ءَاخِرَ

2:137, 286; 3:200; 4:61, 137, 163; 5:60.

4:70; 7:36; 61:7; 62:4.

Important Words:

انزل (has been revealed) is derived from نزل which means, he descended; or he came down. The literal meaning of the transitive form انزل would, therefore, be, he sent down, or he caused to descend. Figuratively, however, the word has come to be used about anything bestowed by God on man. God being high, everything that comes from Him may be said to descend from above. When used with reference to God’s Word, انزل would mean, He revealed. Thus we say, انزل الله كلامه in the sense of اوحی i.e. God revealed His word (Aqrab).

الآخرة (what is yet to come) is derived from اخر. They say اخرہ i.e. he put it back; he put it behind; he postponed it. The word الآخرة which is the feminine of الآخر i.e. the last one or the latter one, is used as an epithet or an adjective opposed to الاول i.e. the first one. الآخر with a different vowel-point in the central letter, means, "the other" or "another" (Aqrab). The object which the adjective الآخرة in the verse qualifies is understood, most commentators taking it to be الدار, the full expression thus being الدار الآخرة (the last abode). The context, however, shows that here the word understood is not الدارbut الرسالة i.e. الرسالة الآخرة (the message or revelation which is to come). The word; الآخرة has, therefore, been rightly translated here as "that (i.e. the revelation) which is yet to come".

یوقنون (they have firm faith) is derived from ایقن which again is derived from یقن i.e. it became clear and established. ایقن الامر means, he knew the matter well and made sure of it; he was certain about it. یقین means, certainty; becoming sure of a thing beyond doubt; anything sure and established (Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse describes three more qualities of a متقی i.e. a righteous person. In the previous verse mention was made of faith in general. But as a true believer seeks to know the details of تقوی (righteousness) in order to perfect his faith, he is told here that for its consummation he must believe in the Holy Prophet and through him in the previous Prophets, and must at the same time believe in "what is yet to come". Thus, belief in the Holy Prophet is the central point so far as belief in the Prophets of God is concerned, and no person can become متقی (a truly righteous person) unless he believes in the Holy Prophet.

From the words, that which has been revealed to thee, quite an erroneous inference is some­times drawn to the effect that it is belief in the Quran and not belief in the Holy Prophet that is enjoined. This view the Quran forcefully contradicts. Besides making it clear in several places that belief in the Prophet is as essential as belief in the Book (e.g.2:286; 4:66; 4:137), the Quran makes the point clear in another way also. At one place we have, He it is Who has sent down to you the Book clearly explained (6:115), and at another, and in like manner have We sent down the Book to thee(O Prophet) (29:48). The fact that God sometimes speaks of the Quran as having been sent to the people and sometimes to the Prophet is not without point. In fact, the difference in construction is full of meaning; for where the Quran is spoken of as having been sent to the people, the intention is to point out that the Quranic teaching is suitable and appropriate for them and is meant for their good; and where the Quran is spoken of as having been sent to the Prophet, the intention is to emphasize that he is not merely the bearer of a message but is the person best fitted to explain the message he has brought and to become an exemplar of the teaching contained in the message. Elsewhere God says, Allah knows best where to place His message (6:125), which is a clear proof of the fact that a Prophet is not merely the bearer of a message, but is selected by God for a higher purpose, i.e. to become a model for his followers; otherwise, anybody can be sent as a bearer of a message and the question of special selection does not arise.

The words, and that which was revealed before thee, illustrate a special characteristic of Islam, i.e. it not only recognizes the truth of all previous Prophets but makes it obligatory upon its followers to believe in the Divine origin of the teachings they brought with them (see also 13:8; 35:25). But it must be remembered that Islam is a complete and final teaching which has superseded all previous teachings. Belief in them, therefore, is only in the sense of reverence for them and not in the sense that a Muslim should act upon them. That is why in the verse under comment God mentions the earlier Scriptures after the Quran and not before it, as the chronological order required, so that the attention of the believers may be drawn to the fact that belief in the previous books is based on the Quran and is not independent of it.

