یَکُوۡنَ

20:40.

Important Words:

التقطه (picked him up) is derived from لقط which means, he picked it up, took it up from the ground. التقط الشیء means, he picked up the thing; he stumbled upon it unexpectedly without seeking it. لقیته التقاطا means, I met him unexpectedly (Lane & Aqrab).

The particle ل in لیکون (that he might become) is called لام العاقبة and denotes result and consequence, as in the well-known Arabic couplet:

لدو اللموت وابنوا للخراب

فکلکم یسیر الی تباب

i.e. bear children that they should die and build houses that they should fall into ruins, for all of you are marching towards destruction. Thus the first part of the verse would mean, "And the family of Pharaoh picked him up with the result that ultimately he became an enemy and a source of great grief and sorrow for them."

8:40; See 2:191.

Important Words:

الدین (religion) has a number of meanings including (1) religion; (2) rule and government (Aqrab). See also 1:4.

عدوان (hostility) is derived from عدا. They say عداه meaning, he passed beyond it. The expression عدا علیه means, he acted wrongfully towards him or he exceeded the proper limit against him. The words عاداه mean, he treated him with enmity and hostility. Thus عدوان means: (1) hostility; (2) wrongful conduct; (3) punishment for wrongful conduct and; (4) approach or way to a person by way of justification or excuse against him (Munjid, Mufradat & Lane).

Commentary:

This verse is often quoted by the opponents of Islam in support of their allegation that the Quran inculcates the carrying-on of war against unbelievers until all traces of false religions are wiped out and the whole world embraces Islam. But such a view is clearly wrong. The word which throws light on the true significance of this verse is فتنة (persecution) which, as has been explained in the preceding verse, means religious persecution. This verse therefore enjoins Muslims to fight only till persecution for religion is over. It is on record that during the war between Hadrat ‘Ali and Mu‘awiyah, ‘Abdullah, son of ‘Umar, was once asked why he did not take part in the war when the Quran enjoined the Muslims to fight to put an end to فتنة. He replied: "We did indeed act upon this injunction of the Quran when in the time of the Holy Prophet the number of Muslims was small and a man was subjected to فتنة i.e. persecution for his religious beliefs, being either put to death outright or tortured, until at last Islam spread and the "فتنه was over" (Bukhari, ch. on Tafsir). These words of ‘Abdullah, son of ‘Umar, leave no doubt that the word فتنة in this verse means persecution for religious beliefs and nothing else. Muslims are enjoined to fight until there is no فتنة i.e. no persecution for religious beliefs.

The words that follow, i.e. and religion is professed for Allah, would, therefore, mean that Muslims should fight till profession of a faith is not influenced by the fear of men, but that whatever religion a man follows, he should follow it only for the sake of God, and not out of the fear of men. The above interpretation is also borne out by the fact that the Holy Prophet entered into a number of treaties of peace with disbelievers, which could have no justification if the divine commandment had been to continue fighting until all embraced Islam. The object of the jihad or holy war which the Holy Prophet was bidden to undertake is clearly stated in 22:40-42, which were the first verses that gave Muslims the permission to take up arms against disbelievers and the idea has been further clarified in 2:191, 193 above. Among the numerous other verses which throw light on this subject the reader is referred to 2:195, 218, 257; 3:135; 4:91, 92; 5:3, 9, 33; 8:39, 62, 63; 9:6, 8, 10, 13; 22:39,41; 41:35; 42:49; 50:46; 60:9, 10.

The concluding clause i.e. but if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the aggressors, further confirms the interpretation of the verse as given above. If the Quran enjoined the waging of war till Islam obtained universal acceptance, then there would be no sense whatever in the injunction that if disbelievers desisted from fighting and no longer remained aggressors, Muslims should also stop hostilities; for, as the verse puts it, fighting is not permissible "except against the aggressors".

3:111.

22:79.

Important Words:

وسطا (exalted) is derived from وسط meaning, he stood in between two things. وسط فی حسبه (wasata) or وسط (wasuta) means, he was or became good and noble. الوسط means: (1) occupying the middle position or taking the middle course; (2) good and exalted in rank (Aqrab). That the word وسط is used here in the sense of good and exalted, is clear from 3:111 where Muslims are called the best people.

