وَهَٰذَا

20:41; 26:20.

Important Words:

وکزہ (struck him with his fist) means, he struck or beat him; he beat or struck him with his fist; he pushed or impelled or repelled him; he goaded him (Lane).

Commentary:

Being of a very noble nature and having been inspired by high ideals, Moses was always ready to help weak and oppressed people and so when a poor and weak Israelite sought his help against an arrogant and cruel Egyptian, he at once went to his rescue.

The expression, "this is of Satan’s doing," according to Arabic idiom means that some evil thing has happened, i.e. "Satan had caused an Egyptian and an Israelite to fight and I had to come to the assistance of the oppressed Israelite which resulted in an evil thing i.e. the death of a person." Or the words might have been addressed to the dead Egyptian meaning, "this is the outcome of your satanic deed," i.e. "your death is the result of your own wickedness and transgression." The fact that Moses used no lethal weapon and only repelled the Egyptian or at best struck him with his fist shows that the latter’s death was accidental. Clearly there was no intention on Moses’ part to cause it.

The Quran has not mentioned the wicked deed of the Egyptian to which Moses refers in this verse but from Jewish Encyclopedia we know that the said Egyptian had forced an Israelite woman to commit adultery with him and that was indeed a devilish deed. It apparently led to the quarrel referred to in the verse and ultimately to Moses’ interference and the death of the Egyptian (Jew. Enc. under "Moses").

16:124.

Important Words:

اولی (nearest). See 4:136.

Commentary:

Though in a technical sense Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian nor yet a Muslim for he lived long before these faiths came into existence, yet keeping in view the inner spirit of the faith he was certainly most nearly related to Islam and its Holy Founder. Jews and Christians had no right to claim him as their spiritual progenitor when all their beliefs and practices were at such variance with his teaching.

6:156; 21:51; 38:30.

42:8.

23:10; 70:24.

Important Words:

مبارك (full of blessings) is derived from برك . They say برك الجمل i.e. the camel kneeled and lay down on his chest with his legs folded. برك also means, he or it was or became firm, steady or steadfast. برك علی فلان (barraka) means, he prayed that such a one might be blessed. بارك علیه means, he kept or applied himself constantly to it. بارك الله علیك or بارك الله فیك means, may God bless thee and make thee prosperous, or may He continue to shower blessings on thee. تبارك الله means, blessed is God; or hallowed is He; or far removed is He from every imperfection; or highly exalted is He. برکة (barakat) means, a blessing; any good bestowed by God, particularly that which continues and goes on increasing. It also means, increase, abundance or plenty. برکة (birkah) means, a tank dug in the ground; a lake or pond; a place where water remains and collects. مبارك means, blessed; gifted with blessing; abounding in good (Lane).

ام (mother), apart from its primary meaning, also signifies: source, origin, foundation or basis; support or cause of subsistence; the main or chief part of a thing; anything to which other things are collected together or joined; place of collection or comprehension or combination of a thing. The word is also applied to inanimate things, as the Arabs say ام الشجرة i.e. the mother of the tree; or ام النجوم i.e. the Milky Way, viz. the place where the stars are collected together in a great multitude. ام القری signifies, the mother of the towns; the metropolis; Mecca, because, being the Qiblah it is the gathering-place of men, or because of all towns it possesses the greatest dignity. In fact, every city is the ام of the smaller towns around it (Lane). Mecca is called ام القری also because it is the source of spiritual food for mankind.

Commentary:

This verse further explains the rational argument contained in the words, you have been taught that which neither you nor your fathers knew (see note on the preceding verse), and makes it clear that it is the Quran that the words quoted above refer to. The present verse mentions four features of the Quran: (1) it has been sent by God; (2) it is full of blessings as the word مبارك indicates, i.e. it is a Book in which, like a برکة (a place where water collects), are collected all the blessings of God; (3) it fulfils that which preceded it, i.e. it fulfils the prophecies contained in the previous Scriptures; and (4) it has been revealed so that the Holy Prophet may warn thereby the Mother of towns and those around her. The place where a Prophet of God appears is called "the mother of towns," for it is out of it that men drink spiritual milk, even as a child sucks milk from the breast of its mother. The words, those around her, are intended to include the whole earth. The earth being round, all parts of it lie around the place where the Holy Prophet made his appearance, i.e. Mecca. Thus, this verse also proves the universal mission of the Holy Prophet.