According to the Quran (35:25), Prophets have appeared among all peoples and all nations and we are commanded to believe in all previous revelations, and thus an effective step has been taken to promote peace and harmony among the followers of different religions. The verse applies to no particular Book. Any earlier Book which claims Divine origin and has been accepted for a long time and by a large section of mankind to be the Word of God falls within the meaning of this verse.

The word الآخرة (what is yet to come) means either "the message or revelation which is to follow" or "the Last Abode", i.e. the next life. Of these two meanings the first is more applicable here; for it fits in with the other two parts of the verse which speak of God’s revelations. In this connection it is also noteworthy that while the word ایمان has been used in reference to the past and present revelations, the word یقین has been used in reference to the future ones. This is because ایمان relates to something definite and determined, and as the future revelation was not yet definite and determined at the time when the verse was revealed, so the word یقین was used for it.

The subject of the latter part of this verse, referred to in the words, what is yet to come, finds further exposition in 62:3, 4 where the Quran speaks of two advents of the Holy Prophet. His first advent took place among the Arabs in the 7th century of the Christian era when the Quran was revealed to him; and his second advent was to take place in the latter days of the world in the person of one of his followers who was to come in his spirit and power. This prophecy found its fulfilment in the person of Ahmad, the Promised Messiah and Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, in whose advent have been fulfilled also the prophecies of other Prophets regarding the appearance of a World-Messenger in the Latter Days.

Important Words:

ادارک (has reached its end) is derived from درک. They say درک المطر (darraka) i.e. the rain dropped with close consecutiveness. أدرکه means, he attained, reached or overtook him. تدارکو or ادارکوا means, they attained, reached, overtook one another so as the last of them met with the first of them. بل ادارک علمھم فی الاخرة means, their knowledge with regard to the meeting of the Hereafter has reached its end i.e. they have become devoid of knowledge about it. See also 7:39.

Commentary:

No amount of human knowledge and intelligence alone can satisfy the craving of the human soul after God, or can prove beyond doubt the existence of God and life after death, the two most fundamental of all religious beliefs, because their full comprehension is beyond human ken. It is divine knowledge acquired through Divine revelation that can and does actually engender certainty in human mind about these two basic religious problems. Man’s knowledge can, at best, lead to the conclusion that there must be a Divine Being and a life after death but it is Divine revelation alone that can change this "must be" into a certain "is."

Commentary:

After considering the vices of the Jews in general in the previous verse, the Quran addresses the Jews of Medina in particular in verses 85 and 86. It is pointed out that in face of the clear injunctions to the contrary, the Jews of Medina had been killing one another and turning one another out of their homes. As explained under 2:18, there lived in Medina in the time of the Holy Prophet three Jewish tribes, the Banu Qainuqa‘, the Banu Nadir and the Banu Quraizah; and two pagan tribes, the Aus and the Khazraj. Two of the Jewish tribes, Banu Qainuqa‘ and Banu Quraizah, sided with the Aus, and Banu Nadir with the Khazraj. Thus, whenever these pagan clans were at war with each other, the Jewish tribes were automatically involved. But, if during a war any Jews were taken prisoner by the pagans, the former would collect money by subscription and ransom them. They considered it improper for a Jew to remain in bondage with a Gentile. The Quran objects to this course by saying that their faith not only forbids the enslavement of Jews, but also prohibits mutual warfare and murder in which they were openly indulging, and there could be nothing worse than to accept a portion of the Scriptures and reject the rest; for, when one accepts a portion of the Scriptures, it is proof of the fact that one is convinced of their truth. Thus rejection of a portion is clear evidence of a perverted mind. As regards the prohibition of the enslavement of Jews, the reader is referred to Lev. 25:39-43, 47-49, 54, 55; Neh. 5:8; and the Enc. Bib. iv, 4657. In accordance with these injunctions, the Jews of Medina used to have Jewish slaves redeemed, but it was absurd on their part to do so, because they themselves created the circumstances which led to their enslavement.

Verse 87 points to the fact that the Jews who opposed the Holy Prophet had entirely become worldly-minded, forgetting all about the next life. So they deserved no mercy, and there being no extenuating circumstances, their punishment would not be lightened.

2:112; 62:7.

