مِّنْهُم

3:188.

Commentary:

See under next verse.

17:56.

4:165.

4:159;

2:88.

4:56; 10:41.

Important Words:

اقتتلوا and اقتتل (fought with one another) are derived from قتل i.e. he killed. اقتتلوا means, they fought with, and attempted to kill, one another (Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse supplies an answer to an implied question that naturally arises from the preceding verse. The Prophets that had been raised previous to Islam were sent to particular peoples and their missions were confined to specified periods, but the Holy Prophet was sent to all nations and for all times. Hence it may be argued that the case of David or similar other Leaders who had to deal with certain hostile tribes could not apply to him. God answers this implied question by saying that the previous Prophets also were not all alike, for some of them were greater in rank and had to perform more difficult tasks than others. David, for instance, whose name has just been mentioned as the final link in the chain of the Israelite Prophets and kings who had to contend with their enemies, performed a much greater work than many of his predecessors. So the final victory promised to the Holy Prophet should not appear doubtful in the eyes of the people.

The clause, among them there are those to whom Allah spoke and some of them He exalted by degrees of rank, does not mean that there are some Prophets to whom Allah does not speak or that among them there are those who are not raised in rank. The expression has been used to point out that there are two kinds of Prophets: (1) those who bring a new Law, i.e. those who receive revelation bearing new and direct commandments from God; and (2) those who are not Lawgivers, i.e. those whose prophethood consists only in the loftiness of their spiritual rank. By the word "speaking" therefore is here meant a special kind of speaking, i.e. a revelation which brings a new Law. Thus those Messengers who are represented here as having been "spoken to" by God are the Law-giving Prophets, while those who are spoken of here as having been simply raised in rank are those Messengers of God who are raised to the rank of Prophets without being given any new Law. Of Moses who was a Law-giving Prophet the Quran says: And Allah conversed with Moses particularly and freely (4:165). That there are two kinds of Prophets, (1) مکلم (to whom God speaks particularly), i.e. Lawgivers, and (2) غیر مکلم (to whom God does not speak in that particular manner), i.e. Non-Lawgivers; is also clear from the sayings of the Holy Prophet. For instance, when asked by Abu Dharr whether Adam was a Prophet, the Holy Prophet is reported to have answered, "Yes, he was a مکلم (Mukallam) Prophet" (Musnad). The addition of the word Mukallam to the word Prophet clearly shows that Prophets are of two classes, Mukallam (Lawgivers) and Ghair Mukallam (Non-Lawgivers). Adam was a Lawgiver because it was he who brought the elementary Law.

The Arabic clause منھم من کلم الله و رفع بعضھم درجات may also be rendered as, "Among them there is he to whom Allah spoke and one of them He exalted by degrees of rank." In this case the clause would signify that by the Prophet to whom Allah spoke is meant Moses and by the Prophet whom He exalted by degrees of rank is meant the Holy Prophet to whom God did not only speak, as He speaks to all Prophets, but whom He raised above all others by so many degrees.

The clause, And We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs, does not mean that other Prophets were not granted such proofs. As a matter of fact, all Prophets are given clear proofs and all are strengthened with the Spirit of Holiness; but here God makes particular mention of Jesus in order to refute the objections of the Jews who declared that he had shown no Sign and that he was possessed with an Evil Spirit (Luke 11:15, 16). The Quran declares that Jesus was not an impostor, as the Jews believe, but a true Prophet, and that he was not possessed with the Devil but, like all other holy men, was aided with the Spirit of Holiness. In this connection see also note on 2:88.

The Arabic clause translated as, if Allah had so willed, those that came after them would not have fought with one another, does not mean, as some may wrongly think, that God is the originator of differences. The expression like لوشاء according to the Quranic idiom, does not simply mean "if Allah had willed" but "if Allah had acted according to His will", i.e. if He had enforced His will. In fact, Allah has, in His infinite wisdom, made man free to choose or reject a thing as he likes. That being so, differences are sure to arise among men. But God does not remain a placid on-looker; for whenever differences become vast and acute, He raises a new Reformer. This is why when discord and disagreements began to rend the ranks of the followers of the previous Prophets, God, in accordance with His old law, raised the Holy Prophet of Islam.

The words, Allah does what He desires, further indicate that the infinite wisdom of God demanded that man should be made a free agent. So God does not compel anyone to adopt this course or that. He has given man the power to choose the good or the evil course as he may like and God rewards him accordingly; He does not force anyone to accept the truth; nor should the Faithful.

Commentary:

Whereas the preceding verse spoke of the Prayer in time of fear in the case of individuals, the present one gives the details of the manner of its performance when the Faithful are in the form of a company or group and the Prayer is to be performed in congregation. Apparently the Holy Prophet alone seems to have been addressed here, but really the verse possesses general application. When a Muslim army is about to say their Prayer in congregation, half of them should say the Prayer with the Imam, carrying their arms, and the other half should stand facing the enemy, to fight him or repulse his attack, as the case may be. When the first half have finished one Rak‘at, they should retire to take the place of those who are facing the enemy. The latter should then come forward and say one Rak‘at with the Imam.

