لَهُۥ

20:41.

Commentary:

Moses in this verse seems to reproach the man who called him for help by saying to him, "you are a foolish fellow and not being able to realise the consequences of your actions you become readily involved in trouble." The words do not mean, as is generally misunderstood, that Moses regarded the man as an offender.

Commentary:

The words, "the wrongdoers never prosper," lay down an immutable law of God and an infallible criterion to test the truth of a claimant to Divine revelation. The law is that a false claimant to Divine revelation or a false Prophet never succeeds in his mission. Sooner or later he must come to naught.

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.

3:190; 5:41; 7:159; 9:116; 43:86; 57:6.

Important Words:

ولی (protector). They say ولی الرجل i.e. he helped him; or he made friends with him. ولی البلد means, he got control or authority over the town. So ولی means: (1) friend; (2) helper; (3) protector; (4) ally, etc. (Aqrab).

Commentary:

In this verse an argument has been brought forth in support of the fact that Quranic revelation abrogates the previous revelations. God says that to Him belongs the entire universe, the heavens and the earth, and it was in the fitness of things that finally a revelation meant for the whole of mankind should have made its appearance.

In the verse, the Jews are also told that it will be to their own interest to embrace Islam; for otherwise they will have neither friend nor helper against Allah.

There is a subtle implication in the verse, viz. that the Muslims, though despised and persecuted today, will not only receive spiritual favours from God, but will also become masters of large earthly kingdoms as well; for is not Allah the Controller of the heavens and the earth?

6:102.

3:48; 6:74; 16:41; 36:83; 40:69.

Important Words:

بدیع (Originator) is derived from بدع which means, he originated a thing or brought it into existence newly (i.e. for the first time, the thing not having existed before) and not after the similitude of anything pre-existing (Lane). The word ابداع(which is the infinitive form of بدیع), when used about God, means, originating a thing without any tool or instrument or pattern and without matter (Mufradat). Thus the word combines the idea of originating and creating.

Commentary:

This verse not only contains a contradiction of the Christian dogma of the Godhead of Jesus but also effectively repudiates the Hindu theory that the soul and matter are primeval and eternal. God has been declared here to be: (1) the Creator of the heavens and the earth which means that He did not require the help of a son, and for that matter of anybody, in creating the universe; (2) the Originator of the Universe, i.e., He created all things out of nothing, without a pre-existing model and without pre-existing matter; (3) All-Powerful, i.e. whenever He decrees that a certain thing should come into being, it does come into being in conformity with His decree and design. It may be noted here that the verse does not necessarily mean, as is sometimes erroneously understood, that when God decrees that a certain thing should be, it comes into being at once. The verse only means that God’s will is all-powerful, so when He decrees a thing, nothing can thwart His decree. The verse does not thus refer to the factor of time, which may be short or long as God wills it.

3:68; 4:126.

Important Words:

اسلم (submit), being in the imperative mood, means, submit or surrender or resign thyself; or become a Muslim, i.e. one resigned to God. For a fuller discussion of the word see 2:113.

Commentary:

The Jews are here told that the greatness of their ancestor Abraham lay in the fact that he was always ready to submit fully and resign himself completely to the will of God. Therefore, if they too wish to become great in the sight of God, they should also submit to Him and obey His commands and accept His Prophet.

The verse beautifully describes Abraham’s religion. When God asked him to submit, he immediately replied, I have submitted to the Lord of the worlds. This reply of Abraham points to two important inferences: (1) That Abraham does not use the words "I will submit" or even "I do submit" but I have submitted, which means that he was so eager to obey his Lord that he took no time in making his submission, as if the act were already a thing accomplished. (2) That Abraham does not merely say I have submitted, but adds the words to the Lord of the worlds, which signifies that his submission was not based on any ulterior motive but on the simple fact that the "Being" to Whom he was submitting was the Lord and Master of the world and hence entitled to obedience.

Important Words:

اله (God) is derived from اله (alaha) which means, he worshipped. So اله means, a thing or person or being worshipped, whether true or false; a deity (Aqrab).

Commentary:

Jacob or Israel was the son of Isaac who was a son of Abraham. Thus Ishmael was the uncle of Jacob, and yet the children of Jacob here include Ishmael among their "fathers" which proves two things: firstly, that the word اب (father) is also used of uncle; and secondly, that up to the time of Jacob’s sons, Ishmael was held in due respect by the Israelites. Nay, the children of Israel mention the name of Ishmael even before that of their own grandfather, Isaac, and do not mention any other son of Abraham.

The words, were you present when death came to Jacob, signify that the principle of submission to the will of God is not an innovation introduced by Islam, but has been recognized by good and righteous people in all times and even Israel, the founder of the Jewish tribes, acted upon that principle, so much so, that the only thought that came to his mind when death approached him was to enjoin the same noble principle upon his children. Israel wished his sons to become pious Muslims; will not the Jews of the Holy Prophet’s day act upon that principle?