Commentary:

See under 2:96 below.

Important Words:

تتلوا (followed). See 2:114

شیاطین (rebellious men). See 2:15.

علی (during) gives the sense of فی i.e. "in" or "during" (Aqrab & Mughni). It is also used to denote a hostile sense meaning "against", as one says خرج علیه i.e. he rebelled against him, or he went out against him with an army intending to fight (Wright). In this sense the phrase علی ملك سلیمان would mean, against the government of Solomon, or conspiring against his government.

سحر (falsehood and deception). In verbal senses سحرہ means, he deceived him; he coaxed him and involved him in trouble and deprived him of his understanding; he enchanted him. سحرالفضة means, he coated a piece of silver so as to make it look like gold. The noun سحر means, anything the source of which is not quite visible; showing off falsehood in the form of truth; a crafty device; craftiness; mischief; enchantment (Aqrab). It also means, producing what is false in the form of truth; any event of which the cause is hidden and which is imagined to be different from what it really is; embellishment by falsification and deceit (Lane). Thus every falsehood, deceit or crafty device which is meant to hide the real object from public view is included in the meaning of سحر.

ملكین (two angels) is the dual number from ملك (angel) for which see 2:31. Figuratively ملك is sometimes used to denote a handsome or holy person, as the Quran says, He (Joseph) is but a gracious angel, i.e. a handsome and pious youth (12:32). As in the verse under comment, the two angels are described as teaching something to the people, therefore the word cannot be taken in its literal significance, because angels do not live among men and do not generally have free intercourse with them (17:95, 96; 21:8). Thus in the present verse ملکین would not mean "two angels" in the literal sense of the word but "two holy men".

ھاروت (Harut) and ماروت (Marut) are both descriptive names. ھاروت is derived from ھرت which means, he tore up (Aqrab); hence ھاروت means, one who tears; the tearer. ماروت is derived from مرت which means, he broke (Aqrab & Lane). Thus ماروت means, one who breaks; the breaker. These names signify that the object of the appearance of these holy men was to 'tear' asunder and 'break' the glory and power of certain people.

فتنة (trial) means, the trial or means whereby the condition of a man may be demonstrated in respect of good or evil (Lane). They say فتن الصائغ الذھب i.e. the goldsmith melted the gold in the crucible so that its purity or impurity might be ascertained (Aqrab).

Commentary:

Many a legend unwarranted by the Quran and the Hadith—and even running contrary to them—clusters round this verse. It would be quite unreasonable to interpret it on the basis of those myths. For their true interpretation no external evidence is needed, the words being self-explanatory. It is clear from the verse itself that Jews in the time of the Holy Prophet were bent upon the same mischief which characterized them in the days of Solomon and during the days of their captivity in Babylon. The verse further indicates that the mischief-mongers of Solomon’s time were those "rebellious men" who called him an unbeliever. God says that those wicked men themselves, and not Solomon, lacked belief. Again, the verse tells us that these men taught their associates such signs as conveyed to them meanings quite different from those generally accepted, for the purpose of deceiving other people and concealing their own activities. All this leads to the conclusion that this verse alludes to those secret plots which the enemies of Solomon made against him, and by which they wished to break his empire. It is pointed out that now, in the time of the Holy Prophet, these people are resorting to the selfsame tactics, but that they will fail.

As the verse refers to a number of historical events, it is advisable to relate them here at some length.

When Jews saw that the power of Islam was steadily expanding and that no opposition from the Arabs had been able to arrest the progress of Muslims, they began to excite outsiders against them. At that time there were two large empires in the neighbourhood of Arabia: (1) The Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire; and (2) The Persian Empire. As Jews were already at enmity with the Roman Government, because they were in constant trouble under it, so it was only the Persian Government to which they could look for support. Harassed by the oppression of Christian rulers, they had taken refuge in Persia, where they enjoyed a good deal of religious freedom, and their religious centre shifted from Judah and Jerusalem to Babylonia (Hutchinson’s History of the Nations, p.550). In the seventh century of the Christian era, i.e., during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet, Jews suffered exceptionally cruel persecution at the hands of the Christian Emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire. "Both Phocas and Heraclius", says the Historians’ History of the World (vol. 7, p. 175), "attempted to exterminate the Jewish religion, and if possible to put an end to their national existence. Heraclius not only practised every species of cruelty himself to effect this object within the bounds of his own dominions, but he even made the forced conversion or banishment of the Jews a prominent feature in his diplomacy." So, in the time of the Holy Prophet the only government to which the Jews could look for help was that of Persia, where their co-religionists enjoyed much influence, especially in the reign of Chosroes II (Jew. Enc., ix. 648).

