عَلِمْ

4:48, 155; 7:164; 16:125.

5:61; 7:167.

Important Words:

السبت (the Sabbath) is derived from سبت meaning: (1) he rested.; (2) he cut or broke a thing; (3) he shaved his hair; (4) he observed the Sabbath. The noun سبت (Sabbath) signifies that day of the week which is observed as a sacred day in which no worldly work is done (Aqrab & Mufradat). Among the Jews, Saturday was (and still is) observed as a sacred day which was passed in joyfulness and rest from work as well as in contemplation, sacrifice, holy convocation, etc. (Jew. Enc. under "Sabbath").

قردة (apes) is the plural of القرد (the ape) which is derived from the verb قرد meaning, he clove to the ground; he lay in dust. اقرد means, he was or became abject or mean. القردة means, apes or monkeys (Lane).

خاسئین (despised) is the plural of خاسی which is derived from خسأ. They say خسأالکلب i.e. the dog moved away as a result of being driven away; خسأالرجل الکلب means, the man drove away the dog, despising it. Thus the word is both transitive and intransitive. الخاسی means, one who moves away despised by others or one who is spurned by others (Aqrab). الخاسی of which the plural is خاسئین is a word which, according to the rules of Arabic grammar, is used about rational beings only, the word used with regard to animals being خاسئة.

Commentary:

The verse speaks of the Sabbath and its violation by the Israelites. It is pointed out that God’s covenant made it binding on the Israelites, among other things, to keep the Sabbath (Exod. 20:8-11), i.e. observe Saturday as a sacred day devoted to spiritual joyfulness and holy convocation, etc. but, recalcitrant as usual, some among them violated the sanctity of the Sabbath and did not observe it, which brought on them God’s wrath, disgrace and humiliation (Neh. 13:15-18 & Jer. 17:21-23). The violation of the Sabbath was a great sin, inasmuch as it indicated that the Israelites wanted to remain engrossed in worldly affairs and did not like to pay any heed to religion, not even for a single day out of a whole week.

It is wrong to infer from the word قردة (apes) that the profaners of the Sabbath were actually transformed into apes. The incident has been related by the Quran in two other places (5:61, 62 and 7:167-169) and even a cursory study of these verses would show that these people did not actually turn into apes. The word "apes" has been used figuratively meaning that they became abject and mean, like monkeys, the transformation being not in body or form but in character and spirit.

A further proof of this is to be found in the fact that it is a general rule of Arabic grammar that the suffix ون or ین is added to the plurals of such words as refer to rational beings only. In conformity with this rule, the qualifying word used in the verse about قردة is خاسئین which shows that the قردة (apes) here alludes not to irrational but to rational beings, i.e. human beings who had developed the character of apes. Had the Quran meant their actual transformation into apes, it would have used the form خاسئة and not خاسئین.

Many learned commentators of the past have also held the above view. For instance, Mujahid who is considered to be one of the greatest commentators of the Quran, being one of the تابعین (the immediate successors of the Holy Prophet’sCompanions) says: "They were not actually transformed into apes; only their hearts were changed. God has used the expression figuratively" (Kathir). Other eminent authorities have also held the same view, interpreting the words قردة خاسئین (apes despised) as اذلة صاغرین i.e. "abject and humiliated men".

By using the word قردة (apes) about a section of the Jews, God means to point to the fact that just as apes or monkeys are an abject and despised species which, in spite of possessing, in an extraordinary degree, the habit of mimicking or copying others—a habit which, if well directed, should result in progress—ever remain where they are, as if going about in a circle and making no headway at all, similarly the Jews will always remain humiliated in the world, and in spite of wonderful resources in wealth and education will never be able to gain any stronghold on the earth. It is interesting to note that, as explained under Important Words, even in the root meaning of the word قردة there is the sense of abjectness and humiliation as well as that of grovelling in the dust. And what is still more interesting is the fact that, of all the animals found in the world, the advanced people of the West should think of man having descended from the ape.

26:30.

40:37.

Commentary:

The verse is susceptible of two interpretations: (1) The Israelites were already working as labourers at the kilns. Pharaoh alludes to this ignoble condition of theirs and seems derisively to say to Haman: "These people do not appear to have sufficient work to do. Having more than enough leisure they have begun to dream of prophethood. They must be put to hard labour; then will they come to their senses and give up having false illusions about God and prophethood." (2) The Egyptians were well-versed in astronomy. They built high observatories for observing the movements of the stars. So Pharaoh jeeringly asked Haman to build for him a lofty observatory so that he might have a peep at the God of Moses. The verse may also imply a reference to an ancient belief of the Egyptians that heavenly spirits descended upon lofty places and therefore in order to achieve spiritual perfection they constructed high buildings.