لنعلم (that We might know) signifies that We may make known or distinguish. In fact, God being Omniscient knows all things; so He does not stand in need of knowing a thing because everything is already known to Him. The word has been used elsewhere also in this sense (33:51). The expression ممن (from him who) occurring after it also shows that the word is used here in the sense of distinguishing or making known to the people.

Commentary:

The clause, and thus have We made you an exalted nation, refers to, and is connected with, the concluding clause of the preceding verse, i.e. He guides whom He pleases to the right path. God means to say that whatever guidance He sends down to the Muslims is for their own good and it is through His guidance that they have been made an exalted nation. So in the matter of the Qiblah, too, they should be prepared to accept His guidance which is meant for their own good. This will make them "guardians over men" and the Messenger of God a "guardian over the Muslims".

Muslims are told that, as decreed by God, they are to become the leaders of men and win the pleasure of God by their good deeds and that on that account they will naturally become recipients of God’s special favours, with the result that other people will be forced to the conclusion that the religion which they follow is the true religion. In this way will Muslims bear witness to the truth of Islam, just as the Holy Prophet was a witness of its truth for them.

Another meaning of the clause, that you may be guardians over men, is that each generation of Muslims should guard and watch over the next generation. Being the best of people, it is incumbent upon them to be always on their guard against falling away from the high standard of life expected of them, and to see that each succeeding generation also follows the path pursued by those who enjoyed the ennobling company of the Holy Prophet. Thus the Holy Prophet was to be a guardian over his immediate followers, while they in turn were to be guardians over their successors, and so on.

Taking the particle علی (over) in the clause under discussion to mean "against" and the word شھید (guardian) to mean "witness", which it often does, the clause would mean "that you may be witnesses against men and the Holy Prophet may be a witness against you"; i.e., the Holy Prophet would serve as a mirror for the Muslims by looking into which they would be able to see their own shortcomings, while the lives of true Muslims would serve as a model for other people who, by comparing their lives with those of true Muslims, would see and realize their own defects and correct them accordingly. This state of affairs could be brought about only if Muslims faithfully followed all the behests of God including the one regarding Qiblah, which was important as a rallying-point for the new community.

It may be noted here that, as hinted in the words, and We did not appoint the Qiblah which thou didst follow, the Holy Prophet had adopted the Temple at Jerusalem as his Qiblah by God’s command; but as it was meant by God to be only a temporary Qiblah, and was to be subsequently replaced by the Ka‘bah which was to be the Islamic Qiblah for all time, the command with regard to the temporary Qiblah was not included in the Quran. This shows that all such commandments as possessed temporary application were not included in the Quran; only those were included which were of a permanent nature. Hence the theory that the Quran contains some verses that now stand abrogated is quite unfounded.

The Arabs were greatly attached to the Ka‘bah, the ancient house of worship at Mecca. It was their national Temple which had come down to them from the days of Abraham. It, therefore, proved a severe trial for them when they were asked at the very inception of Islam at Mecca to abandon the Ka‘bah in favour of the Temple at Jerusalem which was the Qiblah of the People of the Book. And later on at Medina, the change of the Qiblah from the Temple at Jerusalem to the Ka‘bah proved a great trial for both Jews and Christians. It was very hard for them to abandon their Qiblah for a rival temple which had been held sacred by the pagan Arabs. Thus God provided a trial for both the People of the Book and the idolaters of Mecca.

The Temple of Solomon at Jerusalem was not adopted as Qiblah by the Holy Prophet to conciliate the Jewish population of Medina, as is wrongly supposed by Sale and other Christian critics, because it was not at Medina that this Temple was adopted as the Qiblah. It had already been the Qiblah of the Muslims at Mecca where there was no Jewish or Christian population to placate (Bukhari & Jarir). If, by appointing a Qiblah, the Holy Prophet had intended to win over a people, the natural course would have been to appoint the Ka‘bah as a Qiblah while at Mecca and turn round to the Temple of Jerusalem while at Medina. But what actually happened was quite the reverse. Moreover, the Quran expressly says that the adoption of neither of the Qiblahs was meant to win over any people to Islam, but was intended only as a trial to distinguish the true believers from those not true.