Consequently, when the Jews saw that their efforts to check the progress of Islam had totally failed, they took to exciting the Persian Court against the Holy Prophet by various means; and as a result, Chosroes II issued orders to the Governor of Yemen to send to him the Arabian claimant as a captive. But when the envoys of the Governor came to the Holy Prophet, he asked them to see him the next day, when he told them that God had informed him that He had their king murdered. Thereupon they returned and related this incident to the Governor. A few days later, the Governor received a letter from Siroes, the son of Chosroes II, to the effect that he had killed his father on account of the latter’s tyranny and that the Governor should, on his behalf, renew the oath of allegiance from all the Chiefs of Yemen; and that the order of his father regarding an Arab should be considered as cancelled (Tabari, iii. 1573-1574).

Some historians, including Tabari himself, hold that it was the letter of the Holy Prophet to the king of Persia inviting him to Islam that was the occasion of his orders for the apprehension of the Holy Prophet. But on comparison of the dates of the above-mentioned events, this turns out to be a mistaken view. For, as we read in Zurqani (ii. 211-212), the letter in question was despatched from Medina on the first of Muharram, 7 A.H.–a date corresponding to 12th April, 628 A.D. (Lane under ھجرة); whereas Chosroes II, who sent orders for the arrest of the Holy Prophet, had been assassinated on the 29th of February, 628 A.D. (Historians’ History of the World, viii. 95). Thus the view that the letter of the Holy Prophet was the cause of Chosroes’ orders is quite untenable; and the only possible cause of Chosroes’ ignominious orders was that his ears had been poisoned by malicious reports, a fact admitted by Sir William Muir (The Life of Mahomet, p. 370). It is to these efforts of the Jews that the Quran alludes in the verse under comment.

The verse also points out that it was foolish on the part of the Jews to suppose that they would succeed in that way. Their attention is invited to the fact that they had already been responsible for two secret plots. The first was against Solomon, when some members of their community turned rebels, hatched plots and stirred up bitter feeling against him by calling him an infidel; whereas the infidels were those who opposed him, hurled imputations at him, and set up against him secret societies in which secret signs and symbols were taught. The Jews, however, themselves reaped the ill-reward of their sinister schemes: their power, as a consequence, fell into decay, and at last they became so powerless that they were driven into exile towards Babylon. This account of Jewish secret societies and conspiracies and treacherous signs and symbols, as alluded to in this verse, finds corroboration in the Bible (1 Kings 11:1-6), where we read that the charge of idol-worship was spread against Solomon. An account of his enemies is found in I Kings 11:14, 23, 26, and a reference to secret plots is met with in II Chron. 10: 2-4 where we learn that the Jews had sent for Jeroboam, a bitter enemy of Solomon, immediately after his death and had attempted to make Solomon’s son agree to some demands of theirs, involving certain imputations against Solomon, before his accession to the throne. We learn about the secret signs from I Kings 11:29-32, in which the ten tribes of the Israelites are likened to ten pieces of a garment, and Jeroboam is told that these ten tribes were on his side against Solomon; and so it proved to be, for on the death of Solomon, these ten tribes made Jeroboam their king (I Kings 12:20). Again, the reference of the Quran to the infidelity of Solomon’s enemies finds corroboration in II Chron. 11:15, from which we learn that his enemies, who falsely charged him with unbelief, themselves fell into idol-worship when they rose to power.