In corroboration of what the Quran says about Jacob’s will to his sons, Rodwell quotes the following from Midrash Rabbah: "At the time when our father Jacob quitted this world, he summoned his twelve sons and said to them, Hearken to your father Israel (Gen. 49:2). Have you any doubts in your hearts concerning the Holy One, blessed be He. They said, Hear, o Israel, our father, as there is no doubt in thy heart, so neither is there in ours. For the Lord is our God, and He is One" (Midr. Rabbah on Gen. par. 98, and on Deut. par. 2). Compare also Targ. Jer. on Deut. 6:4.

3:85.

2:286; 3:85; 4:153.

Important Words:

اسباط (children) is derived from سبط. They say سبط الشعر i.e. the hair was or became loose and hanging. سبط المطر means, the rain was copious and extensive. سبط signifies the idea of length and extensiveness. شعر سبط means, hair that is long and not curly. سبط الکفین means, a generous man, literally one possessing long and open hands, because his helping hand extends to every needy person. A grandson is also called سبط (sibt) because his birth signifies increase of progeny. In a still wider sense, the word might signify progeny generally. The expression here refers to the twelve tribes of Israel named after the twelve sons of Jacob: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad and Asher (Gen. 35:23-26; 49:28).

Commentary:

The verse is addressed to Muslims who are enjoined to reply to Jews and Christians by saying that the central point in religion is belief in, and submission to, God; and so everything that comes from God must be accepted and it is simply foolish to say that a people believing in some Prophets of God need not believe in others. All Messengers of God and all revelations coming from Him must be accepted and no distinction is to be made between this Prophet and that or between this revelation and that, so far as belief in them is concerned. One Prophet may be higher in status than another and one revelation may be more important than another; but all of them must be accepted without discrimination. The words, to Him we submit ourselves, have been used as an argument in support of the above assertion. When we submit to God, everything coming from Him must be accepted.

It indeed redounds to the great credit of Islam that it is the only religion which recognizes the Prophets of all countries and all nations, whereas other faiths limit prophethood only to their own respective spheres. Naturally the Quran mentions only the names of those Prophets who were known to the Arabs to whom the message of Islam was first given; but it makes a general remark to the effect that, there is no people to whom a warner has not been sent (35:25).

As already pointed out, this verse should not be understood to mean that the Quran regards all Prophets to be equal in rank. In fact, the Quran clearly states that different Prophets possess different ranks, some of them being spiritually higher than others (2:254). The sentence, We make no difference between any of them, thus only means that a Muslim makes no distinction between the different Prophets in respect of their prophethood.

Some Christian critics have objected to the verse under comment and have demanded proof of the prophethood of Ishmael. But what proof is there, it may be asked, of the prophethood of Isaac? If the Bible testifies to the prophethood of Isaac, the Quran testifies to the prophethood of Ishmael. If the testimony of the Quran cannot be accepted as a proof for the prophethood of Ishmael, there is no earthly reason why the testimony of the Bible be accepted as a proof for Isaac’s prophethood. And even the Bible is not without evidence of the fact that God made a number of promises to Abraham about the future greatness of Ishmael and his progeny (see note on 2:130).

Important Words:

صبغة (religion) is derived from صبغ. They say صبغه i.e. he dyed or coloured it. صبغ یده فی الماء means, he immersed his hand in the water. صبغ یده بالعمل means, he laboured in work and became notable therein. اصطبغ بکذا means, he became dyed or coloured with it. صبغة means, dye or colour; kind or mode of a thing; religion; code of laws; baptism. صبغة الله means, God’s religion; the nature with which God has endowed men (Aqrab). Religion is called صبغة because it covers a man like a dye or colour.

Commentary:

In the verse the word صبغة (religion) is used as an object, the subject of which is understood. According to the rules of Arabic grammar, sometimes when it is intended strongly to induce a person to do a certain thing, the verb is omitted and only the object is mentioned. Therefore words like خذوا (adopt) or اتبعوا (follow) will be taken to be understood before the words صبغة الله and the clause would mean, "adopt or follow the religion which God wishes you to adopt or follow". This indeed is the true baptism which can make one acquire God’s attributes and become His living manifestation. Compare with it the Christian baptism which seeks to procure for a man forgiveness of sins and everlasting life by the mere act of immersing him in water or sprinkling it on him at his christening ceremony.

28:56; 42:16; 109:7.

Important Words:

مخلصون (sincerely devoted) is derived from خلص which means, he or it became pure. اخلص فی الطاعة means, he was or became sincere in obedience. اخلص له الحب means, he was sincere in his love for him, lit. he made his love true for him (Aqrab). اخلص للهmeans, he was sincere to God or he was sincere in his connection with Him (Lane & Mufradat)

Commentary:

The Holy Prophet is here commanded to say to the People of the Book that it is God Who has sent His revelation to him and that they should not dispute God’s choice, because He is as much the God of the Muslims as He is theirs, and He knows the works of both. He is the Creator of all and His grace is not confined to any one tribe or country. So, if God has now selected an Ishmaelite for the office of prophethood and has chosen the Arabs for His grace, they should not reject him on that account. The central point of faith is the person of God, and if one is sincere in his connection with Him, there should be no hesitation in accepting anything that emanates from Him. The real question is, whether God has indeed chosen Muhammad to be His Messenger. If that question is answered in the affirmative, nothing should stop a man from accepting Islam; and if he rejects Islam, he ranges himself against God, be he a Jew, a Christian, a Hindu or any other.