The words it does not behove Allah to let your faith go in vain have a twofold meaning: (1) that this change of Qiblah is in no way calculated adversely to affect the faith of Muslims but would actually strengthen it; (2) that if Muslims were not directed to turn to the Ka‘bah, they would not inherit the blessings resulting from the prayers of Abraham offered at the time of its building (2:130). It was impossible that the Companions of the Holy Prophet who had displayed such steadfast loyalty and devotion to their noble ideals, should not have been made heirs to the blessings contained in Abraham’s prayers with which the Promised Prophet was to be so closely associated. The faith of Muslims would, as it were, go in vain if they remained detached from the Ka‘bah and did not inherit its blessings.

2:145, 150.

5:4.

5:4; 12:7.

Commentary:

The singular person in خرجت (thou comest forth) is used to emphasize the fact that the conquest of Mecca was the personal responsibility of the Holy Prophet. If he could persuade others to help him, well and good; if not, he alone stood responsible before God—a mighty responsibility indeed which also strikes at the very root of the objection that Islam waited for a declaration of the defensive war till it was strong enough to hit back.

The plural person in حیث ماکنتم (wherever you be) is used so as to include the Muslims of all places. Next to the Holy Prophet, they are also commanded to keep the same object in view, i.e. the conquest of Mecca. This verse and the preceding one should afford no ground for inferring that Islam bids its followers to wage an aggressive war. For, as amply borne out by history, by the time these verses were revealed, war had already commenced with the Meccans and it was they that had forced it upon the unwilling Muslims.

The words, that people may have no argument against you, mean that if the Muslims failed to conquer Mecca, the objection would quite legitimately be raised by the enemies of Islam, that the Holy Prophet had not fulfilled the prayer of Abraham, contained in 2:130, and therefore, could not claim to be the Promised Prophet. Moreover, the House to which the Muslims were commanded to turn their faces during Prayers was, while under the control of the heathen Meccans, full of idols. If the idols had continued to remain in the Ka‘bah, the Muslims might have been accused of worshipping idols. This objection could be effectively answered, if the Holy House, which had been originally dedicated to the worship of One God, had been cleared of idols. Hence the commandment to substitute the Ka‘bah for the Temple at Jerusalem as Qiblah was naturally followed by the injunction about the conquest of Mecca.

It may be added here that the conquest of Mecca by the Muslims had also been predicted in the Quran in 28:86, and 17:81. The prophecy contained in Deut. 33:2 was also fulfilled when the Holy Prophet entered Mecca as a conqueror at the head of ten thousand Muslims.

The clause, that I may perfect My favour upon you, provides yet another argument in favour of the commandment relating to the conquest of Mecca. God means to say that, with the taking of Mecca, God’s favour on the Muslims would begin to be perfected; for it would mean the subjugation of all Arabia and the influx of thousands of men into the fold of Islam. The result amply justified the prophecy; for the conquest of Mecca was rapidly followed by the conversion to Islam of thousands of Arabs. Most of the Arabs, at heart victims of the beauty of Islam, had deferred their acceptance of the new faith till the issue of the struggle between Muslims and Meccans had been finally settled, and now they virtually came forward in "troops" to join it.

Another reason why the conquest of Mecca was followed by a general influx of Arabs into Islam was that although the Arabs followed no revealed Book, yet the prophecy of Abraham that Mecca would not be conquered by the followers of any false Prophet, and any people attempting it would meet with destruction was well known to them. They had only recently seen a remarkable illustration of the fulfilment of this prophecy in the miraculous destruction of the Abyssinian invader Abraha and his powerful army. Thus when Mecca fell into the hands of the Holy Prophet, they were at once convinced of his truth and thousands of them hastened to embrace Islam.