As many as eleven different ways in which these Prayers were said on different occasions are described in the Hadith(for details see Al-Bahrul-Muhit). In some cases, each of the two parties said only one Rak‘at of Prayer, while the Imam said two. In other cases, each of the parties said two Rak‘at, one Rak‘at with the Imam and the other alone, thus all saying two Rak‘at. On yet other occasions each of the two parties said two rak‘at of Prayer with the Imam, the Imam himself having said four Rak‘at—two Rak‘at with each party. These different methods were observed in different circumstances. If the danger was great, each of the parties said only one Rak‘at of Prayer with the Imam while the Imam himself said two; but if the danger was not so great, each party said two Rak‘ats while the Imam said four. Again, methods varied with the varying position of the army. If the enemy, for instance, was in front of the Imam, the congregation followed a method different from that which they followed on other occasions.

To sum up, whereas Prayer in a state of simple journey consists of two Rak‘ats in such Prayers as ordinarily consist of four Rak‘ats, the Prayer in time of fear may assume different forms, the more important being:

(a) Splitting up the worshippers into two parties, each party either saying one part of its Prayer with the Imam and then retiring, or saying one part of its Prayer with the Imam and the other part separately, the number of Rak‘ats performed by the worshippers being either one or two as the case may be (the present verse);

(b) Shortening the duration of Prayers only (the preceding verse);

(c) Doing away with all form and repeating the words of Prayer while walking, running or riding (2:240).

The verse observes a difference between: اسلحة (arms) and حذر (means of defence or simply precautions). Whereas the former may be put aside in moments of comparative security, the latter should always be adhered to and never neglected. See also 4:72.

7:102; 9:70; 14:10; 40:23.

Commentary:

This verse draws a great moral from the simple incident related in the foregoing verses. The incident of the two sons of Adam had a parallel in the history of nations, as hinted in the words, On account of this We prescribed for the Children of Israel, etc. If the incident simply related to "the two sons of Adam" it had obviously no direct bearing on the Israelites.

As a matter of fact, what is hinted at is that an incident similar to that of the two sons of Adam mentioned here, but of much greater import, was to take place later. There was to appear among the brethren of the Israelites a Prophet whose offering God was to favour with acceptance, while that of his brethren, the Israelites, was to be rejected owing to their impiety and lack of righteousness. This was to enrage the Israelites against that Prophet and they were to become thirsty for his blood on account of envy, even as Cain had become thirsty for the blood of his brother Abel. The story of Cain and Abel was, therefore, intended, as hinted in the opening words of this verse, to serve as a warning for the Israelites. The Prophet meant to be raised from among the brethren of the Israelites was to be no ordinary soul. He was to be a World-Reformer ordained to bring the eternal Law for mankind whose entire future depended on him and, therefore, his slaying was equivalent to the slaying of the whole of mankind, and the preservation of his life was, as it were, the preservation of the life of the whole of mankind. This great soul had killed no person, nor had it created disorder in the land.

The advent of this Prophet was foretold in the Bible (Deut. 18:18-22), and therein it was also announced that God would demand requital of those who did not hearken to this Prophet.

10:13; 39:9, 50.

Commentary:

Having referred in the previous few verses to the Unity of God as being the basic principle of all religions, this and the next three verses deal with Shirk, i.e. associating false gods with the One True God.

3:182; 36:48.

5:69.

3:56; 5:15.

2:18.

Important Words:

یداه (both His hands). The word ید (hand or arm) is derived from یدی (yadyun) and, besides its literal meaning, gives a number of figurative meanings e.g., (1) favour, benefit, bounty or generosity; (2) power, dominion, control, authority or superiority (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

The expression: Their own hands shall be tied up, signifies that the Jews shall be suitably punished for their insolent saying expressed in the words, The hand of Allah is tied up. The sentence may also be taken as optative, meaning, "may their hands be tied up." But as what Allah wills must come to pass, therefore the expression may be better rendered in the form of a positive statement, meaning that the Jews shall become miserly and stingy.

The clause, Nay, both His hands are wide open, constitutes a crushing reply to the taunt of the Jews, that the hand of Allah is tied up. The Quran says that not only is the hand of God not tied up but that both His hands are wide open—the one to give to the believers in plenty and the other to punish the Jews for their insolence. The sentences which follow the clause, Nay, both His hands are wide open, refer respectively to the work of the two hands of God, namely (1) the bestowal of special bounties upon believers, and (2) the exemplary punishment of Jews for their sins. It will be noted that the hand is used both as an instrument for bestowing a favour or bounty and as a symbol of power and dominion for seizing and punishing an offender.

The enmity and hatred referred to in the verse are to exist and continue not only among Jews themselves but also among Christians, as well as between Jews and Christians.

The expression, Whenever they kindle a fire for war, refers to the attempts of Jews to incite the idolaters of Arabia to wage war against Muslims, as well as to their own hostile activities against Islam.

5:65.

