مَرَّ

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).

Commentary:

At the advent of the Holy Prophet old ideas and institutions that seemed to have been firmly rooted like mountains, melted and vanished away like the passing of clouds. Human history fails to cite an instance of such a mighty revolution brought about in so short a time in every sphere of men’s ideas and actions as was wrought by the great and noble Prophet of Islam. The word جبال (mountains) may equally refer to the great and firmly established Roman and Persian Empires which were scattered like chaff before the irresistible victorious Muslim armies.

See 2:228.

2:232; 4:130; 65:3.

Important Words:

امساك (retain) is derived from امسك which is again derived from مسك. They say امسك به i.e. he stuck to it. امسك is both transitive and intransitive. امسكه means, he got hold of it and stopped and retained it. امسك عن الکلام means, he abstained from talking. امساك means, (1) to hold or stop or prevent or retain; (2) to refrain or abstain (Aqrab).

تسریح (send away) is the noun-infinitive from سرح (sarraha) which is derived from سرح. They say سرح المواشی i.e. the cattle went forth for grazing. سرح السیل means, the flood moved on leisurely. سرحه means, he sent him away. سرح فلان زوجته means, he sent away or divorced his wife (Aqrab).

حدود (limits) is the plural of حد i.e. a limit. حده means, he put a limit to it. حد الشیء عن الشیء means, he distinguished one thing from the other. الحد means, (1) the limit or the line where two things meet; (2) last limit or extremity of a thing; (3) that by which a thing may be defined; (4) prescribed punishment for an offence. حدود الله means God’s religious commandments (Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse contains the fifth check on divorce. A man who seeks permanent and irrevocable separation from his wife must pronounce divorce on three separate occasions, each in a separate طھر i.e. period of purity, when the woman is clean and the man has not gone in unto her during that period of purity. The pronouncement of divorce twice or thrice at one and the same time is not permissible as the verse hints in the word مرتان (twice) which signifies a thing happening on two separate occasions and not two things happening at one and the same time. The Holy Prophet treated such collective pronouncements, whatever their number, as only one divorce (Tirmidhi & Dawud). According to Nasa’i, the Holy Prophet was extremely angry when one day he was told that a person had made all the three pronouncements of divorce at one and the same time, and said: "Is the Book of God going to be made a plaything while I am yet among you?"

After the pronouncement of the first two divorces, the husband can take back the divorced wife within ‘iddah, i.e. the period of waiting, with or without her consent; but after the period of waiting is over, he can take her back only with her consent and that after remarrying her. After the pronouncement of the third divorce, however, the husband forfeits this right and the couple are finally separated. A Companion of the Holy Prophet once asked him saying, "The Quran has here spoken of two divorces only, whence comes in the third!" The Prophet referred him to the Quranic words اوتسریح باحسان i.e. or send them away with kindness meaning thereby that after the pronouncement of the first two divorces the husband was free to retain his wife if he so desired but if he wanted irrevocable separation, he should "send her away", i.e. divorce her a third time (Jarir & Musnad). The point is further made clear in the succeeding verse. Thus the word تسریح here signifies طلاق i.e. divorce.

The present verse also makes it clear that when a person divorces his wife, he forfeits مھر i.e. the dower-money he has given her; and if at the time of divorce he has not yet given her the dower-money agreed on by the parties, he must make the payment before the divorce becomes effective. Again, he is not allowed to take back anything he might have given her in the form of gifts and presents as the clause it is not lawful for you that you take anything of what you have given them indicates.

If, however, it is the wife who demands separation, technically known as خلع (Khul‘a lit. the putting off of clothes etc., or the shedding of old leaves), she must get it through a Qadi or judge as the word خفتم (you fear), which has been put in the plural number, hints. In this case she has to part with, in full or in part, her dowry as well as the gifts she might have received from her husband, as agreed on by the parties or decided by the judge. The case of Jamilah, wife of Qais bin Thabit, provides a good illustration of the exercise of the right of Khul‘a by women. She demanded separation from her husband, Qais, on the ground that she did not like him, i.e. their temperaments being different, she could not get on with him. She was granted Kkul‘a by the Holy Prophet, but she had to return to her husband the orchard he had given her (Bukhari). This right, however, is not to be exercised in a light-hearted manner. The Holy Prophet has condemned the action of a woman who demands separation from her husband without valid reason even as he has condemned the action of a man who divorces his wife without genuine cause. He is reported to have said, "A woman who seeks separation from her husband without a legitimate cause shall be deprived of the fragrance of heaven" (Dawud & Tirmidhi). This is what is hinted in the concluding words, these are the limits prescribed by Allah, so transgress them not, etc. The husband and the wife are both warned to fear God and refrain from transgressing the limits imposed by God for their own good.