In this and the preceding verses (vv. 145 and 150), the command to turn to the Ka‘bah has been mentioned thrice. This is not a repetition; for the first command, i.e. in v. 145, pertains to the change of the Qiblah, while the second and the third, i.e. in vv. 150 and 151, refer to the conquest of Mecca. But here, too, there is truly speaking no repetition, for the command about the conquest of Mecca contained in each of these two verses serves a different purpose. In v. 150 Muslims are asked to turn their attention to the conquest of Mecca because God wished them to do so. So they were duty bound to carry it out undeterred by any fear of failure; whereas in the verse under comment, i.e. v. 151, the benefits which were to accrue to Muslims on their carrying out the command relating to the conquest of Mecca have been mentioned. Those benefits briefly are: (1) refutation of the objections and criticism of the enemy; (2) conversion to Islam of hundreds of thousands of Arabs, including the kith and kin of the Muslims; and (3) enlargement of the political power of Islam.

96:5.

4:30.

Important Words:

ولیه (someone who can watch his interest). ولی means, friend; helper; guardian of one’s affairs; he who protects or watches one’s interests (Aqrab). See also 2:108.

Commentary:

As the preceding verses prohibit interest and enjoin that only the original sum taken as a loan be returned to the creditor, the Quran now fittingly turns to the subject of loans not carrying interest. The verse enjoins that all transactions regarding loans should be committed to writing. It is really amazing, and is indeed a wonderful testimony to its Divine origin, that the Quran, which was revealed about 1,350 years ago when the art of writing was yet in its infancy, should lay so much stress on writing down all transactions.

The verse should not be interpreted to signify that only such transactions should be committed to writing as have a fixed term for the paying back of a loan. The injunction is general and is meant to obviate or minimize disputes so as to leave no room for doubt as to whether any amount has really been lent and as to the amount of the money lent. The words, for a fixed period, have been added to emphasize the additional fact that whenever a loan is advanced, a term must be fixed.

The verse further enjoins that when a transaction is made on credit, the document drawn up should be written by a third person so that there may be little chance of fraud and neither of the parties may have a cause of complaint against the other, both standing on the same level.

The borrower, and not the lender, is to dictate because: (1) it is the borrower who incurs the liability, and justice demands that words defining the liability should not only be well known to, but also selected by him; (2) the document is to be deposited with the lender and not the borrower. So the borrower has been asked to dictate so that the fact of his having dictated may serve as a proof of the correctness of the amount and the condition about payment, and he may have no ground to deny it.The clause, he should not diminish anything therefrom, have been added because loans may be of different kinds. They may not always be in cash and may be for long terms and there may also be certain conditions attached to them. In such cases it sometimes happens that in drawing up documents, people resort to trickery and leave loopholes. So borrowers (who have to dictate) have been warned against such evil practices and have been enjoined to fear God and dictate with honesty and justice.

In the clause, and call two witnesses from among your men, the word "your" has been most wisely added to imply that the witnesses should not be strangers but should be known men residing in the same locality so that, if need arises, they may be easily summoned to give evidence. The words "such as you like", point to the fact that the witnesses, whether men or women, should be desirable persons and should enjoy the confidence of both parties.

The clause, and let no harm be done to the scribe or the witness, signifies that if the scribe is a professional man, he should be duly paid for his services; otherwise wrong would be done to him. Similarly, a person should not be compelled, so far as possible, to become a witness if it causes him loss of any kind. Again, the scribe or the witnesses should also be paid their travelling and other necessary expenses when they are summoned before a Qadi or judge. The words also hint that the witnesses and the scribe should not be forced or threatened or bribed or otherwise influenced to suppress the truth or tell a falsehood when called upon to give evidence.

2:214; 6:49; 17:106; 18:57.

Commentary:

The words, bearers of glad tidings and warners, point to two essential functions of God’s Messengers. They are bearers of glad tidings for those who accept them, promising them prosperity in this world and blissful felicity in the life to come, and they are warners of impending misery and afflictions for those who reject them. When the people of the world are sunk deep in iniquity, God raises among them a Messenger who warns them of the impending punishment and calls upon them to repent because "We never punish until We have sent a Messenger" (17:16).