29:40; 40:25.

Important Words:

کنوز (treasures of hoarded wealth) is the plural of کنز which is noun-inf. from کنز (kanaza). They say کنز المال i.e. he buried the property or treasure in the earth; he hoarded it, or stored, or he collected the property and treasured it. کنز therefore, means, treasure, property buried in the earth; property that is preserved in a receptacle; that receptacle in which property is buried or preserved or hoarded; treasure-boxes; anything abundant and collected together (Lane & Aqrab).

مفاتح (stores) is the plural of مفتح (maftah) which is derived from فتح. They say فتح الباب i.e. he opened the door. مفتح (maftah) means, a hoard; a treasure, a store or store room or magazine; buried property. مفتح (miftah) of which مفاتح also is the plural and مفتاح (plural مفاتیح) mean a key (Lane & Aqrab).

لتنوء (would have weighed down) is derived fromناء which means, he rose or rose with difficulty and effort under a load; he was oppressed by weight and fell down. ناء بحمله means, he rose with his burden with effort and difficulty. ناء به الحملmeans, the burden weighed him down (Aqrab).

Commentary:

It would appear that Korah was an Israelite who stood high in the favour of Pharaoh and held one of the principal offices of State under him. Very likely he was Pharaoh’s treasurer. When Pharaoh went on official tour the royal treasures were probably transported under Korah’s charge. In order to safeguard his position and to win further favours from Pharaoh, Korah seemed to have persecuted his own people and behaved haughtily and tyrannically towards them.

The name of Qarun (Korah) seems also to have been symbolically used here for men of material wealth. Abundance of riches has proved the undoing of many a man. Elated with riches and wealth and lulled into a false sense of security, wealthy people are prone to reject God’s Message and defy His Prophets. Korah as it appears from the Bible (Num. 16:1-35), was a believer in Moses. According to Rabbinical literature he was fabulously rich (Jew. Enc.) and in the pride of wealth revolted against Moses and Aaron and consequently perished with his 250 followers, the earth having swallowed them up.

29:41.

Important Words:

خسفنا (We caused him to be swallowed up) is formed from خسف. They say خسف المکان i.e. the house fell down or sank into the earth. خسف القمر means, the moon suffered an eclipse. خسف الرجل means, the man became emaciated. خسف فلاناً means, he humbled him and made him to bear a thing which he did not like. خسف اللّٰه الارض بفلان means, God made the earth to sink with such a one and to swallow him up (Lane & Aqrab).

Important Words:

غفرنا (We forgave him). غفر الشیء means, he concealed or hid the thing. غفر الله له: God forgave him his sins. غفر الامر means, he set right the affair (Lane & Aqrab). See also 2:59, 200, 286 & 14:42.

Commentary:

The expression غفرنا له may mean, "We gave him Our protection" or "We set his affairs right." The words, "he had a position of nearness with Us and an excellent retreat," show that David did not suffer from any moral defect and spiritual weakness; rather they most effectively negate and demolish the wicked charge of David having committed adultery as imputed to him by the Bible (2 Samuel, 11:4, 5).

2:195; 5:46.

Important Words:

قصاص (retaliation) is derived from قص. They say قصه i.e. (1) he cut it (hair, etc.), or be clipped it; (2) he followed him closely or followed in his footsteps; and (3) he described or narrated it. قاص الرجل means, he did with the man the like of that which he did to him; he retaliated on him for the wrong done to him. اقص الامیر زیدا من بکر means, the Amir retaliated upon Bakr for the wrong he had done to Zaid. قصاص therefore, means, retaliation, by slaying for slaying, and wounding for wounding, etc. (Aqrab) or the following up of a murder or an injury with a view to retaliating or punishing (Mufradat).

القتلی (the slain) is the plural of قتیل in the sense of مقتول i.e. a murdered person (Aqrab).

الحر (freeman) is derived from حر meaning: (1) he was free-born; (2) he was of good and noble origin. حرالارض means, the best portion of land. Thus الحر means; (1) a freeman, opposite of slave or captive; (2) a noble person; (3) the good and pure portion of a thing (Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse comprises a very important principle of civil law, i.e. equality of man and necessity of awarding proportionate punishment to all offenders without distinction, unless an offender is forgiven by the relatives of his victim under circumstances that are expected to lead to improvement and betterment of conditions.

The words کتب علیکم i.e. "is prescribed for you" show that retaliation for the slain is not simply permissible but is obligatory. Failure to inflict the punishment prescribed by Law on the offender would be tantamount to a violation of the commandment. The duty, however, of punishing the culprit does not devolve on the heirs of the murdered person but, as the plural number of the expression علیکم (for you) shows, on the authorities responsible for the maintenance of law and order. But, as the singular number of the expression اخیه (one’s brother) shows, the former have been given the option to forgive. The clause, therefore, means that on the one hand the concerned authorities are bound to punish the offender according to the requirements of law, having no right to pardon him of their own accord, and on the other hand the heirs of the murdered person are not entitled to take the law into their own hands and inflict the punishment on the guilty person themselves.