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.

18:49.

Important Words:

خولناکم (bestowed on you) is derived from خال which means, he became possessed of servants, slaves and other dependents as well as gifts, after having been without them. خوله الله مالا means, God conferred upon him property as a favour. The noun الخول means, slaves, servants and other dependents, or cattle, camels, etc. given to one by God; a gift or gifts (Lane). The word signifies the bestowal of things meant for the betterment and progress of the person receiving them (Mufradat).

Commentary:

As shown under Important Words, خول (bestowal) implies the giving of a thing for the purpose of setting things right or bettering the condition of the recipient. Thus, the sentence, you have left behind you that which We bestowed upon you, means, "We gave you certain things so that you might thereby improve your spiritual conditions, but you have left them behind, i.e. you made no use of them, and now the time for their use has passed away."

The words, We see not with you your intercessors, imply that your hope lay in your mediators, whom you supposed to be co-partners with God and who, you imagined, would help you; but your connection with them is now completely cut off and they are not here with you to render you any help; they have failed you and become entirely lost to you.

13:32.

Commentary:

The verse signifies that when the signs of God come, they will do the disbelievers no good; God will turn away their hearts and their eyes from the signs so that they will not believe. This turning away of their hearts and their eyes from the signs of God will be the result of their hasty denial of the signs of God at the very outset, which will have hardened their hearts and deprived them of the power of benefiting by the signs of God. It is a law of God that those, who deny His Prophets at the very outset, without pausing to think over their claims and without pondering over the signs and evidences of their truth, deprive themselves of the blessings of being rightly guided; but those, who do not hasten to deny them and are ready to think over their claims with an open mind and in the fear of God and entertain a genuine desire to know the truth are ultimately guided to it.

Commentary:

The masculine gender of the verb یقنت is used because of the subject من which is invariably followed by a verb in the masculine gender.

4:2; 16:73; 39:7.

30:22.

Commentary:

By the words, a single soul, is here meant the father. The verse does not refer to Adam or for that matter to any particular man but speaks of men generally. See also 4:2.

The verse describes one of the objects of marriage, which is that man and woman may be a source of comfort and solace to each other. Man is highly social by nature, and it is his natural craving for a close companion that is supplied by marriage. Without the institution of marriage man, in most cases, would have vainly spent his whole life in search of a true and loyal companion.

2:28.

Commentary:

This verse qualifies and explains the one that precedes it.

Commentary:

The words, who plotted to turn out the Messenger, do not refer to the Meccans, but to those who, when the Holy Prophet went on an expedition to the Syrian border, plotted to bring about his downfall by making the different tribes of Arabia stand up as one man against him on his return (see notes on 9:3,4, above). The Meccans did not merely plot to turn out the Holy Prophet, but actually turned him out (see 47:14). Moreover, by the time these verses were revealed, the Meccans had embraced Islam and all hostilities between Muslims and Meccans had ceased.

The words, they were the first to commence hostilities against you, also refer not to the Meccans but to those infidels, whether open or secret, who lived in and about Medina. The words provide conclusive proof of the fact that, far from being the transgressor, Islam was transgressed against. It was the infidels who first began hostilities against it. They acted most treacherously and resorted to all sorts of foul means to annihilate it. It was only such men that Muslims had been commanded to fight. Christian critics of Islam will do well to compare the wars of Islam with the wars of their great Lawgiver, Moses, against a people who had never taken up arms against him and had done nothing to offend him. Yet these people were ruthlessly butchered and even their women and children were not spared (Deut. 20:16, 17). As compared with this, the Holy

Prophet took up arms only against those who first started hostilities, and even then he directed that their women and children and their religious devotees, as well as their churches, should be spared (Muslim, Tahawi & Dawud). Those, who regard the wars of Moses as holy, have certainly no reason to criticize the wars of the Holy Prophet of Islam.