God sends His Messengers so that the people, on being punished, might have no excuse to say that no warner was sent to them to point out to them their evil deeds and warn them of the impending visitation—an excuse depicted in the words: Our Lord, wherefore didst Thou not send to us a Messenger that we might have followed Thy commandments (20:135).

Important Words:

ملکوت (kingdom) is derived from ملك i.e. he possessed complete ownership of, and power over. ملکوت means, sovereignty; dominion; great kingdom; power to deal with a thing as one like; the place of holy spirits in the heavens (Aqrab). The word ملکوت is specifically used about the kingdom or dominion of God (Mufradat). See also 1:4.

Commentary:

The word ملکوت (kingdom), as shown above, is peculiar to the dominion of God. Thus the words, And thus did We show Abraham the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, mean, We showed Abraham the power and control which We exercise over every part of the universe. Shihabud-Din Suhrawardi, a great Muslim divine, says in his famous work, the ‘Awariful-Ma‘arif, that when a spiritual wayfarer reaches this stage, i.e. when he is made to witness the sovereignty of God, he is, as it were, spiritually reborn and that no person can be admitted into the presence of God until he has attained this stage. When, however, a man has attained this stage of certainty and conviction, doubt cannot enter his mind, for then he lives in the very presence of God.

2:194.

Commentary:

The verse shows that fighting was to be continued only so long as there was persecution and men were not free to profess the religion they liked. If the opponents of Islam desisted from

fighting, Muslims were also to desist. Islam fought only to defend itself and to establish freedom of conscience. See also 2:194.

The words, Allah is Watchful, imply that Muslims should not feel afraid that the disbelievers may desist only ostensibly and temporarily, and that they may attack the Muslims again when a favourable opportunity offered itself. God was Watchful of all that they do, and He would surely help Muslims, if the disbelievers acted faithlessly towards them.

Important Words:

وطرا (want) has no verb. It means, a want, a need, an object of want or need; or that which one proposes to accomplish or of which one is desirous. They say قضی منه وطرہ i.e. he accomplished or obtained his want from him (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

As the verse deals with an incident of very great historical importance, it demands and deserves a somewhat detailed explanation. Zaid bin Harith, to whom the words "on whom Allah had bestowed favours and on whom thou also had bestowed favours" refer, belonged to the tribe of Kalb. In his childhood he was kidnapped and sold as a slave in Mecca where he was bought by Khadijah’s brother and given over to her. On her marriage with the Holy Prophet Khadijah presented Zaid to him who at once emancipated him. Zaid was so much attached to the Prophet that when later his father and uncle begged of the Holy Prophet to let him go with them as the grief of his separation from home had almost killed his mother, the Prophet readily gave his permission. But Zaid himself flatly refused to part company with the Holy Prophet, exclaiming that he was dearer to him than his father and mother. The Prophet was so deeply touched by Zaid’s fidelity and love for him that he at once declared him (Zaid) to be his son and henceforward Zaid came to be known as the Prophet’s son. Zaid remained throughout his life a most beloved and faithful disciple of the Holy Prophet and sealed his fidelity to Islam and the Prophet with his blood on the battlefield of Mu’tah.