The verse under comment makes no distinction between different classes of persons in connection with the law of retaliation. The words used are of a general nature and apply to all offenders who might be guilty of murder, no matter of what rank or station in life or of what religion. Any person, irrespective of his caste or creed and irrespective of his station, must be put to death for the murder of any other person, unless pardoned by the relatives of the victim and unless the pardon has the sanction of the authorities. The sayings of the Holy Prophet are explicit on this point (Majah, ch. on Diyat).

There is indeed a saying of the Holy Prophet to the effect that a Muslim should not be put to death for killing a disbeliever. But this saying, read in conjunction with several others bearing on the same subject and interpreted in the light of the relevant Quranic verses, forces us to the conclusion that the word "disbeliever" in the tradition referred to above is not general but means only a حربی کافر i.e. such disbeliever as belongs to a people who are at war with the Muslims or, in other words, one who is a member of a belligerent community. In fact, the Companions of the Holy Prophet are all agreed that a Muslim may be put to death for murdering a non-belligerent unbeliever (Tabari, v. 44). The Holy Prophet himself ordered a Muslim murderer to be put to death for the murder of a non-belligerent non-Muslim (Qutni).

The expression, the freeman for the freeman and the slave for the slave and the female for the female, does not mean that a freeman should not be punished with death for the murder of a slave or that a woman should not be put to death for killing a member of the opposite sex, etc. The other verses of the Quran as well as the sayings and the practice of the Holy Prophet clearly establish the fact that the social position of a person or the sex of a party was never considered a bar to the application of this law. The peculiar construction, i.e. "the freeman for the freeman," etc. has been adopted here to refer to, and abolish, a custom of the Arabs whereby they used to take into consideration the sex and the social status of the murderer and the murdered person when determining punishment. If a man of high social position happened to kill a man of humble position, or if the slave of a great man killed that of a humble man, or if a lady of noble birth murdered a woman of humble origin, etc. the murderer was not punished with death, leniency being shown to him or her in sundry other ways as well. The commandment contained in this verse seeks to abolish that obnoxious custom of the Arabs and lays down in clear and unmistakable terms that no regard should be paid to the status of the murderer in the matter of retaliation.

In fact, the law of retaliation, as stated in this verse, is confined to the clause, equitable retaliation in the matter of the slain is prescribed for you, which forms a complete sentence in itself, giving a full and complete meaning. The ensuing expression, the freeman for the freeman and the slave for the slave and the female for the female, is something extra, not forming part of the law. It only contains a repudiation of the Arab custom referred to above and illustrates, by giving three instances, how the law is to be administered. Such an expression is known as جملة استینا فیه or جملة مستانفه in Arabic grammar, and is technically introduced with a view to answering a question which is suggested by the preceding clause to which it is added without any intervening conjunction. The question answered in such an expression is often understood and not expressed (Mukhtasar).

The sayings of the Holy Prophet and his practice also support the above interpretation, for it is on record that he once ordered a woman to be put to death for murdering a man (Muslim), and on another occasion he commanded that a freeman be put to death for the murder of a slave. Says the Holy Prophet: "Whoever kills his slave shall be put to death" (Majah). At another place he says: "The blood of all Muslims is alike in respect of the law of retaliation" (Nasa’i).

The words, if one is granted any remission by one’s brother, show that the infliction of capital punishment is not obligatory in all cases; for in special circumstances the murderer can be exempted from the extreme punishment by the heirs of the murdered person. Such exemption, which may be termed partial as the word شیء (any) indicates, means that the heirs of the deceased may renounce their right to have the murderer put to death and may in place of that receive from him blood money. Or as the Holy Prophet has made it clear, the heirs may, in exceptional cases and with the sanction of the authorities, even grant full pardon, remitting blood-money as well (Musnad & Baihaqi).

It is worthy of note that where the Quran speaks of remission, it uses the word "brother" instead of "heir of the murdered person". This is to hint to the heir of the slain person that he should, as far as possible, take a lenient view of the offence. On the other band, the murderer is also enjoined to pay blood money with good grace and without undue delay.

The concluding clause, i.e. whoso transgresses thereafter, for him there shall be a grievous punishment, is meant to point to the fact that if, after the matter has been amicably settled and the murderer granted a remission by the heirs of the murdered person, the heirs should take it into their heads to wreak vengeance on the murderer by killing him, they will be shown no mercy and will get capital punishment. Says the Prophet: "I will allow no remission in case of one whokills the murderer after he has accepted blood money from him" (Jarir).

The Islamic law of قصاص (retaliation), as briefly stated above, provides a very effective and practical means to put a stop to murder and safeguard human life. A man who shows a callous disregard for the life of a fellow person, loses his title to live as a member of human society. The option to pardon allowed to the heirs of the slain person should not be regarded as likely to encourage murder, for such option is not synonymous with exemption from punishment, as in ordinary circumstances the murderer will have to pay the blood money. Moreover, the would-be murderer possesses no means to know that the heirs of the person whose murder he contemplates will actually be persuaded to pardon him; so the fear of capital punishment will always be there to deter him from the commission of the crime. Again, pardon or remission is permissible only where the circumstances are such that pardon or remission is likely to improve matters and bring about good results for all parties concerned (42:41). Thus, while on the one hand, Islam has made due provision for the suppression of crime, it has, on the other, kept open the door for the display of the noble qualities of benevolence and mercy.