Commentary:

It may be objected here that in 2:114 Jews and Christians were rebuked for saying of one another that they stood on nothing, and in the present verse the Quran itself uses an identical expression about the People of the Book. But on deeper thinking one should concede that there is an obvious difference between the two statements. The statement referred to in 2:114 was unqualified, but the statement in the present verse is qualified by the clause, "unless you observe the Torah", etc.

Commentary:

This verse prohibits Muslims from saying the funeral Prayer for hypocrites who are disbelievers at heart. When 9:80 was revealed, the Holy Prophet thought that it was still open to him to perform the funeral service of a hypocrite if he should so choose; and when therefore ‘Abdullah bin Ubayy died, he performed the service for him. By the present verse, however, God definitely forbade the performance of funeral service for disbelieving hypocrites. As a matter of principle, he who dies in a state of disbelief (whether he be an open disbeliever or a proved hypocrite) forfeits all claims on the prayers of the Faithful. His case is in the hands of God. He may punish or forgive him, as He may think fit. See also 9:80 above.

Important Words:

إفک (a lie) is infinitive noun from افک (afaka). They say أفکه i.e. (i) he changed his or its condition or manner of being; (ii) he turned him or it away or back from a thing; (iii) he turned him away or back by lying; (iv) he changed or perverted his judgement; (v) he deceived or beguiled him; (vi) he lied or said what was untrue. أفک الناس means, he told the people a big lie. إفک (ifkun) means, a lie; a great lie; a falsehood (Lane & Aqrab). See also 5:76.

Commentary:

The extremely painful incident referred to in this verse took place when on the Holy Prophet’s return from the expedition against Bani Mustaliq in 5 A.H., the Muslim army had to halt for the night at a place, a short distance from Medina. In this expedition, the Holy Prophet was accompanied by his noble wife, ‘A’ishah. As it happened ‘A’ishah went out some distance from the camp to attend to the call of nature. When she returned, she discovered that she had dropped her necklace somewhere. The necklace itself was of no great value, but as it was a loan from a friend, ‘A’ishah went out again to search for it. On her return, to her great grief and mortification she found that the army had already marched away with the camel she was riding, her attendants supposing that she was in the litter as she was then very young and light of weight. In her helplessness she sat down and cried till sleep overpowered her. Safwan, a Muhajir, who was coming in the rear recognized her as he had seen her before the verse enjoining "purdah" was revealed and brought her on his camel to Medina, himself walking behind the animal (Bukhari, Kitabun-Nikah). The hypocrites of Medina, led by ‘Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul, were always on the lookout to create some mischief and cause distress to the Holy Prophet. They made capital out of this incident and spread a malicious scandal against ‘A’ishah and unfortunately some of the Muslims also became associated with it. ‘A’ishah’s innocence was at last established in the present and the following few verses of the Quran. Those who had taken part in fabricating and spreading the accusation were punished and injunctions were revealed effectively to deal with scandal-mongers and their evil designs and activities.

The words "who took the chief part," are understood to refer to ‘Abdullah bin Ubayy, the leader of the hypocrites of Medina, who had invented the lie and gave it wide publicity. He died an ignominious death, frustrated in all his designs against Islam and in his ambition and aspiration to become the crowned king of Medina.

The words, "think it not to be an evil for you, nay it is good for you," signify that the incident contained a great lesson for the Muslims. They were warned to be on their guard against falling victim to the machinations of scandal-mongers and against accusing Muslim men and women of crimes of which they were quite innocent.

3:24.

8:35; 16:89; 22:26; 43:38.

2:197.

Important Words:

معرة (blame) is derived from عر (‘arra). They say عرت الابل i.e. the camels were or became mangy or scabby. عرہ means, he did to him an abominable thing; he did to him what he disliked; he disgraced him. عرہ بشر means, he aspersed him or charged or upbraided him with evil, or he wronged him. معرة means, a cause of reviling or being reviled; a crime or sin that is noxious like mange or scab; a foul or abominable thing; a cause of grief or vexation; disgrace; annoyance, hurt, harm or injury (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The verse means that though the Meccans gloated over the terms of the Treaty of Hudaibiyyah which, in their ignorance, they thought were very advantageous to them and humiliating for Muslims, and though the latter feeling that the terms were being forcibly wrung from them were crestfallen and did not know that in reality the terms had laid the foundations of a very prosperous and bright future for Islam, yet God had His own design in not permitting the fight to take place. There was a nucleus of Muslims in Mecca and if the fight had taken place, the Muslim army would have unknowingly killed their own brethren in faith, thereby causing great injury to their own cause, and earning obloquy and opprobrium for themselves. In fact, from whatever angle the Treaty of Hudaibiyyah may be viewed it was indeed a great victory.

Commentary:

The verse implied a prophecy. The Companions of the Holy Prophet were told that if they were enjoined to renounce all friendly relations with the enemies of their Faith, even though the latter were their very near blood relations, the prohibition was indeed destined to be very short-lived. The time was fast approaching when the erstwhile enemies would become their loving friends. The prophecy was soon fulfilled. After the Fall of Mecca, the Quraish joined the fold of Islam en masse and became united with Muslims into one brotherhood.