ROOT ا ت ي

10:39; 11:14; 17:89; 52:35.

Important Words:

عبد (servant). For the root meaning of the word see note under 1:5. As explained there, the verb عبد means, he showed complete submissiveness and humility; or he received the imprint of a thing. So عبد would mean a person who, through complete submission and humility to God, has become, as it were, an image of God. The word has been used here about the Holy Prophet by way of endearment and is expressive of the exalted position he holds in the sight of God.

شھداء (helpers) is the plural of شھید which is derived from شھد i.e. he was present; or he gave witness, etc. Thus شھیدmeans, one who is present; one who sees or witnesses; one who gives testimony or evidence; one who possesses much knowledge; one from whose knowledge nothing is hidden (Aqrab & Lane); also a helper (Mufradat). Following the last mentioned signification the word may also refer here to the Jews who were friends of the disbelievers (5:81) and spoke of the idolaters as being better guided in religion than those who believe (4:52).

Commentary:

In the preceding two verses the Quran gave its first commandment to the people. Having been thus directly addressed by God, the polytheistic disbelievers felt a natural reaction to repudiate the monotheistic teaching of the Quran, because they felt that its acceptance meant that they should give up their long cherished beliefs.

In the present verse God says that if the Quran created doubts and disquietude in their minds and is not worthy of acceptance, the disbelievers should produce one like it. If they cannot, then this very fact would prove them to be wrong.

The subject of the incomparable excellence of the Quran, has been dealt with at five different places in the Quran, i.e. in 2:24; 10:39; 11:14; 17:89; & 52:34, 35, and disbelievers have been challenged, to produce its equal.

In two of these five verses (2:24 & 10:39) the challenge is identical, while in the remaining three verses three separate and different demands have been made from disbelievers. Thus, to begin with the largest demand in 17:89, disbelievers are challenged to produce the like of the whole Quran, and they have been told that even if all jinn and men should join together, they would not be able to produce it. In 11:14 the challenge is limited to the production of ten chapters. In 2:24 and 10:39, however, it has been confined to one Surah only; while in 52:34-35, the condition of even one Surahhas been omitted and disbelievers have been given the option of producing even a single narration similar to any one narration (i.e. announcement) of the Quran. On the face of it, this difference in the form of the challenge at different places seems to be incongruent and to spring from a lack of harmony in the Quran. Some commentators have endeavoured to explain away this seeming incongruity by saying that it was due to the challenge having been made at different times. At first disbelievers were called upon to produce the like of the whole Quran. When they failed to do so, the challenge was whittled down to the production of the like of any ten chapters. When, however, they were unable to produce even ten chapters, the challenge was further reduced to the production of a single chapter; and, lastly, disbelievers were asked to produce even a single narration like any narration of the Quran. This explanation, however, does not seem to be satisfactory. The different Surahs containing these different challenges were revealed, in the following order: (1) 52:34, 35; (2) 17:89; (3) 11:14; (4) 10:39; (5) 2:24 (Rodwell). Now in Surah 52, the first to be revealed, the challenge is not qualified by any condition as regards size, disbelievers having been given the choice of producing even one single narration similar to any narration of the Quran. It is very strange that, whereas at first the challenge was unqualified and disbelievers were called upon to produce something comparable to any narration of the Quran, later it began to be hedged round by conditions and stipulations, first requiring disbelievers to produce the like of the whole book, then reducing the challenge to ten Surahs, and last of all reducing it to a single chapter. The order is most unnatural.

Moreover, some of the Surahs which contain this challenge were revealed on occasions so close to one another that some commentators have found it difficult to fix their order of priority with certainty. Hence it is unwise to settle this question on the basis of the chronological order of the Surahs containing this challenge.

Another point worth considering in this connection is that the verses in question do not mention any historical event but contain only a general challenge which stands for all time. Now the question is, in what form should the challenge be delivered to the world? Should disbelievers be called upon to produce the like of the whole Quran, or to produce ten Surahs like any ten Surahs of the Quran, or should they be called upon to bring forward the like of one Surah only or the like of any single piece of the Quran? If it is enough to make a demand for the like of a single piece of the Quran, why should a demand for the like of a Surah be made, and if it is enough to make a demand for the like of one Surah, the demand for the production of ten Surahs or, for that matter, for the whole of the Quran seems extravagant.

The fact is that these verses contain certain demands which stand for all time, and there is no need to enter into the question of their chronological order. The challenge can be made even today in all the different forms mentioned in the Quran as it was made at the time of the Holy Prophet.