5:110; 9:78; 34:49.

Important Words:

The words ما یکون لی (I could not) may be interpreted in various ways, such as, it was not fitting or proper for me to do so; or it did not behove me; or it was beyond my power or position; or it was impossible for me; or I had no right to do so, etc. See also 3:80.

نفس (mind) means, among other things, knowledge; purpose or intention (Lane). See also 3:29.

Commentary:

The expression, Holy art Thou, besides hinting that it is only God Who is free from error, embodies a beautiful reply on the part of Jesus to the question put to him by God in the words, didst thou say to men, 'Take me and my mother for two gods', which seemed to imply a sort of reproach and an expression of displeasure. The reply of Jesus appears to be something like this: "I was only a humble Messenger, O God, therefore I could not ask men to take me and my mother as gods beside Thee, for if I had done so, that would have been a reflection on Thee that Thou didst choose as Thy Messenger a person who turned faithless to Thee and asked his followers to take him and his mother as gods beside Thee. But Thy choice, o God, cannot be wrong; hence it was impossible that I, a Messenger of Thine, should have bidden men take me and my mother as gods, and Thine own all-embracing knowledge, o God, is a testimony of my innocence."

The word نفس (mind) when used about God implies "intention." Thus the last sentence of the verse would mean, "I do not know what Thou meanest by this question. Thou, being All-Knowing, well knowest that I did not say so; hence, I fail to understand the object or purpose of Thy ques-tion." This reply of Jesus shows that in his heart he was afraid that some shortcoming in the execution of his duty might have displeased the Almighty.

Commentary:

This verse should be read along with vv. 29 and 30 above. In those verses the wives of the Holy Prophet were offered a choice between the companionship of the Holy Prophet and the material benefits and comforts of life, but they preferred the Prophet’s company. The present verse by implication refers to that reply of the Prophet’s consorts which is recorded in the books of history but expressly nowhere in the Quran. Till they gave their reply, the marital relations between them and the Holy Prophet remained, as it were, in a state of suspension. The verse shows that while the wives of the Holy Prophet preferred his company to material goods and amenities of life, he too had great consideration for their feelings, and though he was given the choice to retain such of them as he liked (v. 52) he did not exercise the choice and in deference to his wishes God permitted him in the present verse to retain all his wives.

The verse refers to three kinds of women whom the Holy Prophet could marry in addition to his already wedded wives: (1) Women who were taken prisoner in wars against Islam; (2) women who had migrated to Medina with the Holy Prophet, and (3) a woman who should offer herself for marriage to him. This shows that the Holy Prophet’s marriages were motivated by considerations other than sensuous gratification as his ignorant and mischievous critics try to depict. Those who had left their hearths and homes for the sake of Islam and those whose husbands had been killed in wars fighting in defence of Islam had special claim on the Holy Prophet’s consideration. It is in view of these considerations that he married most of his wives. He married Hafsah whose husband was killed in the Battle of Badr; Zainab bint Khuzaimah whose husband was killed in the Battle of Uhud; Ummi Salmah whose husband died in 4 A.H., and Ummi Habibah, daughter of Abu Sufyan, who became a widow in 5 or 6 A.H. (in exile in Abyssinia). He married Juwairiyyah and Safiyyah, both widows, in 5 A.H. and 7 A.H. respectively, seeking a union with and pacification of their tribes. It is worthy of note that a hundred families of the Banu Mustaliq were liberated by Muslims when the Holy Prophet married Juwairiyyah. Maimunah, another widow, it is said, offered herself to be taken in marriage by the Holy Prophet which offer he condescended to accept in the interest of the education and training of Muslim women. He married Zainab, the divorced wife of Zaid in 5 A.H. in order to put a stop to a foolish custom prevailing among the Arabs and in order also to assuage her wounded feelings as the respected lady had felt deeply humiliated at being divorced by Zaid. He married Mariah in 7 A.H., and thus by raising a freed slave girl to the highly eminent spiritual status of the "Mother of the Faithful", he gave a death blow to slavery. Such were the pious and righteous motives of our noble Master in marrying widows and divorced women, by no means noted for their youth or beauty, and yet his cruel and mean traducers vainly try to depict him as a person who was given to gratifying his carnal desires. They deliberately ignore the patent fact that up to the age of 25 he lived the spotless life of a celibate. Then in the prime of his youth he married a lady fifteen years his senior and lived with her a most happy life till he was an old man of fifty and she about sixty-five. After her death he married Saudah, another lady of a very advanced age. He married all his other wives, to which exception has been taken by evil-minded carpers, between 2 A.H. and 7 A.H., a period when he was constantly engaged in active fighting and his life was perpetually in danger and the fate of Islam itself hung in the balance. Could any sane person in such situation of danger and uncertainty conceive of contracting marriage after marriage from motives attributed to the Holy Prophet? After this he lived for about three years as virtual ruler of the whole of Arabia when all the comforts and amenities of life were at his disposal and yet he entered into no further marriage. Does not this fact alone establish the honesty and sincerity of the Holy Prophet’s motives in marrying his wives?

