بَعْضُ

22:48; 26:205; 29:55.

Commentary:

To the challenge of disbelievers referred to in the preceding verse as to when the promise about the departure of their glory and greatness will be fulfilled, they are told that a part of it will be fulfilled very soon. At another place in the Quran it is stated that the promise of punishment to the disbelievers will be fulfilled within a year after the Holy Prophet’s flight from Mecca when "the glory of Kedar (Quraish) shall depart" (34:31).

7:21, 28; 20:121.

2:62; 7:25; 20:124.

7:25, 26; 20:56; 77:26, 27.

Important Words:

ازلھما (caused them both to slip). ازل derived from زل i.e. he slipped. ازل means: (1) he caused him to slip; (2) he turned him from the truth or from the right path (Aqrab). The word زل is sometimes used of slipping without intention (Mufradat).

اھبطوا (go forth) is derived from ھبط meaning, he descended or alighted or went down. But when the word is followed by the preposition من it generally means, he went forth or he departed. Thus ھبط من الوادی means, he went forth from the valley (Baqa). Arabic grammar, however, permits of the preposition being omitted. Thus the word اھبطوا in the present verse would mean, go forth or depart. Further on (in 2:39) we read اھبطوامنھا which means, go out of it or go forth from it.

مستقر (abode) is derived from استقر which again is derived from قر. They say قر فی المکان or استقر بالمکان i.e. he stayed or became established in the place; he adopted the place as his residence. So مستقر means, a place where one resides or abides for some length of time (Aqrab).

متاع (provision) is derived from متع. They say متعه الله بکذا. i.e. God made him profit by it for some length of time. So متاعmeans: (1) any of the necessaries of life like food, clothes and furniture; (2) goods of the world; (3) any short-lived profit that does not last for long (Aqrab). The word also means, deriving benefit from a thing for some length of time (Mufradat).

Commentary:

The pronoun "it" in, caused them both to slip by means of it, evidently refers to the شجرة or tree. The first two clauses of the verse mean that a satanic being enticed Adam and his spouse from the place where they were and thereby deprived them of the comforts they enjoyed. As explained in 2:35 above, it will be noted that he who beguiled and brought trouble on Adam was Shaitan and not Iblis who is spoken of as refusing to serve Adam. This distinction is to be found not only in the verse under comment but throughout the Quran which invariably speaks of Iblis while mentioning the incident of refusal to bow down through pride, and of Shaitan wherever mention is made of Adam being instigated to eat of the prohibited شجرة (tree). The distinction points to the conclusion that the word Shaitan does not here refer to Iblis, but to someone from among the fellow beings of Adam who was hostile to him. The inference is further supported by the verse: As to My servants, thou (O Iblis) shalt certainly have no power over them (17: 66). As Adam was a vicegerent of God, Iblis could have no power over him, and the being who beguiled him was someone else. Hence, in order to bring out this fact, the word Shaitan, which has a much wider significance than Iblis, has been used here.

The concluding words of the verse, i.e. for you there is an abode in the earth, also prove that the Quran lends no support to the idea of anybody ascending to the heavens alive, for the verse clearly fixes the earth as the lifelong abode of man. Thus the Quran rejects the idea that Jesus or, for that matter, anybody else ever went up to the heavens alive.

A short note here on the word 'satan' will not be out of place. As will be readily seen, the word 'satan' is of much wider significance than Iblis, for whereas Iblis is the name given to the Evil Spirit who belonged to the jinn and refused to serve Adam, thereafter becoming the leader of the forces of evil in the universe, the word 'satan' is used about any evil or harmful being or thing, whether a spirit or a human being or an animal or a disease or any other thing. Thus Iblis is a 'satan'; his comrades and associates are 'satans'; enemies of truth are 'satans'; mischievous men are 'satans', injurious animals are 'satans' and harmful diseases are 'satans'. The Quran, the Hadith and the Arabic literature are full of instances in which the word 'satan' has been freely used about one or all of these things. Thus the Quran says that there are 'satans' both among men and the jinn (6:113). Again, mischievous enemies of truth are also called 'satans' in the Quran (2:15). The Holy Prophet once used the name 'satan' about a thief who had repeatedly robbed Abu Hurairah (Bukhari). Similarly the Holy Prophet once said that a black street dog was a 'satan' (Majah). Again he once ordered his Companions to cover up their utensils containing food and drink lest 'satan' should find its way into them, evidently meaning harmful insects and germs (Majah). At another place the Holy Prophet exhorts his followers to clean their nostrils when they rise from sleep in the morning as 'satan' rests in them, hinting that harmful matter accumulates in the nostrils which, if not removed, may injure health (Muslim).