Before explaining the various forms of these challenges it is worth noting that mention of them in the Quran is invariably accompanied by a reference to wealth and power, except in 2:24, which, as already stated, does not contain a new challenge but only repeats the challenge made in 10:39. From this it may be concluded that there exists a close connection between the question of wealth and power and the challenge for the production of the like of the Quran or a part thereof. This connection lies in the fact that the Quran has been held out to disbelievers as a priceless treasure. When disbelievers demanded material treasures from the Holy Prophet and asked, Wherefore has not a treasure been sent down to him (11:13), they were told in reply that he possessed a matchless treasure in the Quran. The same reply was repeated when disbelievers asked, Wherefore has not an angel come with him? (11:13). They were told in reply that angels did descend upon him; for their function was to bring the word of God, and the Divine Word had already been vouchsafed to him. Thus both the demand for a treasure and the demand for the descent of angels have been jointly met by offering the Quran as a matchless treasure brought down by angels, and the challenge to produce the like of the Quran has been put forward as a proof of its peerless quality.

Let us now take the different verses containing this challenge separately. The greatest demand is that made in 17:89, where disbelievers are required to bring a book like the whole of the Quran in all its manifold qualities. In this verse disbelievers are not required to represent their composition as the word of God. They may bring it forward as their own composition and declare it to be the equal of or, for that matter, better than the Quran. As, however, it was necessary to define in what respect the work to be produced was to resemble the Quran, the Quran says in the next verse, And of a truth We have (herein) set forth for mankind in various ways, all kinds of similitudes, but most of men would reject everything but disbelief (17:90), hinting thereby that if disbelievers reject the Divine origin of the Quran and believe it to be the work of the Prophet himself, then let them produce a book which, like the Quran, should possess the following excellences: (a) it should throw light on every essential subject pertaining to religion; (b) its discussion of these subjects should be exhaustive, offering detailed guidance on every question; (c) it should be free from all harm and contain nothing but good; and (d) it should aim not at the good of any particular people or community but at the well-being of all mankind, containing guidance for all temperaments and dispositions as well as for all circumstances and conditions. But as at the time when this challenge was made the whole of the Quran had not yet been revealed, disbelievers were not required to produce the like of the Quran there and then; and the challenge thus implied a prophecy that they would not be able to produce the like of it, neither in the form in which it then was nor when it became complete. Again, the challenge was not confined to the disbelievers of the Prophet’s time alone, but extended to doubters and critics of all times.

The second verse which contains a challenge is 11:14. In this verse the disbelievers’ objection that the Prophet had not come with a treasure, nor had an angel come to him, has been met by calling upon them to bring similar Surahswhich they should represent as the word of God. The latter demand, i.e. that pertaining to the representation of the required production as the word of God, has a reference to the objection of the disbelievers that no angel has come down to the Prophet. They are told that if no angel has really come to him and his claim to receive divine revelation through the medium of angels is false, then let them also produce ten Surahs, claiming, like him, that they have been brought down to them by angels, and then see what their end would be. If they had not the courage to forge a lie against God, how could they think that the Prophet could be guilty of such fabrication or, if he had dared to commit this forgery, why had he remained secure from God’s punishment?

The reason why the disbelievers in this verse have been called upon to produce ten Surahs and not the whole Quran is that the question here did not relate to the perfection of the Quran in all respects, but to that of only a portion of it. The disbelievers had objected to some parts of it being defective, as is evident from the words: They imagine that thou art now perhaps going to abandon part of that which has been revealed to thee (11:13). Hence, they have not been required here to bring a complete book like the whole Quran, but only ten Surahs in place of those parts of the Quran which they deem to be defective, in order that the truth of their assertion may be tested.

As for the selection of the specific number 10 for this purpose, it should be noted that in Arabic 10 represents a complete number. As the object was to refute the assertion of the disbelievers that certain portions of the Quran were defective, therefore the disbelievers were given the option of making as many as ten efforts to substantiate their claim. They were thus asked to produce ten Surahs not because they could produce less than that number but because the best way to refute their objection was to afford them several opportunities to substantiate the truth of their assertion. In short, since in 17:89 the whole Quran was claimed to be a perfect Book, its opponents were called upon to produce the like of the whole Quran; but since in 11:14 the point was that certain portions of it were objected to, so they were asked to choose ten such portions as appeared to them to be most defective and then, produce a composition even like those portions.

The third verse where the Quran has been declared to be matchless is 10:39. Here disbelievers have been called upon to produce the like of only one Surah of the Quran. This is so because, unlike the above-mentioned two verses, the challenge made in this verse is in support of a claim made by the Quran itself and not in refutation of any objection on the part of disbelievers. In the verses preceding 10:39, it was claimed that God possessed full authority over all things (see 10:32-36), and as a proof of this, in 10:38 the Quran was put forward as possessing the following excellences: (a) it contains teachings which could not be devised by man; (b) it has come in fulfilment of the prophecies contained in the previous Scriptures; (c) in it the imperfect teachings of the previous Scriptures have been perfected; (d) the word of God embodied in it has been made secure from being interpolated or tampered with by man; and (e) its teachings are meant for all men and all time. In support of this claim, verse 10:39 throws out a challenge to those who deny or doubt it to produce a single chapter containing these excellences in the same perfect form in which they are contained in this chapter, i.e. ch.10.