The way in which the Quran has upheld the ultimate necessity of the death penalty is indeed most significant. At the time when the Quran was revealed, people exacted retaliation for an injury done to them with a vengeance. They were not satisfied even with inflicting capital punishment on the murderer, to say nothing of pardoning him. They needed no incentive to retaliation. They were already overdoing it. In fact, the Islamic law of retaliation, viewed in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time of its revelation, implied a prophecy that a time would come when people would go to the other extreme and a movement for the total abolition of capital punishment would be set on foot. So the Omniscient God laid down the law of retaliation in a form that is indispensable for the preservation and protection of human life, as well as the promotion of harmony and goodwill.

To prevent crime, Islam really aims at eliminating the conditions that produce it. It seeks to remove the very root-cause of all crime by working a complete moral reformation in man. But it does not remain content with that. It also prescribes deterrent laws in conformity with the dictates of reason, justice and humanity. The fact that, despite efforts to the contrary, the death penalty is still found on the Statute Books of most countries in one form or another, constitutes a sufficient proof of the wisdom of the Islamic teaching. As a matter of fact, even the most enthusiastic protagonists of the abolition of capital punishment have not yet been able to suggest a suitable alternative to it. They have had to admit that a long term of imprisonment as an alternative is "horrible" and is "not an ideal substitute" (Capital Punishment in the Twentieth Century by E. Roy Calvert, G. P. Putnam, London, 1930). The law of retaliation still remains the most effective deterrent to crime and an essential method to satisfy the demands of justice; and the Islamic Law takes a further step to bring about reconciliation between the offender and the aggrieved party.

2:129.

See 2:153.

4:135; 42:21.

Important Words:

فاذکروا (celebrate praises of) is derived from ذکر which means, (1) he talked of him by way of praising him; (2) he remembered him in his heart (Aqrab & Mufradat). See also 2:41, 153.

او (or) is a preposition, used to convey a number of meanings, the more important being: (1) or; (2) and; (3) nay; (4) unless; (5) until (Aqrab & Lane).

خلاق (share) means, an abundant share in what is good (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The clause, celebrate the praises of Allah as you celebrated the praises of your fathers, points to a practice of pagan Arabs who used to gather together at a certain place in Mina after the performance of the rites of Pilgrimage and glorify their forefathers by reciting poems in their praise. Muslims are here bidden to glorify God instead, and praise Him as they used to praise their forefathers, and, the words "even more than that" have been added to emphasize that God’s praises should transcend all, for the word او (or) also means, "nay". It is also possible that the word ك (as) in the expression کذکرکم (as you celebrated praises) has been used only to denote general similarity without reference to degree, and the word او (or) has been used in the sense of "and". In this case the verse would mean that though in the general manner of praise your celebration of God’s praises may resemble the praises with which you glorified your fathers, in degree it should excel it, being اشد (stronger, loftier and firmer).

Here is a good example of how the Quran, while retaining some old customs, improved upon and, spiritualised them to serve the ends of Islam.

The clause, when you have performed the acts of worship prescribed for you, celebrate the praises of Allah as you celebrated the praises of your fathers or even more than that, has yet another meaning. As the word ذکر also means 'remembering' and the word اب (father) includes mother as well (12:101), the clause may also signify that the rites of Pilgrimage, if performed in the right spirit, should fill the heart of man with such love for God as to make him always remember Him just as a child remembers his parents. This is why the Quran begins the word اذکروا with the conjunction ف meaning "so" or "then", hinting that the result of the performance of the rites of Pilgrimage should be that a pilgrim should ever after remember his Creator with the fondness displayed by a child for his parents. But this is only the first stage. With holier men God’s love should be even greater, as the verse hints in the words, or even more than that. Says the Holy Prophet, "The sign of true faith is that a believer’s love for God and His Apostle should be greater than his love for any other being or thing" (Bukhari).

The concluding clause, i.e. of men there are some who say, 'Our Lord, grant us (good things) in this world, and such a one shall have no share in the Hereafter, points to the fact that if the pilgrim confines himself to the celebration of the praises of his fathers and forgets his Creator, he would be like a person who spends all his efforts in the pursuit of this world, even his prayers being confined to search after worldly things. Such a person shall evidently have no claim to the good things of the Hereafter. It is also significant that in this clause the Quran does not use the word حسنة (good things) with the words فی الدنیا (in this world) thereby hinting that such men generally make no distinction between the good things of this world and the bad things thereof, their sole object being the things of this world, irrespective of whether they are good or bad.

As explained under Important Words, the word خلاق (share) occurring in the clause, such a one shall have no share in the Hereafter, really means, "an abundant share in what is good". So the verse would really mean not that such a person will get only a small share in the Hereafter but that, by remaining engrossed in the things of this world, he will deprive himself of a big share and will get no share at all. As the Quran has to condense vast subjects in a small space, it purposely uses words and constructions that take the smallest space but convey the vastest meaning.