From the above instances it is clear that 'satan' is a very general term and is freely used about all evil or harmful beings or things. For the meaning of the word 'satan' see note on 2:15.

2:15; 3:120; 5:62.

Important Words:

فتح (has unfolded) means: (1) he opened; (2) he unfolded or disclosed; (3) he taught; (4) he gained victory over a place or a people (Aqrab).

عند (before) gives a number of meanings, e.g., with, by, at, near, in the presence of, in the opinion of or in the estimation of, etc. (Lane). See also 2:275.

Commentary:

The verse mentions another class of Jews who acted hypocritically. When they mixed with Muslims, they chimed in with them from worldly motives, confirming the prophecies contained in their Books about the Holy Prophet. But when they were away from Muslims and mixed with their own people, they behaved in quite a different way. On such occasions other members of the community would reproach them for their enlightening the Muslims on what God had revealed to them, i.e., for letting the Muslims know the prophecies about the Holy Prophet contained in the Jewish scriptures. In that case, they would say, the Muslims would argue with them before God, blaming them before Him on the Day of Judgement for their rejection of the Holy Prophet. And yet they well knew the prophecies which spoke of his advent and bore witness to his truth. That there will be such contentions on the Day of Judgement has also been mentioned elsewhere in the Quran which says: Then surely on the Day of Resurrection you will contend with one another in the presence of your Lord (39:32). It is a weakness of human nature that a culprit, even when knowing that the judge knows the truth, tries to put up pleas in his favour. Moreover, there is a sect among the Jews who, against the teachings of their own scriptures, hold that God does not know the details of all things, and quite possibly those who reproached their brethren for disclosing such prophecies to the Muslims held a similar view and feared lest the latter should place these facts before God on the Day of Resurrection and blame them in the presence of their Lord.

109:3, 7.

6:57; 13:38.

Commentary:

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

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

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

Commentary:

David was not taken in by the mask of ordinary litigants that the two intruders had put on; he saw through the game. Though he did not lose his presence of mind and gave his decision like a sane and sedate judge, yet he realized that his control over his people had weakened and that, despite the precautions he had taken, he was not quite safe from the schemes and plots of his enemies. He felt that the incident was a reminder from God. So he adopted the only course which the righteous and the God-fearing adopt in such circumstances. He prayed to God and sought Divine protection against the schemes and conspiracies of his enemies. The insinuation behind the tale of the litigants was that David was a tyrant who was extending his domination over small and weak neighbouring tribes.

2:141; 5:107.

Important Words:

رھان (pledge) is derived from رھن. They say رھن الشیء فلانا او عند فلان i.e. he deposited the thing with him or gave it in his possession as a pledge or security for a debt, etc. راھن is one who makes such a pledge and مرتھن is one who receives it. رھینand مرھون mean, the thing so pledged; the thing placed or kept in custody in lieu of a debt, etc. رھان which is the noun-infinitive from راھن and رھن (rahn) which is the noun-infinitive from رھن (rahana) mean, the act of pledging; also the thing pledged. رھان is also the plural of رھن (Aqrab & Lane).

امانة (trust) and اوتمن (is entrusted) and امن (entrusts) are all derived from the same root. امن means, he trusted or he entrusted. ائتمن فلانا علی کذا means, he trusted him with that; he deposited it with him as a trust. امانة means, the thing committed to the trust and care of a person; also honesty, faithfulness and trustworthiness (Aqrab).

Commentary:

If a scribe is not available, loans may be advanced in the form of pledges, one party receiving the loan of money and the other the thing pledged in lieu of this loan. This form of practical transaction, the verse goes on to explain, will be in the nature of an امانة i.e. a trust or deposit affecting both parties. By classing a loan with a trust, it is hinted that loans should be returned with the same care and the same honesty with which property deposited as a trust is returned on demand.

The words, and conceal not testimony, either refer to the testimony of such witnesses as may be present at the time of the pledge, or it may refer to the testimony of the parties themselves. When no other witness is available, the parties are themselves treated as such and may be called upon to give a true account of the affairs on oath.

The expression, his heart is sinful, signifies that he who conceals testimony commits a sin which has not a temporary effect but vitiates the innermost recesses of his heart. Nay, it is a sign of the fact that his heart has already become vitiated.

6:88; 19:59.

Commentary:

The word ذریة (a race) has been put in the verse not as مبتدا but as حال. The verse must, therefore, be considered a part of the preceding one and would literally mean, "while these were or are a race correlated with one another", the inference being that the individuals and families mentioned in the preceding verse were chosen by God because they all belonged to the same stock, the stock of good and righteous people.

9:31.