The verses 52:34, 35 contain the smallest of all demands. In these verses disbelievers are challenged to produce a single piece or a single announcement like any piece or announcement of the Quran. This demand also has been made in support of a claim made by the Quran itself and not in refutation of any objection on the part of disbelievers. Hence the smallness of the demand. The claim in question is made in the opening verses of chapter 52, i.e. Surah At-Tur, to the effect that the Quranic revelation which was promised to mankind through Moses on Mount Sinai, will continue to be written, read and published throughout the world and that its followers will continue to multiply and will comprise not only common men but persons of great spiritual and temporal eminence, and that the fountain of the new faith will continue to provide the water of eternal life to all the countries of the world so that the fulfilment of these prophecies will constitute a proof of the fact that there is a Day of Judgement. Thereafter the Quran proceeds in 52:34, 35 to challenge disbelievers that, if they look upon the revelation of the Quran to be a fabrication, then they should come forward and make a prophecy like the one made above. This challenge is unconditional and without qualification. Disbelievers are not required to represent what they produce as the word of God, nor is it laid down as a condition that their prophecy should be of their own devising. They may as they like either make a prophecy of their own devising or borrow it from any other Scripture. Again, disbelievers are not asked to bring forward as many prophecies as there are in the Quran—and these are legion—but to bring forward only one single prophecy similar to any one of the prophecies made in the beginning of the Surah. They are told that they will not be able to fulfil this demand, for such a prophecy could be made only by the Being Who is the Creator and Owner of the heavens and the earth, along with their treasures, and Who not only knows, but possesses mastery of, the unseen. This challenge also stands for all time.

The fifth challenge to produce a like of the Quran is contained in the verse under comment (2:24) and here also, as in 10:39, disbelievers have been called upon to bring a Surah like that of the Quran, not in refutation of any of their objections, but in support of a claim made by the Quran itself. In the case of the verse under comment this claim is stated in the beginning of the Surah in 2:3 which says: This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the righteous. Similarly, 10:39 is also preceded with the words: there is no doubt about it (10:38). This shows that the challenge to produce a chapter like one of the Quran has special reference to the peculiarity which is described by the words, there is no doubt about it. The challenge given in the present Surah is preceded by the claim that the Quran is a guidance for those who fear God (2:3), which means that it guides the righteous to the highest stages of spiritual progress. Hence in the above challenge it has been declared that if disbelievers are in doubt as to the Divine origin of the Quran, then they should bring forward a Surah that may be com­parable to the Quran in the spiritual influence it exercises over its followers.

One of the characteristics of the Quran is that, whatever chapter of it we may read, it casts a subtle and sublime spiritual influence over our minds. Thus, instead of creating doubts it dispels them and takes men to a stage where no doubt can possibly survive, which is the stage of communion with God. This stage can be attained only by the study of the Quran; no other Book can compare with it in this respect.

The above explanation will show that all these challenges calling upon disbelievers to produce the like of the Quran are quite distinct and separate one from another, and all of them stand for all time, none of them superseding or cancelling any other. The misconception that these challenges are one and the same seems to have arisen from the wrong notion that in all of them it is the elegance of the Quranic style and diction that has been held out as unique and incomparable and that it is such elegance of Arabic diction that disbelievers have been called upon to produce. But this is not the case. The challenges made in the five Surahs referred to above are not one or identical nor do they make the same demand; each has a distinct and separate demand of its own and it is in keeping with the nature of these demands that disbelievers have been called upon to produce the like of the whole Quran or a part of it.

The question now remains whether these demands also include a challenge to produce a work comparable to the Quran in elegance of style and diction. The answer is that they certainly do so, but only in an indirect way and not as a direct and fundamental demand, for sublime ideas can only be expressed in sublime language. As the Quran comprises sublime and lofty ideas, it was inevitable that the most beautiful diction and the most chaste style should have been employed as the vehicle for the expression of those ideas; otherwise, the subject matter was liable to remain obscure and doubtful and the perfect beauty of the Quran would have become marred. Thus, in whatever form and in whatever respect disbelievers have been challenged to produce a composition like the Quran, the demand for beauty of style and elegance of diction comparable to those of the Quran also forms a part of the challenge.

3:16, 134, 196, 199; 4:14, 58, 123; 5:13, 86; 7:44; 9:72, 89, 100; 10:10; 13:36; 22:15, 24; 25:11; 32:20; 47:16; 58:23; 61:13; 64:10.

3:16; 4:58.