Important Words:

یتراجعا (return to each other) is derived from رجع i.e. he returned; the word is used to indicate the coming together of people after their dispersal or separation, as they say تراجع القوم i.e. the people returned to the place from where they separated or left (Aqrab).

یقیما (observe) is derived from اقام which means, he made a thing stand upright; he observed or duly performed a religious commandment or duty, etc. (Lane). See also under 2:4.

تنکح (she marries) is derived from نکح. They say نکح or نکحت meaning (1) he or she married a spouse; (2) he or she had sexual intercourse with his or her spouse. In the present verse the word is used in the latter sense. See also 2:222.

Commentary:

This verse refers to the third and final pronouncement of divorce after which the husband loses all right of reunion with his wife unless the divorced woman marries another man and establishes conjugal relations with him, and is then formally divorced by him or he dies, leaving her free to marry another man. By the inclusion of this provision in the law of divorce, Islam has, on the one hand, enhanced the sanctity of the marriage tie which must not be trifled with and has declared unlawful the evil practice of حلالة (halalah); and, on the other, it has afforded yet another opportunity to the couple who once had lived as husband and wife to become reunited if they so desired. The practice of halalah referred to above consists in a divorced woman marrying a man, other than her former husband, with the object of obtaining divorce from him and thereby making herself lawful for the former husband. Islam condemns this practice as a thing accursed (Tirmidhi ch. on Nikah) and enjoins that marriage with and divorce from another husband must both be genuine.

31:15; 46:16.

65:7.

2:287; 6:153; 7:43; 23:63; 65:8.

Important Words:

یرضعن (give suck) is derived from رضع i.e. he (the babe) sucked. ارضعت means, she (the mother or the wet-nurse) gave suck to the child. استرضع means, he arranged for the suckling of the child; he engaged a wet-nurse for it. The infinitive-noun رضاعة signifies sucking. ھذا اخی من الرضاعة means, he is my foster-brother, both having sucked from the breast of the same woman (Aqrab & Lane).

حولین (two years) is the dual of حول (a year) which is the infinitive-noun from حال meaning, it passed and became complete, or it passed from one state to another, or it turned round. A year is called حول because it is a complete measure of time and turns round and round. حول also means strength and power to do a thing as in the well-known formula لاحول ولاقوة الابالله (Aqrab).

وسعھا (its capacity) is derived from وسع meaning, it was sufficiently capacious. وسعت رحمة الله کل شیء means, God’s mercy extends to, and covers, all things. وسع means capacity or power or strength. The infinitive-noun from it is سعة meaning, breadth; extent, capaciousness; capacity and power. ذوسعة means, a man of means or a man of ample means (Aqrab).

تکلف (is burdened) is derived from کلف. They say کلفه امرا i.e. he imposed on him the task of doing a thing, or he tasked him to do a thing. It also means, he ordered him to do a thing which was difficult or troublesome or inconvenient (Lane).

فصال (weaning the child) is derived from فصل which is both transitive and intransitive, meaning, he separated, he divided, he partitioned; or he got separated, he went forth from. فصلت المرأة رضیعھا means, the woman weaned her child, which is also a sort of separation between the woman and her suckling. ھذایوم الفصل means, this is the day when a decision or a distinction shall be made between the parties, i.e. the doers of good and the doers of evil. فصال means, the weaning of a child from its mother or from the woman who suckles it (Taj).

تشاور (consultation) is derived from شار. They say شارالعسل i.e. he extracted honey from the honey-comb. شارالدابة means, he rode the beast in order to try it and ascertain its worth. اشار besides giving the same meaning as شار, also means, he made a thing known, he pointed to a thing, he gave a word of good counsel to a person. شاوره means, he consulted him, he sought his advice and counsel. تشاور means, mutual consultation. مشورة and شوری give similar meanings, i.e. consultation (Aqrab).

Commentary:

If a woman is divorced while she is pregnant, the question of the suckling of the child and the expense of bringing it up naturally arises. The verse under comment supplies the answer. It points out that the suckling of the child should last for two years at the maximum. But it is allowable to discontinue it before the end of that period, if the father and the mother both agree on that course. The verse also implies that the child is not to be weaned before the end of two years without the consent of its mother.

The expression لاتضار is both in the active and the passive voice; the clause لاتضار والدة بولدھا may therefore mean that: (1) the mother shall not make the father suffer on account of her child; and (2) the mother shall not be made to suffer on account of her child; and both meanings are equally good and equitable. The words مولودله (he to whom the child belongs) have been used here in preference to the simpler word والد (father), in order to point to the inherent right of the father to possess the child and to his natural responsibility for its maintenance.

The clause, and the same is incumbent on the heir, lays down an important social principle. If a father dies leaving behind a child, it is the duty of his heirs to bring up the child and maintain it until it reaches puberty. This shall not be considered an act of favour on their part, but an act of duty. One who inherits the property of a deceased person is duty bound to bring up the children the latter may leave behind. He who receives a support from another must be prepared to give the same to him, when he may stand in need of it.

23:15.