The words "if she entrusts herself to the Prophet" have been taken as specially referring to Maimunah who is reported to have offered herself to be taken into marriage by the Holy Prophet. The clause, "This provision is only for thee as against other believers," means that it was a special privilege of the Holy Prophet and was due to the special nature of his duties as a Divine Prophet. In fact, marriages of the Holy Prophet were dictated by much higher and nobler considerations than merely personal ones. The clause may also refer to the special permission granted to the Holy Prophet, to retain all his wives, after the commandment contained in 4:4 was revealed, limiting to four the number of wives allowed to Muslims at one time.

The words, "We have already made known what We have enjoined on them concerning their wives," refer to the commandment contained in 4:4.

Commentary:

When Lot told his townsmen that they had his daughters in their custody and that, if he did anything which was injurious to their interests they might avenge themselves on him through his daughters, he was in fact offering his daughters as hostages. Now, the rule with regard to hostages was that only males were accepted as such (Enc. Bri.) so the people told Lot that they could not take his daughters as hostages for that was against their custom and law. The words, we have no claim on thy daughters, clearly show that they had not come with the motives which most commentators ascribe to them, for a people who had become so depraved and corrupt in their morals as the people of Lot were, could raise no question of claim or no claim, right or no right about the satisfaction of their carnal passions.

The words, thou surely knowest what we desire, mean, "You know that what we at present want is to prevent the coming of strangers, so to say that we should accept hostages and leave the strangers alone is an offer which we cannot accept."

12:32.

Important Words:

ماخطبکن (what was the matter with you) خطب (khatbun) is the noun-infinitive from خطب (khataba). They say خطب القوم i.e. he addressed the people and delivered to them an exhortation or admonition. خطب المرأة means, he asked or demanded the woman in marriage. خطب means, a thing, an affair, or a business, small or great, that one seeks or desires to do or that may be a subject of discourse; a great thing or affair; or the cause or occasion of a thing or an event; or an affliction or calamity. They say ماخطبك i.e. what is the thing or affair or business that thou seekest or desirest to do; or, what is the cause of thy coming? (Lane).

Commentary:

This verse shows that the King had become so convinced of the righteousness of Joseph that, on hearing of the accusation against him, he at once believed it to be false. This is why the women, judging from the way in which the King questioned them, realized that he looked upon Joseph as a righteous man, and so they confessed the truth. But by so doing they only bore witness to the innocence of Joseph, without in any way accusing Potiphar’s wife. The latter, however, fearing lest after exonerating Joseph of all blame the women might proceed to testify to her misconduct, hastened to confess her guilt, although she had not yet been questioned by the King. She did this to escape the greater shame of being condemned out of the mouth of others and perhaps also to win some credit for speaking the truth without being questioned.

Commentary:

This and the following verses are in continuation of what Judah said to his brothers in the previous verse. The words, we could not be guardians over the unseen, may mean, we have related what we saw but we do not know what is the reality of the matter concerning the charge of stealing against Benjamin. Or they may mean, we had given thee our plighted word that we would bring Benjamin back with us but we did not know that matters would come to such a pass. We had given thee our pledge quite honestly.

Commentary:

It appears that Joseph could not, on this occasion, bear to see his brothers degrade themselves by thus begging for corn and decided to reveal himself to them; but he appears to be shy of approaching the subject. He therefore here reminds them of what they did with Joseph and his brother and thus disclosed indirectly his identity, at the same time comforting them by saying that they should worry no more about their past misdeeds because what they had done was the result of ignorance as they did not realize the full implication of their deeds. It is the exhibition of such good manners on such difficult occasions that shows the great moral heights to which man can rise.

Commentary:

This verse answers the question why the preservation and protection of the Quran cannot be entrusted to believers. The answer is that faith is a matter which pertains to the heart, and the condition of the human heart is known to God alone. The preservation of the Quran does not depend only upon intellectual equipment but upon the purity of the heart also. But it is known to God alone which man is pure of heart, and which is not. God has, therefore, reserved the work of preservation of the Quran for Himself so that He may entrust it to one whom He knows to be so spiritually advanced as to be fit for the duty.