The words, those who believe in the Hereafter believe therein, signify that a true believer in the life to come cannot but believe in the Quranic teaching. In fact, he who has real faith in the life to come will always be anxious to find out the truth in order to ensure his salvation, and he who earnestly seeks after truth will necessarily be led to believe in the Quran, for as the Quran says: those who strive in Our cause—We will surely guide them in Our ways (29:70). Thus, belief in the Quran is really a criterion of true faith in the Day of Resurrection. Again, when a man comes to have faith in the Quran, he will naturally try to mould his actions according to its teachings and will be constant in his Prayers.

6:154.

16:57.

Commentary:

Note the point and the force in the words, He has produced. By using these words, the Quran exposes the folly of disbelievers who are presumptuous enough to divide the produce of the earth and cattle between their deities and God, as if they were the owners; while the fact is that God is the owner of all these things and it is He Who has brought them into existence. They are God’s things, and it is strange that disbelievers should presume to divide God’s things according to their own choice, setting apart only a portion for God, the True Owner, and allotting the rest to their false deities.

Disbelievers gave two kinds of alms; firstly, in the name of God, and secondly, in the name of their deities. If the portion which they set apart for their deities was spent for other purposes, then the portion which they had reserved for God was also given away as charity in the name of their deities, but if the portion set apart for God was spent for other ends, then the portion set aside for the deities was not transferred to God. That is what is meant by the words, that which is for their idols reaches not Allah, while that which is for Allah reaches their idols. This is another instance of how men blunder, making laws with the sole aid of reason.

The expression, as they imagine, signifies that God does not accept a charity which false gods are made to share with Him. Disbelievers suppose that they have set apart a portion for God, but that is not really the portion of God, for the jealous God disdainfully rejects such allotment.

6:93; 21:51.

Commentary:

The words, this is a Book, refer to the Quran. Before giving the command to follow the Quran, this verse gives the reasons thereof. The first reason is that it is a revealed Book, being sent down by God. The second reason is that it is مبارك(full of blessings) which, as the root meaning of the word implies, shows that it comprises in itself the blissful teachings of all the other Scriptures (for an explanation of the word مبارك see note on 6:93 above).

The verse purports to say (1) that as the Quran is a revealed Book, so you should accept it and thereby become recipients of all the favours attached to revealed Books; (2) that as it comprises in itself the teachings of all other revealed Scriptures, so you should leave all other Books and follow it alone.

51:30.

Important Words:

عجوز (old woman) is derived from عجز which means, he lacked strength or power or ability. عجز عن العمل means, he was unable to do the work; he was too old to do it. عجزت المرأة means, the woman became old. The word عجوز has a variety of meanings, some of which are, an old and aged woman; a woman old and weak; a man’s wife whether old or young; also a woman’s husband; an old or aged man; a man old and weak (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The verse does not mean that the expression of surprise on the part of Abraham’s wife implied that she doubted the truth of the news that had been communicated to her by God. It is far from an ordinary believing woman to express doubt with regard to the great and wonderful powers of God, much further from the wife of a Prophet who had already witnessed many signs of the power of God. In fact, she wondered at the unusual news that a son would be born to her at such an advanced age. Her surprise was, therefore, at the magnitude of the boon that was about to be conferred on her. Abraham himself had expressed similar surprise when the glad tidings about the birth of a son in his extreme old age was given to him (see 15:55-57).

16:15; 45:13.

Important Words:

عذب (palatable) is derived from عذب (‘adhiba) which means, it was or became sweet; became easy and agreeable to be swallowed or drunk. ماءعذب means, sweet water. They say انه لعذب اللسان i.e. verily he is sweet of tongue (Lane & Aqrab). See also 25:54.

ملح (salt) is noun-infinitive from ملح (malahah). They say ملح الطعام i.e. he put salt in the food. ملح الماء means, the water became saltish. ملح (maluhah) it (a thing) was or became beautiful or pretty (Lane & Aqrab). See also 25:54.