Important Word:

خاویة (fallen) is derived from خوی. They say خوی البیت i.e. (1) the house fell down in ruins; (2) the house became empty and untenanted (Aqrab).

عروش (roofs) is the plural of عرش (roof). They say عرش i.e. he built a house. عرش البیت means, he raised the roof of the house. عرش means: (1) the roof of a house; (2) the throne or the ceremonious chair of a king; (3) the pillar, etc. supporting a thing; (4) honour and prowess; (5) leaders and chiefs among men; (6) tent, canopy, shed etc. affordingshade; (7) trellis supporting vines (Aqrab & Lane).

یتسنه (have rotted) is derived from سنه i.e. (1) it passed through a time extending over years; (2) it (food, etc.) became altered and rotten by the lapse of years or absolutely. تسنه gives the same meaning as سنه (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The preceding verse contained one illustration of how Allah brings His friends out of darkness into light. The present verse cites, as hinted in the words, or like him, another illustration of how He breathes new life into a people after they have fallen and become degraded.

The ruined town referred to in the verse is Jerusalem which was laid waste by Nebuchadnezzar. The person who, as the verse says, passed by it was Ezekiel, the Prophet; and the words which had fallen down upon its roofs hint that it was soon after its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar that Ezekiel passed by the town. Ezekiel was among the Israelite captives whom Nebuchadnezzar carried away to Babylon and who, in accordance with an ancient custom, were made to pass by the ruins of the town so that they might witness with their own eyes how their city had been laid in ruins by the conqueror. Ezekiel, who was a great well-wisher of his people, was immensely pained to see the ruins of the sacred city and pathetically asked God when the time would come when the ruined city would be restored to life, i.e. when its inhabitants, the children of Israel, would come back to it, rebuild it and make it prosperous once more. This prayer, it appears, was heard by God Who showed him in a vision that the restoration asked for would come in a hundred years.

The clause then Allah caused him to die for a hundred years does not mean that Ezekiel was actually made to die and then raised to life again. It was, in fact, a vision which Ezekiel saw (Ezek. 37). The Quran sometimes mentions scenes seen in a vision as if they had actually happened, without stating that they were witnessed in a vision or a dream (e.g. 12:5). What actually happened was that Ezekiel saw in a vision that he had died and remained dead for a hundred years and then had come back to life. As he was the representative of his people, his death signified the death of the Israelites. Thus God informed him through this vision that the children of Israel would remain in their state of captivity and lifelessness for a hundred years, after which a new life would be given them and they would return to inhabit their sacred city. And this dream or vision actually turned out to be true. For Jerusalem was first invaded by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C. and again in 587 B.C., when after a long siege the city was totally destroyed by his general in 586 B.C. Ezekiel probably saw the vision in 586 B.C. The city was rebuilt about 100 years after its destruction and thus the vision came true.

It is wrong to think that God actually caused Ezekiel to die and that he remained dead for a hundred years and was then brought back to life; for that would have been no answer to his prayer, which did not pertain to the death and resurrection of any individual but to that of a town which was lying in ruins.

The words, which had fallen down upon its roofs; point out that Ezekiel saw the ruins soon after the destruction (not necessarily the complete and final destruction) of the town when the fallen roofs were still to be seen under the debris of the walls.

The words, I have remained a day or part of a day, are intended to express indefiniteness of time and mean, according to the Quranic usage, that Ezekiel did not know how long he had remained in that state. The words have been used in this sense in another passage of the Quran as well: They said, We have tarried a day or part of a day. Others said, Your Lord knows best the time you have tarried (18:20). Again, They will say, We tarried a day or part of a day, but ask those who keep count (23:114). In fact, یوم (day) here does not mean a day of 24 or 12 hours but time absolutely (see 1:4). The clause, I have remained a day or part of a day, may also refer to the time for which Ezekiel slept or the time he took in seeing the vision or the dream. Apparently Ezekiel thought that he was being asked about the duration of the time of the vision.

The clause, Nay, thou hast remained in this state for a hundred years, points out that although in one sense he had remained in that state for a hundred years (for he had dreamt that he had been dead for a hundred years), yet the statement that he had tarried for a day or part of a day, was also correct, for the time spent in seeing the vision was naturally very short. To bring home this fact to the mind of Ezekiel, God directed his attention to his food and drink and to the ass. That his food and drink had not become stale and that his ass was still alive, showed that he had really tarried only for a short time. The words and look at thy ass also indicate that Ezekiel saw the vision while sleeping in his fields with his ass by his side, for while in captivity the Israelites were made to work in the fields as farmers.

The words that We may make thee a Sign unto men show that Ezekiel was to be made a Sign to men inasmuch as his vision, according to which Jerusalem was to become re-inhabited by the children of Israel, was to come true. The words, look at the bones, are intended to echo the words used by the children of Israel in those days of misery, viz. that they had become like dry bones and there was no hope of their being ever endued with new life (Ezek. 37:11, 12). The words along with the accompanying clause meant that God had power to clothe the bones with flesh and to breathe new life into them. The bones were first to be set or placed in position and thereafter clothed with flesh, i.e. the Israelites, then like dead bones, were first to be brought back to their town and then the process of the clothing of the bones with flesh, i.e. the rebuilding of the town, etc. was to be completed.