Important Words:

بشر (give glad tidings) is derived from بشر (bashshara), i.e. he gave glad tidings, which again is derived from بشر(bashara). They say بشر i.e. he laid bare its skin. Thus البشرة means, the outer and visible part of the skin. So بشر(bashshara) means, he gave or imparted news which changed the colour of the listener. The word has generally come to be used in connection with good or happy news. But it is also sometimes used in connection with bad news (e.g. 3:22). بشیر means, one who announces good news to a people or a person. All Prophets are spoken of as بشیر and نذیر i.e. givers of good news to those who believe in them and givers of bad news to those who reject them (Aqrab & Mufradat).

الصالحات (good works) is the plural of الصالحة which is derived from the verb صلح (the opposite of فسد) meaning, he or it became good or suitable and proper. ھذا الشیء یصلح لك means, this thing is suitable to you or is fit or meet for you (Aqrab). So الصالحات would be used about all those deeds and actions which are not only good intrinsically but are also meet and suitable. See also under 2:12.

جنات (gardens) which is the plural of جنة (a garden) is derived from جن meaning, it veiled, concealed, or covered a thing. So جنة means, any garden having trees by which the ground is covered or concealed; an orchard or garden having luxuriousness and denseness of verdure (Aqrab & Lane). Heaven has been called جنة or garden, because: (1) the mercy of God will 'cover' its dwellers just as trees in an orchard cover the ground thereof; or (2) because the blessings of Heaven are 'hidden' from the eyes of man"; or again (3) because Heaven is like a garden in which the trees represent good faith and the streams good actions.

الانھار (streams) is the plural of نھر (nahr) or نھر (nahar). They say نھرالماء i.e. the water flowed on the earth and cut out a channel for itself. Thus نھر (nahr) or نھر (nahar) means, a channel through which a stream or a river flows; a stream or river itself. نھر (nahar) also means, abundance (Aqrab).

ازواج (mates) is the plural of زوج which signifies, anything that is one of a pair or couple; it does not mean a pair but only one of a pair, whether male or female (Aqrab). The word زوج also means, a comrade (Lane).

خالدون (shall abide) is derived fromخلد which means, he remained and lived on. خلدبمکان means, he stayed or abided in a place. خلود means, staying on, or living without change or deterioration for a long time but not necessarily forever (Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

This verse gives a brief description of the rewards which the believers will have in the next world.

Critics of Islam have raised all sorts of objections to this description. They say that: (1) The promise of such rewards is only an appeal to greed and a faith based upon greed is not worth the name. (2) The Quran promises material rewards to the believers and this is objectionable. (3) If the rewards of the next world are going to be material, then it must be supposed that the same body which one has in this life will be resurrected after death and this is against all reason, because this body perishes and the particles of one body are used in the making of several other bodies. To whom and to how many will then the same body be given in the next world? (4) Believers are promised wives in Heaven which shows that sex relations will continue in the next world. An appeal to sex is very objectionable for spiritual ends. Sex relations are necessary only for the continuation of the race in this world. Why should there be such a thing in the next? (5) The Quranic Paradise appears to be a place of luxury and sensual pleasures. There is thus nothing spiritual about the Islamic conception of the next life.

This criticism is based on a failure to understand the real Islamic teaching. The Quran has made it clear that in this life it is not possible for man to comprehend the nature of the rewards of the next. It says: No soul knows what joy of the eyes is kept hidden for them, as a reward for their actions (32:18). That is to say, whatever the Quran says about Heaven and Hell is only metaphorical. The descriptions are not to be taken in the sense in which they are ordinarily taken in this world. The Holy Prophet says of the blessings of the next world: "No eye has seen them, nor has any ear heard of them; nor can the mind of man form any conception of them" (Bukhari). If the blessings of the next life are to be like the joys of this life, we should be able to form some idea of them, no matter how remote they may be. The blessings of the next life, therefore, must be quite different from the blessings of this life.

At another place in the Quran we read: The similitude of the Heaven promised to the God-fearing is that through it flow streams; its fruit is everlasting, and so is its shade. That is the reward of those who are righteous, and the reward of the disbelievers is Fire (13:36). Now the fruit of this world is not everlasting, so in order to be everlasting the fruit of the next world as well as its streams will have to be taken as something other than material. Again we read: A similitude of the Paradise promised to the righteous: Therein are rivers of water which corrupts not; and rivers of milk of which the taste changes not; and rivers of wine, a delight to those who drink; and rivers of clarified honey (47:16). There is nothing material in this. About the wine of Heaven we read: Wherein there will be no intoxication, nor will they be exhausted thereby (37:48). Again, And their Lord will give them to drink a beverage that is pure (76:22). Thus, wine in Heaven will not only be pure itself but will purify the drinkers as well. Elsewhere the Quran says that the pure wine of Paradise will be tempered with Tasnim (83:28), which means 'abundance' and 'height '. In the cup of wine that will pass from hand to hand in Heaven God says there will be neither vanity nor sin (52:24). As against this, the wine of this world is described in the Quran as: Wine and the game of hazard and idols and divining arrows are only an abomination of Satan’s handiwork. So shun each one of them that you may prosper. Satan desires only to create enmity and hatred among you by means of wine and the game of hazard and to keep you back from the remembrance of Allah and from Prayer (5:91, 92). This proves that the wine of the next world is quite different; it is pure and purifying and nothing material.