سائغا (pleasant) is derived from ساغ which means, it (beverage) was easy and agreeable to swallow (Lane). See also 16:67.

مواخر (ploughing the waves) is derived from مخر. They say مخرت السفینة i.e. the boat clove the water with its stem and ran (Lane). See also 16:15.

For فرات and أجاج see 25:54.

Commentary:

Metaphorically, the two seas spoken of in this verse are true and false religions. The words عذب and أجاج may be taken as representing respectively true and false religions which cannot be equal. The one is like sweet water which is good to drink and slakes the thirst and is also very useful for irrigation, while the other is like bitter water which is not only not fit to drink but is also unusable for purposes of irrigation. The verse continuing the metaphor purports to say that though saltish water is not fit for drinking and irrigation, it has other uses. From the saltish seawater come out fresh meat and ornaments. Similarly, though the present opponents of Islam are, like saltish water, bitter and worthless, yet out of their loins there will be born those who will be zealous and devout bearers of its message.

Important Words:

یلحدون (they unjustly incline in making this insinuation) is derived from لحد. They say لحد المیت i.e. he buried the corpse. لحدالسھم عن الھدف means, the arrow deviated from the target. الحد الی فلان means, he inclined towards such a one. They say الحد فی الدین i.e. he deviated or swerved from the right way with respect to religion; he impugned religion. الحد فی الحرم means, he desecrated the haram and violated its sanctity. The Quranic expression لسان الذی یلحدون الیه means, the tongue of him unto whom they incline (Lane & Aqrab).

اعجمی (foreign) is derived from عجم (‘ajama) which means, he bit it: and he chewed it. عجم (‘ajuma) means, he had an impotence or an impediment or a difficulty in his speech or utterance and a want of clearness, chasteness, or correctness therein. They say اعجم الکلام i.e. he made the speech or language to want or be without or to have a quality the contrary of clearness, perspicuous-ness or distinctness or to want or be without chasteness or correctness. اعجم الکتاب means, he dotted the book or pointed it or he removed its want of clearness by means of diacritical points. The Arabs say, اعجم البابi.e. he closed the door. عجم means, foreigners as meaning others than Arabs; such as are not Arabs, especially Persians. عجمی signifies one who is of the race of the عجم though he may be chaste or correct in Arabic speech. قوم اعجم means, a people not of the Arabs. اعجم means, one having an impotence or impediment or difficulty in speech though he may be clear, perspicuous, chaste or correct in speaking a foreign language; and not clear, perspicuous, chaste or correct in speaking Arabic though he may be an Arab; and اعجمی signifies the same, (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

Names of different persons have been mentioned in the traditions from whom disbelievers alleged the Holy Prophetreceived help in composing the Quran. According to some reports, it was a Christian slave named Jabr, who read the Christian Scriptures while making swords. The Prophet used to go and sit with him. According to another report, it was ‘Aish or Ya‘ish, a servant of al-Huwaitib Ibn ‘Abdul-‘Uzza, who knew the previous Scriptures and had embraced Islam and held firmly to the Faith. According to yet another report a slave named Abu Fuqaih who was also known as Yasar and was a Jew assisted the Holy Prophet in preparing the Quran. He was subjected to much persecution for his adoption of Islam and probably died sometime before the Hijrah. Again, ‘Abdullah bin Muslim al-Hadrami is reported to have said that his two Christian slaves named Yasar and Jabr, natives of ‘Ain at-Tamar, followed the trade of sword-cutters at Mecca. They used to read the Gospels while engaged in their work. When the Holy Prophet passed by their shop and saw them reading the Gospels he would stop there for a while. A report says that when one of them was asked whether he taught Muhammad the Bible he replied, ‘No, but he teaches me.’ Ibn ‘Abbas reports that the Holy Prophet gave instruction in Islam to a Roman slave named Bal‘am. The Quraish taunted the Prophet that he learned many things from him. The same is said of ‘Adas or ‘Addas, a slave of Ausa bin Rabi (Ma‘ani & Fath). The names of sundry other persons have also been mentioned from whom the Prophet was alleged by the Quraish to have received help, among them being ‘Ammar and Suhaib. The names of Salman, the Persian, and of ‘Abdullah bin Salam and of the Nestorian monk, Sergius, who according to Mas‘udi is the well-known Buhairah, have also been mentioned in this connection.

