یَشَآءُ

Commentary:

Whereas in the preceding several verses polytheism has been condemned and denounced, the present and the following few verses give the reasons for this denunciation and condemnation. The most effective argument against polytheism is that God is All-Knowing, All-Powerful and is the sole Creator of the whole universe. He depends on no one for help or advice in the control and direction of the affairs of the universe and His wisdom being infallible His choice in all things is unfettered.

The expression تعالی عما یشرکون may mean: (1) He is far above being associated with other persons and things as equal; (2) He is far above those persons or things which the idolaters associate with Him as His equal.

22:6; 23:13-15; 39:7; 40:65; 64:4.

Important Words:

یصور (fashions) is derived from صار. They say صار الشیء meaning: (1) he made the thing inclined; (2) he divided or cut the thing into parts or pieces. صورہ means, he formed or fashioned it; he gave it a shape. صورہ تصویرا means, he fashioned it and gave it a definite shape.الصورة means, the image or form or shape of a thing by which it is distinguished from other things (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

تصویر (fashioning) and خلق (creating) are two different things as is clear from 7:12 and 82:89. خلق which takes place before تصویر means creating a thing and giving it a general physical form, whereas تصویر signifies detailed formation and the endowing of a child with moral and spiritual faculties. Thus خلق and تصویر are interrelated like body and soul. Medical research has shown that there exists some subtle relationship between the physical features of a man and his morals. The clause, He it is Who fashions you in the wombs, would, therefore, mean that after God brings into existence a body in the womb, He endows it with faculties and capacities necessary to fulfil its destiny. So it is in the womb of his mother that the foundations of a man’s future are laid, and it is to this fact that the Holy Prophet referred when he said that when the formation of the child in the womb begins, the angels ask God whether they should write it down as lucky or ill-fated (Bukhari).

As the formation of the child takes place in the womb of the mother, naturally it is affected by its environment, i.e. the physical and moral condition of the mother. So Jesus, whose body, like that of other human beings, was formed in the womb of a woman, could not escape being affected by the limitations and failings inherent in woman. Now as the Bible holds woman to be morally inferior to man, for it was through Eve that Satan deceived Adam (Gen. 3:12, 13), Jesus could not but have partaken of the failings and weaknesses of his mother. Thus, the fatherless birth of Jesus proved, if anything, that Jesus was by nature more inclined to sin than other men. This is why, in his discussion with the Christians of Najran, the Holy Prophet pointedly referred to the birth of Jesus as an argument disproving his divinity. He is reported to have said to them: "Do you not know that it was a woman who conceived Jesus, just as a woman conceives a child, and then she was delivered of him just as a woman is delivered of a child" (Jarir, iii. 101).

The clause, there is no God but He, has been placed as a natural consequence of the preceding clause. When it is God Who fashions children in the wombs of their mothers, no child born of a woman could claim to be divine.

22:41.

Commentary:

Talut or Gideon was able to defeat Jalut or the Midianites and curb their rising spirits, but their crushing defeat to which the verse refers as the killing of Jalut came in the time of David about two hundred years afterwards. This is why, whereas the defeat of Jalut by Talut has been spoken of by the Quran as ھزم i.e. routing, the complete crushing of their power has been referred to by the world قتل i.e. killing. The Bible speaks of the man defeated by David as Goliath (1 Sam. 17:4), which is similar to Jalut. Probably the attributive name given by the Quran to the people was also borne by their leader in the time of David.

The last clause of the verse, i.e. and had it not been for Allah’s repelling men, some of them by the others, the earth would have become filled with disorder, gives, in a nutshell, the whole philosophy of all wars of truth and justice. War should be resorted to only as a means of checking disorder and restoring peace, and not for creating disorder and breaking peace. The clause also serves as a criterion between Muslims and their adversaries and beautifully points to the party destined for final victory in the struggle.

19:9, 10.

Important Words:

غلام (son) is derived from غلم i.e. he became excited by lust or carnal desire. اغتلم الشراب means, the beverage became strong in its influence upon the head. غلام means: (1) a young man, one whose moustache is growing forth; (2) a son, a male child; (3) a man of middle age; (4) a male slave or servant (Lane).