The blessings of Heaven have indeed nothing in common with their counterparts of this world except the name. Ibn ‘Abbas, the Prophet’s cousin, also says the same thing (Jarir).

Now the question arises: Why have the blessings of Heaven been given the names used of material things in this world? This is so because Islam is meant for all kinds of people. It does not address only the intellectually advanced but also all others. Therefore it uses simple words which can be understood by all. The disbelievers used to say that the Prophet disallowed the good things of the world, and his followers were thus deprived of all blessings. Therefore, while describing the blessings in store for the Muslims, God used the names of things generally looked upon as good in this world and told the believers that they would get all these things in a better form. The water of this world spoils, but believers would have water in the next which will not spoil. Gardens are blessings but they decay; so believers will have gardens which will last forever. The unbelievers drank intoxicating wine which made them drunk and which dulled their senses; but the wine which the believers will get in Heaven will be pure and purifying. It is to bring out this important contrast that familiar words are used; otherwise there is nothing common between the delights of this world and the blessings of the next.

It may be added here that, according to Islam, the next life is not spiritual in the sense that it will just consist of a mental state and nothing else. Even in the next life the human soul will have a kind of body; only, it will not be material. One can glean some idea of this from the phenomenon of dreams. The Quran says: Allah takes the souls of human beings at the time of their death; and (He also takes the souls of), those that have not died, during their sleep. Then He retains those against which He has decreed death, and sends (back) the others till an appointed term. In that surely are signs for a people who reflect (39:43). Death and sleep resemble each other, the difference being that whereas in death the human soul is completely and permanently severed from the body, in sleep the severance is only temporary and partial. Now the scenes which a man witnesses in a dream cannot be called purely mental or spiritual, because he has a body also in his dreams and finds himself sometimes in gardens and streams, and eats fruits and drinks milk. It is hard to say that the contents of dreams are only mental states. The milk enjoyed in a dream is no doubt a real experience, but no one can say that it is the material milk found in this world. Dreams have a meaning of their own. For instance, eating mangoes in a dream symbolizes a righteous child or a righteous heart; eating grapes signifies love and fear of God; and eating bananas, a good and lawful subsistence which is also easy of attainment. In short, the spiritual blessings of the next life will not be a mere subjective realization of the gifts of God with which we become familiar in this world. As a matter of fact, what we enjoy here is just a representation of the real and true gifts of God which man will find in the next world.

Again, gardens represent faith; and streams, good actions. Gardens cannot prosper without streams, nor faith without good actions. Therefore faith and actions are inseparable for the attainment of salvation. In the next world, gardens will remind the believers of their faith in this life and streams will remind them of their good works. They will know, then, that their faith and good works have not gone in vain.

The flowing of streams or rivers beneath the gardens also implies that every person in Heaven will have a free and unrestricted enjoyment of his portion. In this world, a single stream often serves several gardens and there is the possibility of a quarrel over it; but in Heaven each garden will have its own stream exclusively meant for itself. See also 10:10.

It is wrong to conclude from the words, This is what was given us before, that in Heaven the believers will be given such fruit as they will have enjoyed in this world, because, as already explained, the two are not the same. The fruit of the next world will, in fact, be the image of the quality of their own faith. When they will eat it, they will at once recognize and remember that it is the fruit of the faith they had in this world; and it will be out of gratitude for this that they will say: This is what was given us before.

The expression rendered as, was given us, may also mean, 'was promised us'; and in this sense it would mean, this is what was promised to us in the world.

The word متشابھا (mutually resembling) refers to the resemblance between the acts of worship performed by believers in this world and the fruits thereof in Heaven. The acts of worship performed in this life will appear to believers as fruit in the next. The more sincere and the more appropriate a man’s worship, the more will he enjoy his portion of the fruit in Paradise and the better in quality will it be. It, therefore, lies in one’s own power to improve the quality of one’s fruit as one likes.

The expression, mutually resembling, also implies that in Paradise one spiritual food will completely harmonize with the other, so that the possibility of spiritual disease will be eliminated altogether. It also means that the food in Heaven will be suited to each and every individual and to his stage of progress and degree of development.

The words, they will abide, signify that the believers will go on abiding in Heaven and will not be subject to any change or decay. Man dies only when he cannot assimilate food or when someone kills him. But since the food of Paradise will be perfectly suited to every individual and since man will have pure and peaceful companions, death and decay will automatically disappear.