From the verse under comment, it appears that Meccans accused the Prophet of receiving help from a certain person in preparing the Quran and the verse answers the allegation by saying, But the tongue of him to whom they unjustly incline in making this insinuation is foreign, while this is Arabic tongue, plain and clear. The Christian critics say that this answer is irrelevant, for, as Arnold says: "admitting they were foreigners, they might nevertheless supply him with material" (Sherr’s Commentary of the Bible). It was the necessary material or subject matter, they allege, with which the foreigners supplied the Prophet and to say in reply that the tongue of the person who was alleged to teach him was not Arabic betrayed the irrelevancy of the answer. But these reverend gentlemen seem conveniently to ignore the patent fact that this was not the only objection with which the Quran was assailed. It has not hesitated to mention many other similar objections of disbelievers and has refuted them thoroughly. If the Quran could successfully rebut so many other objections of disbelievers, it could answer this one also. In fact it has adequately done so even in the verse under comment, but the reverend gentlemen themselves have not been able to understand the answer. Moreover, if the reply given in the Quran was so manifestly irrelevant as Christian critics pretend to find it, why did not the Meccans of the Prophet’s times who first made this objection, failed to detect this manifest irrelevancy and why did they not express their dissatisfaction with the answer? But not the slightest reference is to be found in any tradition to this so-called irrelevancy of this answer of the Quran. If Meccans had signified their dissatisfaction with this answer and had pointed out its absurdity and irrelevancy, the traditions would have mentioned it as they have mentioned so many other incidents calculated to impugn the Quran and render its position apparently indefensible.

The fact is that these critics themselves have not understood the objection. The traditions quoted above bring to light two objections of the Meccans. One was that Christian and Jewish slaves who had been converted to Islam secretly helped the Holy Prophet in composing the Quran. They furnished him with the necessary material which was subsequently rendered into Arabic. The other was that he listened to certain non-Muslim slaves while they recited the Gospels and incorporated into the Quran what he heard from them.

Thus Meccans made two objections. One of these the Quran has answered in this verse, while the other has been answered in vv. 25:5, 6, 7. This second objection along with its answer runs thus: And the disbelievers say, It is nothing but a lie which he has forged and at which other people have assisted him. But they have been guilty of a great injustice and have uttered an untruth. And they say: These are legends of the ancients; he has got them written down and they are dictated to him morning and evening, Nay, He Who knows the secrets in the heavens and the earth has revealed it. He truly is Most Forgiving and Merciful. The difference between these verses and the verse under comment is quite manifest. In the verse under comment disbelievers refer to a single man as having taught the Holy Prophet, while in Surah 25, it is not one man but many who are alleged, by disbelievers, to have assisted him in writing the Quran. To both these allegations different answers suiting the nature of the allegations have been given. Thus it is clear that Meccans had made two distinct and separate objections and both these have been answered in the Quran at different places, and traditions support this conclusion. It was with regard to several of the slave converts to Islam that it was alleged that they furnished material to the Prophet. To this allegation of the Meccans, chapter 25 refers in the words, at which other people have assisted him. From the same chapter it also appears that those who were alleged to have assisted the Prophet were Muslims, for the passage in question says: They are dictated to him morning and evening. Now it is an historical fact that while at Mecca Muslims assembled in the morning and evening in the house of Arqam for prayers and sat round the Holy Prophet with doors closed in order to avoid interference by disbelievers. Disbelievers alleged that the meetings were held to compose the Quran in secret, when the slave converts from Judaism and Christianity would tell the old histories of their religions, and the Prophet would have these accounts written down by his Companions. This is how disbelievers declared the Quran to be a forgery which was prepared by many persons, incidentally admitting by implication that a work of the unique excellence of the Quran could not be prepared by one man. Some Christian critics even in our own time have identified themselves with this allegation and have the hardihood to suggest that the letters with which some of the chapters of the Quran begin are the initial letters of the names of the Companions who composed them.

The objection gives rise to two inevitable questions: (a) whether those slave converts who were alleged to have assisted the Holy Prophet in writing the Quran were so learned and intelligent as to teach the Prophet what they were alleged to have taught him and (b) whether the Quran is a human production.

