become prepared to meet the difficulty or to become perturbed or perplexed. قامت الحرب علی ساق means, the battle became vehement. کشف عن ساقیه literally meaning he uncovered his shanks signifies, he prepared himself to meet the difficulty; he became perplexed. The expression کشفت عن ساقیھا would thus mean: (1) she uncovered her shanks; (2) she got ready to meet the situation; (3) she became perturbed or perplexed (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

Solomon wanted the Queen to give up idol worship and accept the true faith. For this purpose he wisely adopted such means as should have led the noble and sagacious lady to see the error of her ways. The throne which Solomon caused to be prepared for her was also prepared with this end in view. It was made much more beautiful and in every respect superior to her own throne of which she was very proud. Solomon did so in order that she might realize that he was God’s favourite and had been endowed with material and spiritual gifts in far greater abundance than those given to her. The palace referred to in the verse was also constructed with the same object in view. As the verse shows, the entrance to the palace was paved with slabs of glass, below which ran a stream of crystal clear water. When the Queen entered the palace she mistook the transparent glass for water and uncovered her shanks, which in view of the Arabic expression کشفت عن ساقیھا signifies that the sight of the water perplexed her and she did not know what to do. By this device Solomon directed her attention to the fact that as she had mistaken the slabs of glass for water, similarly the sun and other celestial bodies which she worshipped were not the real source of light. They only emitted light but were lifeless things. It was God Almighty Who had bestowed upon them the light which they emitted. In this way Solomon succeeded in the object he had in view. The noble lady made a confession of her error and from a worshipper of idols of wood and stone she became a devoted votary of the One True God. It is regrettable that superstition and gross credulity have caused men of weak faith to give the homage, which is due to the Great Invisible God, to helpless creatures and lifeless material objects.

It is one of the characteristics of the Quran that whereas the Bible has maligned and defamed the Prophets of God, it (the Quran) has exonerated and cleared them of all sins, filthy accusations and aspersions cast upon them by the Bible.

Solomon is one of those Israelite Prophets whom the Bible has perhaps calumniated and slandered most. The Quran has taken special care to exculpate him of all slanders and calumnies. The Bible says of Solomon that his wives had "turned away his heart after other gods" (1 Kings 11 :4) and that "the Lord was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned away from the Lord, God of Israel" (1 Kings 11 :9). The Quran contradicts these blasphemous charges and says in the present verse that the Queen of Sheba gave up idolatry and came over to the true faith through the noble efforts of Solomon and that he himself was "a most excellent servant of God and turned to Him again and again" (38:31).

Commentary:

The words, "thou has escaped from the wicked people," show that on hearing Moses’ story the old and righteous man was convinced that Moses had committed no murder and that the death of the Egyptian was only accidental. On the other hand he dubbed and denounced the Egyptians as a wicked people.

Commentary:

It is difficult to say to what particular incident the present verse in fact refers. The reference which seems to be supported by the context may be to the incident described by ‘A’ishah herself, which is to this effect: When verse 33:29 was revealed, giving the Holy Prophet’s wives a choice between his companionship and separation from him, by way of a reply to their demand for a life of comfort and ease, the Prophet first of all, broached the matter with ‘A’ishah (Bukhari, Kitabul-Mazalim wal Ghasb). The Holy Prophet appears to have taken that course because it was ‘A’ishah who had led the demand along with Hafsah, and it is not unlikely that ‘A’ishah passed on the Holy Prophet’s secret communication to Hafsah. Whatever the actual facts may be, the verse emphasizes the obligation of a person to whom a secret is confided not to divulge it, particularly when the parties concerned are husband and wife and the secret relates to a private domestic affair; or for that matter when they are a Prophet of God and one of his followers.