The Faithful will also have pure mates in Heaven. A good wife is a joy and a comfort. The Faithful try to have good wives in this world, and they will have good and virtuous company in the next. Yet these joys of Heaven are not physical.

A typical Christian comment on this subject is made by Sir William Muir: "It is very remarkable that the notices in the Coran of this voluptuous paradise are almost entirely confined to a time when, whatever the tendency of his desires, Mohammad was living chaste and temperate with a single wife of three score years of age. It is noteworthy that in the Medina Surahs, that is, in all the voluminous revelations of the ten years following the Hegira women are only twice referred to as constituting one of the delights of paradise and on both occasions in these simple words: 'And to them (believers) there shall be therein pure wives'. Was it that the soul of Mohammad had at that period no longings after what he had then to satiety the enjoyment of? Or that a closer contact with Jewish principles and morality repressed the budding pruriency of the revelation, and covered with merited confusion the picture of his sensual paradise which had been drawn at Mecca?" (Muir, page 76).

It is amazing how these Christian critics with pretensions to culture and learning will draw on sheer speculation to attack the honour of a Teacher who is held in the deepest reverence and devotion by many millions of men and women all over the world. They seem emboldened to do so, because Christians today hold political sway over the Muslims. A few centuries of power have made them forget that Muslims ruled over Christendom for a full 1,000 years, and during this time they never said anything unbecoming about Jesus. They respected Christian susceptibilities when Christians were quite unprotected and were much weaker than Muslims are today. Would to God Christians did not feel so elated!

Sir William conveniently ignores the fact that there are other things besides women which are mentioned in the Meccan chapters and to which there is no reference in the Medinite chapters. We read in the Meccan chapters that there will be wine, honey and rivers of milk in Paradise. Was the Holy Prophet deprived even of these things at Mecca that he should have compensated himself by imagining them in Paradise? Nothing could be more absurd than this. Personally the Holy Prophet was much better off at Mecca than he was at Medina. His rich wife Khadijah was then alive and she had placed all her wealth at his disposal. By the time he reached Medina, most of this wealth had been spent in good works and the Holy Prophet was left a poor man with little to live on. If the picture of Paradise was an imaged compensation for his wants, it should have emerged at Medina instead of at Mecca.

Supposing Sir William is right, cannot critics of Christianity say justifiably that Jesus imagined himself the king of the Jews because he was persecuted everywhere? Could they not also say that as Jesus saw nothing of sex life in this world, he remained obsessed with the idea of a second advent and imagined himself a bridegroom taking no less than five virgins for wives? In the words of the New Testament, he is reported to have said: "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were foolish, and five were wise. For the foolish, when they took their lamps, took no oil with them: but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps…And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are going out. But the wise answered, saying, Peradventure there will not be enough for us and you: go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they went away to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage feast; and the door was shut" (Matt. 25:1-10). A bridegroom surrounded by a bevy of virgins—is not this the Heaven of Jesus’ imagination?

But to revert to the subject; the disbelievers at Mecca used to taunt the Muslims about their poverty, saying they had nothing of the good things which they had, so God took over their own phrases and said that the rewards which believers would have in Paradise would be even better. When Islam was established at Medina, the disbelievers gave up their taunts. So God also dropped the earlier descriptions of Paradise. The descriptions in their deep significance, however, hold for all time.

At Mecca, moreover, it was necessary to explain and emphasize the basic belief of Islam. Therefore, greater detail of doctrine is found in the Meccan chapters, and as Paradise, the abode of believers in the afterlife, is an important item of belief, it is dealt with in detail in them. At Medina, on the contrary, practical matters like personal ethics and social legislation became more important. Therefore, greater attention was given to them in the Medinite chapters. The Meccan Surahs also abound in descriptions of Hell. What are they a compensation for?

Sir William Muir also suggests that the Holy Prophet changed his views about Paradise under the influence of the Jews and the Christians of Medina. But he forgets that the stock criticism made by Christian writers is that some Christian slaves had taught the Holy Prophet the Christian scriptures, the substance of which was incorporated in the Quran. Sir William himself alleges that the Holy Prophetlearnt Christianity from Suhaib, a Roman slave at Mecca (The Life of Mahomet, p.67). If the Holy Prophet at Mecca already knew the Christian teachings, he need not have waited for their influence until his arrival at Medina. In point of fact, in the Jewish and the Christian scriptures, there are no descriptions of Paradise. The Jews and the Christians have remained so engrossed in the affairs of this life that their Books do not say much about the life to come. The promises made by their Prophets about the next life have always been taken by them to pertain only to this life. It cannot be imagined that anybody could be influenced by such a teaching.

7:36; 20:124.