It is not difficult to find answers to both these questions. It does not require extraordinary intelligence to understand that those who helped the Prophet in producing and preparing the Quran and to whom he was indebted for what the Quran contained could not believe it to be the word of God and could not, for his sake, undergo willingly those inhuman cruelties and tyrannies which they suffered at the hands of disbelievers. Could these accomplices of the Holy Prophet in forging the Quran possibly endure the most cruel persecution for believing in a book which they themselves had fabricated? Are these Christian critics unaware of the persecution which these so-called forgers of the Quran bore without wavering and flinching?

With regard to the second question, viz. whether those great truths which are alleged to have been taught to the Prophet by the slave converts could possibly have been taught by them, the Quran says that what are spoken of as 'the legends of the ancients' and what are represented as being taught by the slave converts from Judaism and Christianity are not legends but great truths and mighty prophecies which have been made by Him 'Who knows the secrets in the heavens and the earth, and which it is beyond the power of any mortal to foretell'.

Now, if the objection mentioned in the verse under comment was the same as had been quoted and answered in 25:5-7 (which by common consent was revealed before the present Surah) viz. that some other persons had supplied the Prophet with material, the same convincing answer should have been given here also. But the answer given here is quite different from the one given in chapter 25. This shows that the objection referred to in the verse under comment has not been understood by these critics of the Quran. The present verse does not refer to the objection that a certain man provided material for the Quran. It refers to the second allegation of disbelievers viz. that the Prophet incorporated into the Quran what he heard from the Christian slave when the latter read the Gospels at his shop. The tradition says that there were two Christian slaves, Jabr and Yasar, who worked as sword-cutters at Mecca and read the Gospels at their shop and, when the Prophet passed by them, he used to stop there and listen to them. But on closer scrutiny it appears that really there was only one slave, Jabr, who was alleged to teach the Prophet. Another tradition, to which reference has already been made, supports this view and gives the name of Jabr only. Yet another tradition tells us that only one of the two Christian sword-cutters was asked whether he taught the Prophet, and he replied that, far from his teaching the Prophet, it was the Prophet who taught him. This not only shows that it was only one slave who read the Gospels, but also throws light on the purpose for which the Prophet sometimes stopped at his shop. He did not stop there to learn but to teach the man whom he considered to be religious-minded.

It has now been clearly established that the Quran refers to two objections of disbelievers, one relating to certain slave converts from whom the Prophet is alleged to have received help in preparing the Quran which is mentioned in chapter 25 and the other relating to what he heard of the Gospels from Jabr and incorporated in the Quran.

This second objection has been answered in the verse under comment. The verse purports to say that the tongue of him to whom they attribute the teaching of the Prophet being اعجمی i.e. foreign and defective, he could not impart to the Prophet in his faulty Arabic those great and eternal truths for explaining which the possession of sound and deep knowledge of Arabic was essential.

Other pertinent questions which arise here are, did the slave in question read an Arabic version of the Gospels and were the Gospels translated into Arabic in the Prophet’s time and were the Arabic versions so common that even slaves read them while working at their workshops? The original language of the Gospels was, according to Muslims, Hebrew, and according to Christians, Greek. If the existence of an Arabic version of the Bible in the time of the Prophet cannot be proved, it would follow that the slave in question read either a Hebrew or a Greek version. But if he read a Hebrew or a Greek Gospel, the question arises, how was the Prophet able to understand him, since he did not know either of these languages? Hence in order to understand the significance of the verse under comment, it has to be seen whether the Gospels had been translated into Arabic at the time of the Holy Prophet. That they had not been translated into Arabic is clear from the following facts:

Up to the time of the Prophet translations of the Gospels had not been made in any language. It was in the 13th or 14th centuries of the Christian era that the Gospels first began to be translated into other languages. The study of the Commentaries of the Quran by Muslim scholars also shows that Arabic versions of the Bible were not available to them, because when in their Commentaries they quote the New or the Old Testament they make very serious mistakes. They ascribe to these books stories which are not found in them. This clearly shows that Arabic versions of the Bible did not exist in their time, otherwise they would not have made such blunders.