Commentary:

Zachariah’s question contained in the words, how shall I have a son? implies no disbelief on his part in God’s promise, as alleged by the Bible (Luke 1:20). It is simply a spontaneous expression of innocent surprise at the divine promise. It also contains a veiled prayer that he might live long enough to see the child born and grow up into a young man. Zachariah has referred to his old age and the barrenness of his wife to make God’s mercy take a practical shape all the more speedily.

The expression کذالك الله یفعل ما یشاء may be rendered as: (1) thus Allah does what He pleases; (2) this is really so, but Allah does what He pleases; (3) such is the way of Allah, He does what He pleases.

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).

5:73, 74.

See 3:190.

Important Words:

یھلك (bring to naught) is derived from اھلك which is the causative form of ھلك which means, he or it perished or came to naught; or he or it came to an end and became non-existent. اھلكه means, he caused him or it to perish, or he destroyed him or it, or he brought him or it to naught (Lane). اھلكه also means, he punished him (Mufradat). The Holy Prophet is reported to have said: اذاقال الرجل ھلك الناس فھواھلکھم i.e. "When a man says, such and such people have perished (viz. they have become morally and spiritually ruined and their state is past recovery), it is he himself who causes them to perish by saying so, for he makes them despair of recovery and of salvation" (Muslim, ch. on Birr Was-Silah). The word is used in this sense also elsewhere in the Quran (67:29; 8:43).

Commentary:

The expression یھلك (bring to naught) is used here not simply in the sense of destroying but in that of destroying by punishment. It is indeed a jealous and indignant God that speaks in this verse. He condemns Christians in a tone of strong indignation and vehement reproach at their preposterous claims about the Godhead of Jesus; and as Jesus and his mother, Mary, have become the means and object of this highly sinful doctrine, the verse fittingly refers to the divine power of punishing them also if God should so desire. It will be noted that a section of Christians looks upon Mary also as Divine and superhuman.

The words, those that are in the earth, obviously refer to those who deify Jesus. God’s purpose in using such strong language is to expose the monstrosity of the doctrine that Jesus was God or the Son of God. Elsewhere also in the Quran strong language has been used about those who hold such blasphemous beliefs and they are threatened with exemplary punishment (19:89-92).

The words, what is between them, corroborate and add force and strength to the argument given in the earlier part of the verse at the same time hinting at the final dissolution of Christian empires as a result of the most blasphemous doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. See also 3:27.

What the Christians say is, "The Messiah, son of Mary, is God," and not "God is none but the Messiah" as the verse puts it. The assertion has been inverted in order to bring home to Christians their great error; for, to say that "The Messiah is God" is really tantamount to saying that "God is none but the Messiah," But Christians, being too conscious of the weaknesses of their Messiah, dare not accept the latter proposition, which thus goes to prove the hollowness of their claim that the Messiah, son of Mary, is 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.

24:44.

Important Words:

کسفا (pieces) is derived from کسف (kasafa). They say کسف الثوب i.e. he cut up the cloth. کسف أمله means, his hope was blasted. کسفة means, piece, fragment, part (Aqrab).

ودق (rain) is infinitive-noun from ودق (wadaqa). They say ودق السماء i.e. the cloud rained. ودق السیف means, the sword became sharp (Aqrab).

40:68.

Commentary:

The clause خلقکم من ضعف which literally means, He created you from weakness, really means that man has been created weak or in a state of weakness. This form of expression has been used to emphasize man’s weakness, the words من ضعف signifying that he is the very embodiment of weakness. A parallel expression has been used in 21:38 where the expression خلق الانسان من عجل i.e. man has been created of haste, means that impatience and haste form a part of man’s nature. The implication of the verse may be that from extremely insignificant beginnings the Arabs will rise to a very high political and spiritual stature through the Holy Prophet, and then after having attained the heights of glory and grandeur will relapse into their original obscurity and weakness. Or the verse may have a general application pointing to the law of the rise and fall of nations.

6:148; 18:59.

4:134; 14:20; 35:17.

Commentary:

The Divine attribute of الغنی (Self-Sufficient) means, "one able to do without others" (see 2:264). As God is Self-Sufficient, He can punish rejecters as and when He desires; but He is also full of mercy; therefore, He delays the hour of punishment.

The words مایشاء (what He pleases) have been used in preference to من یشاء (whom He pleases) in order to combine the idea of "any other people" with that of "in any other state or condition."