Zainab was the daughter of the Holy Prophet’s aunt, hence a full-blooded Arab, intensely proud of her ancestry and exalted social status. Islam had envisaged and given to the world a civilization and culture in which there were to be no class divisions, no hereditary nobility, no vested interests. All men were to be free and equal in the sight of God. The Holy Prophet wanted to start with his own family the carrying into actual effect of this noble ideal of Islam. He wished to marry Zainab to Zaid, who in spite of having been liberated by the Prophet and called his son, unfortunately still carried the stigma of slavery in the minds of some people. It was exactly this stigma of slavery, this invidious distinction between 'free' and 'slave' which the Holy Prophet sought to remove by Zainab’s marriage to Zaid. In deference to the Holy Prophet’s wish Zainab agreed to the proposal. The purpose of the Holy Prophet was achieved. The marriage levelled to the ground all class distinctions and divisions. It was a practical demonstration of Islam’s noble ideal. The marriage, however, ended in failure, not so much due to a difference in the social status of Zainab and Zaid as to the incompatibility of their dispositions and temperaments and also due to a feeling of inferiority from which Zaid suffered. The failure of the marriage naturally grieved the Holy Prophet. But it also served a very useful purpose. In pursuance of Divine command, as mentioned in the latter part of the verse under comment, the Prophet himself married Zainab, thus cutting at the very root of another obnoxious and deep-seated Arab custom, viz. that it was a sacrilege to marry the wife of one’s adopted son. The custom of adoption was abolished and with it went also this foolish notion. Thus Zainab’s marriage with Zaid served one very noble object and its failure another highly useful purpose.

The words "fear Allah" signify that Zaid wanted to divorce Zainab, and as divorce according to Islam is very hateful in the sight of God, the Holy Prophet exhorted him not to do so.

The clause, "And then…thou shouldst fear Him," may apply to both Zaid and the Holy Prophet. Applying to Zaid it would mean that Zaid did not like that the cause of his separation from Zainab should come to light, perhaps because as the words "fear Allah," indicate the fault lay more with him than with Zainab. As, however, applying to the Holy Prophet, the words would signify that as the marriage between Zaid and Zainab was arranged at his instance and wish, he naturally did not like its breaking. The clause also shows that the Prophet feared that the break-down of the marriage which was arranged by him and which had been entered into in deference to his special wish, but which resulted in an ostensible failure of the experiment in Islamic brotherhood, would cause some mental confusion and uneasiness among people whose faith was weak. This was the anxiety that lay heavy on the Prophet’s heart. The words, "thou didst fear men," seem to point to this fear of his. But, as mentioned above, God had His own purpose in the failure of this marriage. He wanted to show that there was nothing in this failure to be afraid of. On the contrary, it was a blessing in disguise and was intended to serve a great purpose and therefore the Prophet’s fear was unfounded.

Christian and other hostile Critics of Islam pretend to find in the Holy Prophet’s marriage to Zainab a basis for mean attacks on him. It is stated that the Prophet, having by chance seen Zainab, became enamoured of her beauty and Zaid, having come to know of his desire to marry her, sought divorce from her. The fact that the Holy Prophet’s most inveterate enemies, before whose eyes the whole affair had actually taken place, dared not attribute the base motives ascribed to him by these critics after so many centuries, completely knocks the bottom from under this base and totally unfounded charge. Zainab was the Prophet’s own cousin and being so closely related to him he must have seen her many times, for "Purdah" had not as yet been enjoined. Besides, it was in deference to his own persistently expressed wish that Zainab had reluctantly agreed to marry Zaid. It is on record that she and her brother had desired before her marriage with Zaid that she should be taken in marriage by the Holy Prophet himself. What wasit that prevented the Holy Prophet from marrying her when she was a virgin and when she herself ardently desired to get married to him? The whole story evidently seems to be a figment of the "fertile" imagination of the Holy Prophet’s hostile critics and it is an insult to human intellect to give the least credence to it. But while there are some Christian critics like Muir and Margoliouth who find fault with the Holy Prophet for having married Zainab, there are others better informed and more honest like the good and noble Rev. Bosworth Smith who found nothing in this marriage to cavil at. The Rev, gentleman says:

"It should be remembered, however, that most of Mohammed’s marriages may be explained, at least, as much by his pity for the forlorn condition of the persons concerned, as by other motives. They were almost all of them widows who were not remarkable either for their beauty or their wealth, but quite the reverse. May not this fact, and his undoubted faithfulness to Khadijah till her dying day, and till he himself was fifty years of age, give us additional ground to hope that calumny or misconception has been at work in the story of Zainab" - ("Mohammed and Mohammedanism").