Besides the testimony of the Bible, there is other evidence to show that in the days of Solomon a secret society was at work against him. An old tradition, current among medieval Freemasons, indicates that Solomon was envious of the superior intelligence of Hiram, the chief architect who built the Temple at Jerusalem. He is said to have attempted to kill the great Mason by having him thrown into a tank of molten brass, but he was saved by the spirit of his ancestor, Cain, who prophesied that at last his people would get the better of their enemy. Solomon, however, as the tradition goes, had him afterwards put to death. It is said of him that he had fixed certain secret signs which were a sort of mystery known only to him and his associates (Secret Societies of the World, Volume II, pp. 1-8; as the original book could not be obtained, the reference is to an Urdu translation). We further learn from this book that before the period of the Accepted Masons, the same signs used in all the Lodges were current among the Masons of Solomon’s time (p. 11) and that at the time of initiation, the Hiram incident was related to the new member (pp. 29, 30). However incredible the story as a whole may be, it points at least to the conclusion that in one way or other, secret societies were associated with Solomon’s reign and were much in vogue in his time.

The second occasion when, according to the Quran, the Israelites had resort to secret societies was during their captivity in Babylon. But this time they were not acting against any Prophet but were, on the other hand, working under the leadership of two inspired personages, who were, in obedience to divine command, trying to bring about the deliverance of the Israelites. Their mission was to "tear asunder" and "break down" the empire of the enemies of the Israelites. These holy men told new members, at the time of initiation, that they were a sort of trial from God, serving to differentiate between the good and the bad, and that the Israelites should not therefore refuse to believe what they said, because this would lead them to infidelity. In their teachings they drew a distinction between males and females, confining membership to males only (this is an old practice found among most secret societies). It is also stated that the disciples of these holy men directed their activities against only those for whose chastisement they were commissioned by God.

In this narration, the Quran refers to the days when King Nebuchadnezzar brought the Jews as captives into Babylon and kept them there for a long time. The holy men referred to in the verse under comment were Haggai, the Prophet, and Zechariah, the son of Iddo (Ezra 5:1). When Cyrus, King of Media and Persia, rose to power, the Israelites entered into a secret agreement with him and greatly facilitated his conquest of Babylon. In return for this service, he not only allowed them to return to their own country but also helped in the rebuilding of the Temple (Historians’ History of the World, ii. 126).

After stating that the Jews of the Holy Prophet’s time were following the same course which was adopted by the rebels of Solomon’s days and which was later adopted by the Jews under two holy men in Babylon, it was necessary here to state the ultimate upshot of their efforts against the Holy Prophet, because on the two previous occasion’s their efforts had met with different results. On the first occasion the conspiracy of the Israelites, being directed against a Prophet of God, had ended in the total loss of their prestige and finally in their banishment to Babylon. On the second occasion, they took a similar course under two inspired personages and were successful. Hence, in order to indicate whether the efforts of the Jews against the Holy Prophet would meet with failure, as they did in the days of Solomon, or with success as in Babylon, the Quran says: these people are learning that which would harm them and do them no good; hinting that they will not be successful as in Babylon. Accordingly, the consequence of their hostile efforts against the Holy Prophet was that Chosroes, their only supporter, met his death at the hands of his son, and they themselves were exiled from Arabia in the time of ‘Umar. In the concluding portion of the verse, God adds: And they have certainly known that he who trafficks therein has no share of good in the Hereafter, meaning that a mischievous plotter never succeeds ultimately. The last clause, had they but known, throws a flood of light on how intensely God desires that His creatures should always take the right course and not be misled by mischievous people.

9:17, 18; 22:26; 72:19, 20.

Important Words:

خرابھا (their ruin) is derived from خرب. They say خرب البیت i.e. the house became desolate and deserted. The word خرابwhich is infinitive from it is the opposite of عمارة i.e. to build or to occupy and live in, and is used about a place when it becomes deserted and desolate and ruined (Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse constitutes a strong indictment of those who carry their religious differences to such extremes that they do not even refrain from perpetrating outrages against the places of worship belonging to other creeds. They hinder people from worshipping God in their sacred places and even go so far as to destroy their temples. Such acts of violence are denounced here in strong terms and a lesson of tolerance and broad-mindedness is inculcated.