The vision of Ezekiel has been mentioned in the Bible in chapter 37 of his book.

Important Words:

ذریة (offspring) is derived from ذر or ذرأ. The verb ذر means, he sprinkled or scattered. They say ذرالحب فی الارض i.e. he scattered the seed in the soil. ذرالنبات means the vegetation sprouted forth from the ground. Similarly ذرأ means, he increased a thing, etc.; or He (God) created. ذرة of which the plural is ذر means, small ant; motes or dust particles that float about in the air. ذریة means, children, offspring or progeny; human or other race descended from a common ancestor (Aqrab & Taj).

Commentary:

By means of the similitude contained in this verse, a believer is reminded that if he spends his property for show or follows up his charity with taunts and injury, all that he has spent will be wasted, and on the Day of Judgement he will find nothing good in store for him. His case will be as wretched as that of an old man with little children and large property which, as the result of an accident, is suddenly destroyed, leaving him not only without means of sustenance for himself but also without provision for his children. When a man cannot bear to see himself and his little children go unprovided for in this life, which is after all a very short period, how can he bear that his work for the cause of Allah—a provision for his everlasting life in the next world—should be undone by his own action?

19:21.

See 2:118.

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).

Commentary:

The word مثل (case) is used to express resemblance, which may be of different kind and different degrees. Sometimes, the thing likened is equal to that to which it is likened, sometimes the former is superior to the latter, and sometimes the latter is superior to the former. So it is not necessary that the thing likened to another should be equal, or ever similar, to the latter in all respects. The likeness between Adam and Jesus referred to in this verse, may, therefore, not be stretched too far.

In the verse the word 'Adam' primarily stands for man, i.e. the sons of Adam generally. Jesus is thus declared to be like other mortals who have all been created from dust (40:68), and so there can be no divinity about him. If, however, the word 'Adam' be taken to refer to the progenitor of the human race, then the verse would be taken to point to the resemblance between Jesus and Adam in being born without the agency of a male parent. In this case, the fact that Jesus had a mother would not affect the likeness which, as stated above, need not be complete in all respects.

The words, then He said to him, "Be" and he was, show that the command refers not to the birth of Jesus (for the fact of his creation has already been mentioned in the words خلقه i.e. He created him, occurring in the preceding part of the verse), but to his death. The use of the word کن (Be) in relation to death should not sound odd, for, according to the teaching of Islam, death is not the end of life but simply a change, the beginning of a new life. The meaning in this case would be that after having created Jesus and having allowed him the prescribed lease of life in this world, God caused him to die and took his soul away to the next world. The expression, "Be" and he was, may also refer to the creation or birth of Jesus in the sense that, after giving him the human form in the womb of his mother, God said to him "Be", i.e. become quickened with life, whereupon he became alive. Again, the reference may also be to the spiritual life, i.e. after creating Jesus in the form of a man, God called upon him to become a Prophet, which was the ultimate end of his creation, and consequently he became a Prophet. Whatever the interpretation, the verse constitutes a clear refutation of the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus on the plea of his unusual birth.

As for the creation of man from تراب (dust), we shall give a suitable note when we come to the verses directly dealing with the subject.

2:137; 2:286

Commentary:

The Jews refused to believe in non-Israelite Prophets as the words, obey none but him who follows your religion (3:74) show. In the present verse, the charge has been pressed home to Jews that whereas they rejected all but the Israelite Prophets, Islam requires its followers to believe in all the Prophets of God, irrespective of the country or the race or the community to which they belonged or of the time in which they lived. Again, Islam requires them not only to believe in the Prophets that have passed away but also in any that may appear in future. A great contrast indeed, between the catholicity of Islam and the narrow-mindedness of Judaism!

The words, We make no distinction between any of them, should not be understood to mean that Islam considers all Prophets to be of equal spiritual rank. This view is contrary to 2:254 in which some Prophets have been declared to possess a higher spiritual rank than others.

So the words refer only to discrimination as regards believing in them and not as regards their rank.

19:49.

Commentary:

The verse may mean that Abraham left his home in Ur in Iraq and migrated to Palestine, or the migration referred to in the verse may have been spiritual. As it appears from 19:49, 37:100 & 60:5, Abraham had, for some time, to sever all connections with his people on account of the severe opposition he met at their hands.

16:126; 23:97; 41:35.

Commentary:

The verse lays down a very sound principle to guide us in religious controversy and when preaching our Faith to others. We should begin our preaching by laying stress on those beliefs and religious principles which are common between us and our adversary. As an instance we are told that while talking to the "People of the Book" we should start with the two basic religious principles of the Unity of God and Divine revelation. In the form in which Islam has presented these two principles, it stands unique among all religions. Whereas according to Islam God revealed Himself to man in every age, the followers of other religions claim to have the exclusive privilege of being "God’s sons and His loved ones" (5:19). Islam also teaches that Prophets have been raised among all peoples (35:25), a principle which in its catholicity and broadmindedness finds no parallel in the teaching of any other religion.