Commentary:

This verse should be read along with vv. 29 and 30 above. In those verses the wives of the Holy Prophet were offered a choice between the companionship of the Holy Prophet and the material benefits and comforts of life, but they preferred the Prophet’s company. The present verse by implication refers to that reply of the Prophet’s consorts which is recorded in the books of history but expressly nowhere in the Quran. Till they gave their reply, the marital relations between them and the Holy Prophet remained, as it were, in a state of suspension. The verse shows that while the wives of the Holy Prophet preferred his company to material goods and amenities of life, he too had great consideration for their feelings, and though he was given the choice to retain such of them as he liked (v. 52) he did not exercise the choice and in deference to his wishes God permitted him in the present verse to retain all his wives.

The verse refers to three kinds of women whom the Holy Prophet could marry in addition to his already wedded wives: (1) Women who were taken prisoner in wars against Islam; (2) women who had migrated to Medina with the Holy Prophet, and (3) a woman who should offer herself for marriage to him. This shows that the Holy Prophet’s marriages were motivated by considerations other than sensuous gratification as his ignorant and mischievous critics try to depict. Those who had left their hearths and homes for the sake of Islam and those whose husbands had been killed in wars fighting in defence of Islam had special claim on the Holy Prophet’s consideration. It is in view of these considerations that he married most of his wives. He married Hafsah whose husband was killed in the Battle of Badr; Zainab bint Khuzaimah whose husband was killed in the Battle of Uhud; Ummi Salmah whose husband died in 4 A.H., and Ummi Habibah, daughter of Abu Sufyan, who became a widow in 5 or 6 A.H. (in exile in Abyssinia). He married Juwairiyyah and Safiyyah, both widows, in 5 A.H. and 7 A.H. respectively, seeking a union with and pacification of their tribes. It is worthy of note that a hundred families of the Banu Mustaliq were liberated by Muslims when the Holy Prophet married Juwairiyyah. Maimunah, another widow, it is said, offered herself to be taken in marriage by the Holy Prophet which offer he condescended to accept in the interest of the education and training of Muslim women. He married Zainab, the divorced wife of Zaid in 5 A.H. in order to put a stop to a foolish custom prevailing among the Arabs and in order also to assuage her wounded feelings as the respected lady had felt deeply humiliated at being divorced by Zaid. He married Mariah in 7 A.H., and thus by raising a freed slave girl to the highly eminent spiritual status of the "Mother of the Faithful", he gave a death blow to slavery. Such were the pious and righteous motives of our noble Master in marrying widows and divorced women, by no means noted for their youth or beauty, and yet his cruel and mean traducers vainly try to depict him as a person who was given to gratifying his carnal desires. They deliberately ignore the patent fact that up to the age of 25 he lived the spotless life of a celibate. Then in the prime of his youth he married a lady fifteen years his senior and lived with her a most happy life till he was an old man of fifty and she about sixty-five. After her death he married Saudah, another lady of a very advanced age. He married all his other wives, to which exception has been taken by evil-minded carpers, between 2 A.H. and 7 A.H., a period when he was constantly engaged in active fighting and his life was perpetually in danger and the fate of Islam itself hung in the balance. Could any sane person in such situation of danger and uncertainty conceive of contracting marriage after marriage from motives attributed to the Holy Prophet? After this he lived for about three years as virtual ruler of the whole of Arabia when all the comforts and amenities of life were at his disposal and yet he entered into no further marriage. Does not this fact alone establish the honesty and sincerity of the Holy Prophet’s motives in marrying his wives?

The words "if she entrusts herself to the Prophet" have been taken as specially referring to Maimunah who is reported to have offered herself to be taken into marriage by the Holy Prophet. The clause, "This provision is only for thee as against other believers," means that it was a special privilege of the Holy Prophet and was due to the special nature of his duties as a Divine Prophet. In fact, marriages of the Holy Prophet were dictated by much higher and nobler considerations than merely personal ones. The clause may also refer to the special permission granted to the Holy Prophet, to retain all his wives, after the commandment contained in 4:4 was revealed, limiting to four the number of wives allowed to Muslims at one time.

The words, "We have already made known what We have enjoined on them concerning their wives," refer to the commandment contained in 4:4.