Important Words:

خوف (fear) is derived from خاف i.e. he feared. خوف denotes fear about the future. یحزنون (shall grieve) is derived from حزنwhich means, he felt regret, grief, and sorrow. حزنه means, he made him sorrowful. حزن (grief) generally, though not always, relates to what is past.

Commentary:

As Adam was to become the progenitor of a great race and the harbinger of a new era, a timely announcement was made to mankind through him that they should be prepared to receive guidance from their God from time to time. Thus the verse holds out the promise that among the descendants of Adam there would continue to appear great souls who would invite people to truth and guidance, and that those who followed such holy persons would attain salvation. Their hearts would be so filled with the true faith that they would enjoy peace and tranquillity of mind in all circumstances. No fear about the future or regret about the past would trouble them, as they would attain nearness to God and their hearts would be to them a paradise.

See 2:4.

2:84, 111, 178; 4:163; 5:56; 9:11; 21:74; 23:5.

Important Words:

زکوة (Zakah)is derived from زکا i.e. he or it grew or increased or became good or purified, etc. So literally زکوة signifies: (1) increase or augmentation; (2) purification (Lane). Technically, it signifies the obligatory alms prescribed by Islam. (See note on 9:60). زکوة is so called because it results in the purification of the property from which it is given and also in its increase through God’s blessing (Mufradat).

ارکعوا (bow down) is derived from رکع which means, he bowed down. رکع الی الله means, he leaned towards God and found peace of mind in Him. رکع المصلی means, the worshipper performed the رکوع in his Prayer, i.e. assumed the bowing posture.راکع means, one who bows down before God or leans towards Him (Lisan & Aqrab). The Arabs used the word راکع for one who worshipped God alone to the exclusion of idols (Asas). A well-known pre-Islamic poet Nabighah says:

سیبلغ عذرا اونجا حا من امرء الی ربه رب البریة راكع

viz. He who is راكع i.e. who turns to God alone, the Creator of the world, will have a good argument in his favour and will obtain salvation.

Commentary:

In this verse the Jews are called upon to undergo a complete transformation and identify themselves with Islam not only in belief but also in practice. Only a perfect conversion can save them.

The expression, bow down with those who bow, does not mean that the Jews should bow down as in daily Prayers; for that would be redundant, as the performance of the prescribed daily Prayers has already been mentioned in the words اقیموالصلوة. The expression therefore means that they should completely submit to God, severing all such connections as may lead them astray from Him.

The question here arises, why does not God say "bow down with the believers or the Muslims" which would have been a much simpler construction than bow down with those who bow. The answer is that this construction has been adopted to convince the Jews that this commandment of God is not an arbitrary one but is meant for their own good, because by obeying it they would be identifying themselves with a righteous people. The word الراکعین being an attributive word also supplies an argument which the use of a proper name could not do. Moreover, by the use of this word, God has bestowed well-merited praise on the Muslims. They are, as a community, a راکعpeople, wholly devoted to the service of the One God, having severed all connections with false deities. This extra significance could not have been secured by the use of the word Muslim or Mu’min which have come to be regarded as more or less proper names.

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.

2:84, 94; 4:155.

7:172.

Important Words:

میثاق (covenant) is derived from وثق i.e. it was or became firm and established. اوثقه means, he made it firm and fast; he bound or tied it firmly and strongly. میثاق means, a firmly made promise; a covenant (Aqrab & Lane). It should be noted that every commandment of God has the force of a covenant for those who believe, because once an individual or a people believe in God and accept His guidance, they, as it were, enter into a covenant with Him that they will obey all His Commandments, a formal agreement not being necessary. See also 2:28.

رفعنا (We raised high) is derived from رفع which means, he raised or lifted a thing or person; he raised a person in rank, honour, position or dignity; he took a report or complaint to a person in authority (Mufradat & Aqrab). It also means, to make a thing tower above another standing beside it. We read in a hadith رفع لنا صخرة طویلة لھا ظل i.e. a big stone giving good shade was raised above us, i.e. we found ourselves beside a high shady stone (Bukhari, ch. on Hijrah).

فوق (above) is derived from فاق meaning, he surpassed it or him; he stood higher than it or him. Thus فوق is the opposite of "beneath" meaning "above", both literally and figuratively (Aqrab). It is also used to denote a place higher than that which one is occupying. The Quran says: اذجاءوکم من فوقکم i.e. when the enemy made a descent on you from a higher position (33:11).

الطور (the Mount) means: (1) a hill or mountain; (2) the mount Tur or Sinai (Mufradat & Aqrab). Thus, it is both a common and a proper name.

Commentary:

In this verse the Quran again reverts to the previous subject, i.e. the iniquities of the Israelites, but in a different field. The verse refers to the time when Moses went up the Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments and left his followers standing at the foot of the Mount (Exod. 19:17). So the covenant spoken of in the verse refers to the Ten Commandments which were given to Moses on this occasion.