Traditions also show that in the time of the Holy Prophet the Gospels were to be found only in Hebrew or Greek. In Bukhari we have the following about Waraqah bin Naufal; "He had become Christian in the days of ignorance and he used to write the Gospels in Hebrew." True, another tradition gives Arabic in place of Hebrew, as the language in which Waraqah wrote the Gospels but preference must be given to the tradition quoted from Bukhari because if the Arabic versions of the Bible could be available in the days of the Prophet many Muslims would have read them. But no such scholars of the Bible among early Muslims were to be found. We are even inclined to the view that the reporter had, by mistake, substituted the word "Hebrew" for "Greek" in the above tradition, because only Greek versions were current in those days and Hebrew versions had almost ceased to exist. That the Christian Scriptures had not been translated into Arabic by the time of the Prophet receives further support from the fact that even the Jewish tribes of Medina had not translated the Torah into Arabic by that time, and whenever he needed a reference to this book, he consulted ‘Abdullah bin Salam, a great Hebrew scholar. This view is also supported by the following testimony of a well-known Christian writer, Dr. Alexander Souter, M.A., LL.D., who writes in his book, "The Text and Canon of the New Testament" (Second Edition, 1925 p. 74), under the head, 'Arabic Versions': "These come partly and directly from Greek, and partly through Syriac and partly through Coptic. Mohammad himself knew the Gospel story only orally. The oldest manuscript goes no further back than the 8th century. Two versions of the Arabic are reported to have taken place at Alexandria in the 13th century." In short, there is no doubt about the fact that the Gospels had not been translated into Arabic at the time of the Prophet and those who had to consult them used the Greek or Hebrew version.

Thus it is clear that when Jabr, the Christian slave, read the Gospels, he must have read the Greek or the Hebrew version. And how could the Holy Prophet benefit by listening to a book in a language which he did not understand? The fact seems to be that when disbelievers saw the Prophet standing at Jabr’s shop they imagined that he must have learnt something from him. The Quran removes these doubts by saying, the tongue of him to whom they unjustly incline in making this insinuation is foreign, while this is Arabic tongue plain and clear, meaning that the man from whom the Prophet was alleged to have received material for the Quran must have read the book in Hebrew or Greek because his "tongue being foreign" he could not explain to the Holy Prophet in his defective Arabic those great truths which the Quran comprises. But the Prophet knew only Arabic and so he could not follow him, much less incorporate in the Quran what he heard from him.

In short, disbelievers brought two distinct charges against the Prophet. First, that he listened to a Christian slave while the latter read the Gospels at his workshop, and incorporated into the Quran what he heard from him. Secondly, that he received help from those slaves who had been converted to Islam from Judaism and Christianity and who met him in secret in the house of Arqam. Both these objections have been separately answered by the Quran, the first in the verse under comment and the second in 25:5-7.

It would be of some use to mention here the following facts which are relevant to the objections stated above.

1. The Quran has either abrogated or improved upon the teachings of former Scriptures. The Holy Prophet must have derived the knowledge of the teachings of those Scriptures from the same source—from God—from which he had derived the knowledge of the new teachings of the Quran which have supplanted previous Scriptures.

2. It has condemned some of the fundamental teachings of Christianity and has improved upon others. There is no known Christian sect with which it has not disagreed on one point or other. Now it is for Christian critics to say to which sect that man who is supposed to have "taught" the Holy Prophet belonged and how he could teach him things which were against his own beliefs. Certainly the Prophet’s so-called helpers could not have helped him in abrogating the teachings of their own religious Scriptures.

3. It has corrected many Biblical statements. For instance, it declares that Aaron did not take part in the worship of the calf. It clears David, Solomon and Noah of the sinful acts ascribed to them in the Bible. These are facts to the truth of which even Christian writers have had to bear witness today when more than 1350 years have passed since these truths were, for the first time, proclaimed by the Quran. Surely, no Christian slave could teach the Prophet these historical truths.

4. The Quran has made some very important prophecies with regard to some of the events mentioned in the Bible. No Jewish or Christian sect had any knowledge of them. But their truth has now come to light. For instance, the Quran states that God preserved the body of Pharaoh so that it might be a sign for the generations to come. No Christian slave could impart this knowledge to the Prophet.