The Quran recognizes for all the free and unrestricted right to use their temples and declares that if people wish to worship God in a place of worship, they should not be prevented from doing so; for a temple or a mosque is a place dedicated to the worship of God and anyone who prevents them from worshipping Him in it, in fact, contributes to its ruin and desolation.

This is what Islam teaches about respect for the places of worship, and yet it has come to be condemned as an intolerant religion. Islam is indeed the first and the only religion to inculcate broad-mindedness and teach respect for the religious susceptibilities of all peoples and the Holy Prophet was the first person who carried this great and noble principle into actual practice. He allowed the Christians of Najran to hold their service in his own mosque, the celebrated مسجدالنبی, when they came to have a religious discussion with him at Medina (Zurqani).

It will be noted that the verse prescribes two punishments for those who prohibit the name of Allah being glorified in places of worship. One is disgrace in this world and the other is heavy punishment in the next. The punishment of disgrace is typical of the offence; for a person who first builds a temple or a mosque with the object that the name of God may be remembered in it and then proceeds to prevent people from worshipping Him therein cannot but bring upon himself humiliation and disgrace in the eyes of the world. The words also contain a prophecy about the disbelievers of Mecca who prevented the Muslims from entering the Ka‘bah. The prophecy was fulfilled when Mecca was taken and the infidels met with humiliation and disgrace. Finally, it may be noted that the verse should not be understood to mean that the Quran advocates the unqualified access for all sorts of persons to all places of worship without regard to circumstances. In fact, only those who wish to use them for the specific purpose of God’s worship and have no ulterior motive are allowed.

3:96; 4:126; 6:162.

2:125; 3:34; 16:121, 122; 60:5.

Important Words:

یرغب (will turn away) is derived from رغب which is used either with the preposition فی or عن giving different meanings. رغب فیه means, he sought or desired it; and رغب عنه means, he turned away from it or he left or loathed it ( Aqrab).

سفه نفسه (is foolish of mind). The word سفه is used in three different forms: سفه (1) (safiha), (2) (safaha), and (3) (safuha). All these give different meanings. The Quran uses the first form, i.e. سفه (safiha) which means, he was ignorant or he behaved ignorantly; he was foolish or he acted foolishly; he was lightwitted or he behaved light-wittedly. When the word سفه is used with نفسه as its seeming object as in the verse under comment, it does not actually become transitive but simply looks so (as does the verb خسر which see under 2:28). In fact, as most lexicographers have explained, the expression سفه نفسهis really either سفه فی نفسه or سفه ھو نفسا or سفھت نفسه and means, either he is foolish of mind, or he is foolish himself, or his mind acts foolishly (Aqrab, Mufradat, Lisan & Lane).

اصطفیناه (him did We choose) is derived from صفا which means, it became pure and clean. اصفاه بکذا means, he chose him for that, or he honoured him with that. اصطفاه means, he chose or selected him from among others; he chose him in preference to others (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The attention of Jews and Christians is drawn to the point that when it has been proved that, in accordance with the prayer of Abraham, a Prophet was to appear from among the children of Ishmael and that Prophet has actually appeared, it is incumbent upon them to ponder over his claims and not to belie the prayer of Abraham and go against their own religion. The verse emphasizes the fact that anybody who departs from the way of the great patriarch of the People of the Book betrays his own folly. The religion of Abraham leads to salvation, whereas defection from it leads to ruin and deprivation.

Commentary:

The words, "To Him belongs all praise in the beginning and the Hereafter," signify that it is not possible to begin a work unless God provides the means for it and that no work can become complete unless He has provided the means for its completion, and that it can produce no result without His help. The expression الا ولٰی و آلاخرة may also signify respectively the Mosaic and Islamic Dispensations.

Commentary:

Islam does not view with favour such flight from the world as Christianity inculcates among its votaries. One should not deny one’s portion of the good things of the world. As a matter of fact at another place in the Quran the believers are enjoined to pray to God "to grant them the good things of this world as well as the good things of the world to come" (2:202), only the pursuit of the good things of this world should not make one neglect the seeking of the good things of the Hereafter. Islam is not a religion of monks and recluses but of pious and righteous men of the world.

7:170; 16:31.