Important Words:

اربابا (Lords) is the plural of رب (Lord) for which see 1:2. رب means, lord, master or owner; a chief or ruler to whom obedience is rendered; one who fosters, brings up, or nourishes (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse is wrongly considered by some to provide a basis for a compromise between Islam on the one hand and Christianity and Judaism on the other. It is argued that if these faiths become united in the doctrine of the Oneness of God, the verse permits the sacrifice of other Islamic teachings as being of comparatively little importance. Nothing can be farther from the truth. The Quran, the Hadith and the facts of history are all united in belying this ridiculous assumption. It is simply unthinkable that compromise in matters of faith could be allowed by any religion worth the name, particularly with a people who, in the immediately preceding verses, have been severely condemned for their beliefs and who are so forcefully challenged to a prayer contest to invoke the curse of God upon those who lie in their beliefs. The Holy Prophet, while writing his missionary epistle to Heraclius, used this very verse, yet he forcefully invited the latter to accept Islam and threatened him with Divine punishment if he refused to do so (Bukhari). This shows beyond doubt that the mere fact of his believing in the Oneness of God could not, according to the Holy Prophet, save Heraclius from God’s punishment. Elsewhere the Quran emphatically declares that, Surely the (true) religion with Allah is Islam, (i.e. complete submission); and whoso seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the life to come he shall be among the losers (3:20 & 86). Can anything be clearer?

The truth is that this verse is intended to suggest an easy and simple method by which Jews and Christians can arrive at a right decision regarding the truth of Islam. Christians, in spite of claiming belief in the Unity of Godhead, felt satisfied in believing in the divinity of Jesus; and Jews, notwithstanding their claim to be monotheists, gave blind allegiance to their priests and divines, practically placing them in the position of God Himself. The verse exhorts both these communities to come back to their original belief in the Oneness of God and give up the worship of false deities who stand in the way of their accepting Islam. Thus, instead of seeking a compromise with these faiths, the verse virtually invites Christians and Jews to the faith of Islam, by drawing their attention to the doctrine of the Oneness of God which being, at least in its outer form, the common fundamental doctrine of all, could serve as a meeting ground for further approach.

It was exactly on these lines that Ahmad, the Promised Messiah, in his "Message of Peace", made an offer to the Hindus of India to enter into an agreement with the Muslims of his way of thinking to the effect that they (Hindus) would respect and honour the Holy Prophet of Islam and would look upon him as a true Messenger of God, even as he and his followers believed in Rama and Krishna as God’s Elect.

Special emphasis has been laid in the verse under comment on the Oneness of God—a doctrine on which in theory all revealed religions seem to agree, but regarding the details, of which no two Faiths are found to concur. Most religions claim to be monotheistic; but under the outer veneer of monotheism, polytheism very often lies hidden in most hideous forms. It is the simple faith of Islam alone which is really and truly monotheistic in all its aspects and which strongly condemns the association with God of anything or any being in His person, attributes, worship or works. It is most unfortunate, however, that in spite of Islam being such a strictly monotheistic faith, a section of present-day Muslims has drifted away into the quagmire of what cannot but be termed idol-worship in the wider sense of the word.

Incidentally, it may be noted that the letter mentioned by Bukhari and other Muslim traditionists as having been addressed by the Holy Prophet to Heraclius in the words of this verse inviting him to accept Islam has recently been discovered and found to contain the exact words quoted by Bukhari (R. Rel. vol. V. No. 8). This furnishes a strong proof of the essential authenticity of Bukhari and, for that matter, of other accepted works of Hadith.

16:87.

Commentary:

The expression مودة بینکم may be interpreted as follows:

(1) Social relations or the desire to win each other’s love and not reason or sound arguments are the basis of your idolatrous ideals and practices; or

(2) you have made your idolatrous beliefs and practices the foundation of your love with each other, i.e. you have made the identity of your idolatrous beliefs the means to preserve the homogeneity of your community; or

(3) your idolatrous practices have proceeded from your love of each other, i.e. first you conceived love and affection for some persons and then let that love degenerate into their worship.

4:125; 16:98; 20:113; 16:42.

22:59, 60.

See 2:26.

Commentary:

As this Surah mainly deals with Christian doctrines and ideals and their way of life, and as Christianity, in spite of its claims to the contrary, gives woman a status definitely inferior to that of man, the insistence on the equality of the status of woman with man in the spiritual sphere forms a fitting sequel to it. At several places in the Quran, believing men and believing women are addressed in the same language and are made equally subject to the same commandments and entitled to the same rights and privileges. Briefly, Islam recognizes the equality of the social and religious rights of man and woman. The words, you are from one another, are intended to emphasize the equality of status mentioned in the preceding part of the verse.

The verse also constitutes an effective refutation of the charges of the Shias against the Holy Prophet’s Companions whose failings and shortcomings, if any, were all forgiven by God in view of the good works they performed.