The clause We raised high above you the Mount, does not mean that Mount Sinai was physically lifted up to hang over the heads of the Israelites. It only means that the covenant was taken at a time when the Israelites were standing at the foot of the mountain—a meaning quite consistent with the Arabic idiom as explained under Important Words. The raising of the Mount above the Israelites has been ascribed to God, because it was He Who had commanded them to come and stand at the foot of the Mount.

The verse may also refer to the scene when the Mount Sinai was terribly shaken with an earthquake, while the Israelites were camping near it (Exod. 19:18). On such an occasion the shaking of a high mountain peak appears as if it were hanging over the heads of those standing near it.

4:155; 5:13.

2:44; 4:78; 6:73; 22:79; 24:57; 30:32.

Important Words:

میثاق (a covenant). See 2:64.

Commentary:

After setting forth the attitude of the Israelites of the Holy Prophet’s time towards the Prophets of God and their own Scriptures, the Quran draws their attention to the teachings which they had been required to follow but which they ignored.

The verse under comment does not refer to any particular covenant, but to the vices which were rife among the Jews at the time and which were forbidden them in the Bible. Worship of any object other than God is repeatedly forbidden in the Jewish scriptures (Exod. 20:3-6). Again, kindness to parents is also among the injunctions (Exod. 20:12). Similarly, for the kind treatment of kinsmen, clear injunctions have been given (Lev. 19:17, 18; Exod. 21:9, and Prov. 3:27, 28). For care of orphans, an injunction is to be met with in Deut. 14:29. Sympathy for the poor is enjoined in Deut. 15:11. The injunction to deal gently with mankind is found in Prov. 3:30. The commandment to observe Prayer is given in Deut. 6:13. The injunction for alms-giving may be seen in Exod. 23:10, 11.

The Jews openly disregarded these clear injunctions. They set up equals to God, some believing in Ezra as the son of God, others taking the word of their divines as revelation and setting aside the dictates of the Holy Writ. Their treatment of their own kinsmen and others was cruel. Their attitude towards orphans and the indigent was unsympathetic. They were quite devoid of fellow feeling and were lax in worship and alms-giving. It should, however, be noted that God has not condemned the whole Jewish nation, but has made an exception in the case of the righteous few among them.

In this verse, as everywhere else in the Quran, the sequence of words follows the natural order of importance. The worship of the One God is mentioned first. Then mention is made of mankind, who have been divided into two classes: (1) those who deserve good treatment as a right; (2) those to whom kindness is shown as an act of charity. The first class is mentioned first, because in their case there is a sort of obligation, a debt to be paid. Those who are to be treated kindly out of charity are mentioned afterwards, the degree of need in each case determining the sequence. Last of all, acts of obedience to God are mentioned; and out of them the most important ones pertaining to the purification of the soul and the payment of religious taxes are selected; and these are placed after fellow feeling, because fellow feeling is the first step towards the moral elevation of man, who often feels impelled to it from within without reference to any law.

It is noteworthy that the injunctions that are found scattered in the Bible have been placed together in a most beautiful order in the Quran.

See under 2:87.

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).

2:64; 4:155; 7:172.

Important Words:

اشربوا (were permeated with) is derived from شرب meaning, he drank. اشرب means, he was made to drink. The expression,اشرب فی قلبه حب فلان means, the love of such and such a person permeated his heart (Aqrab). The word is so used because love is like alcohol that intoxicates one who partakes of it. The clause, اشربوا فی قلوبھم العجل (lit. they were made to drink into their hearts the calf) must really be read as اشربوا فی قلوبھم حب العجل (lit. they were made to drink into their hearts the love of the calf), the word حب (love) being understood before the word عجل (calf).

Commentary:

For an explanation of the expression, raised high above you the Mount, see under 2:64.

The words, they said, We hear and we disobey, signify that they practically refused to obey God. They did not necessarily use these exact words; for the word, as pointed out under 2:31, sometimes conveys the sense not of actual speech but of practical conduct.

Reference to calf-worship in verse 93 is not a mere reiteration of what has been already said in verse 55; the incident has been mentioned here as an illustration of what has been said about the Jews in the previous verse. Their attention is drawn to their conduct in the days of Moses. When Moses was absent from them for a short time only, they took the image of a calf for their idol, although they had witnessed how God had helped Moses and had shown mighty Signs at his hands; and that at a time when they had given a solemn promise not to worship anything besides God. In spite of that promise, they showed active opposition to the commandments of God by their deeds.

In the concluding portion of the verse, it is pointed out that the Jews professed to believe in what was revealed to them by God, but their belief was of a strange character for in spite of it, they persisted in their opposition to the Prophets. If this was believing, then their faith was only leading them astray.