قَالَتۡ

2836

Commentary:

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

2843

Commentary:

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

2844

Important Words:

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

Commentary:

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

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

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

2885A

Important Words:

قصیه (follow him up) is derived from قص. They say قصه i.e. he cut it; or he clipped it. قص أثرہ means, he followed, or followed after, his track, or footsteps, in pursuit; he endeavoured to trace or track him; he endeavoured to trace him by degrees, or by night or at any time (Lane & Aqrab). See also 7:177 & 12:4.

327

Important Words:

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

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

Commentary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

328

Important Words:

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

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

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

Commentary:

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

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

337

Commentary:

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

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

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

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