5. It appears from the traditions that the Holy Prophet used to visit Jabr’s shop in the fourth or fifth year of the Call, when he was boycotted by Meccans. But chapters 18, 19, 20 and 25 of the Quran which deal with Jews and Christians had been revealed before that time. Ibn Mas‘ud who was one of very early converts to Islam says that chapters 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 belong to the early Meccan period (Bukhari, Kitabut-Tafsir). All these Surahs abound in facts relating to Jews and Christians. How could the Prophet know these facts if the source of his information was the Christian slave, Jabr, the sword-cutter of Mecca?

6:145.

Commentary:

The opening sentence of the verse may have two interpretations: (a) "and say not on the basis of the falsehood which your tongues utter that this is lawful and this is unlawful"; (b) "and say not about the things which your tongues have falsely declared as lawful or unlawful that this is lawful and this is unlawful". The words "your tongues" mean, "the tongues of the chiefs of people", because it is the leaders who first utter lies; the common people only follow and imitate them.

The verse means to say that it is the exclusive prerogative of God to declare things lawful or unlawful and that if disbelievers do not desist from declaring things lawful or unlawful at will, they will end by forging lies against God. The words, those who forge a lie against Allah do not prosper, embody an infallible criterion by which the truth of a Prophet of God can be tested. A false claimant is a forger of lies against God and such a one can never succeed in his mission.

Important Words:

مبارك (blessed) is past part. from بارك which is again derived from برك which means, he or it was or became firm, steady; continued or stayed in a place; it (the night) was or became long or protracted. بارك علیه means he kept or applied himself constantly or perseveringly to it. اللھم بارك علی محمد means, O God! continue or perpetuate Thou to Muhammad the honour and eminence which Thou hast given him. بارك اللّٰه علیك او فیك means, may God bless thee continuously. بارك اللّٰه means, God is abundant in good or He exceeds everything and He is exalted above all things. ابترکت السماء means, the sky rained continually or incessantly or vehemently. برکة (birkatun) means, a pool; a pond; a place where water remains and collects.) برکة(barakatun) means, good; increase; abundance; abundant in continual good (Lane). See also 6:93.

Commentary:

In view of the different meanings of the root word برك the word مبارك possesses the sense of firmness, steadiness, continuity, abundance of good, exaltation and collection, etc. It is an epithet exclusively enjoyed by the Quran (6:93). No other Divine Scripture has been given this title. Even in other titles which the Quran possesses in common with other Divine Scriptures it exceeds them in degree, but Mubarak is its exclusive title and in this title lies its outstanding distinction. Being Mubarak, the Quran combines in itself all kinds of excellences. It is full of blessings which will continue to be bestowed upon its followers and which never decrease or diminish. There is no good which it does not possess in abundance and in which it does not excel other Holy Scriptures. Mankind will continue to benefit from its teaching till the end of time. This is not the case with other Scriptures. They are defunct. All life has departed from them. The very languages in which they were revealed are dead. But the Quran is a living Book. It shall live so long as mankind lasts and will continue to give light to a world groping in darkness.

35:13; 55:20, 21.

Important Words:

مرج (caused to flow) means, he mixed two things together. مرج الشیء بالشیء means, he mixed one thing with another. مرج الدابةmeans, he sent a beast to pasture wherever it would. They say مرج لسانه فی اعراض الناس i.e. he let go his tongue in abusing people and backbiting them. مرج البحرین means, He (God) has mixed the two seas; He has let them flow freely (Lane & Aqrab).

فرات (sweet) is derived from فرت (faruta). They say فرت الماء i.e. the water was or became sweet or very sweet. فرات applied to water means sweet, very sweet or of the sweetest kind that which subdues thirst by its excessive sweetness (Lane & Aqrab).

أجاج (bitter) is derived from أج . They say أجت النار i.e. the fire burned or burned brightly or fiercely. أج الماء means, the water was or became saltish or bitter. أجاج means, anything burning to the mouth whether saltish bitter or hot. ماء أجاج means, water that burns by its saltishness; or salt water or very bitter water like the water of the sea, or water of which no use is made for drinking or for watering seed-product or other purposes; or very hot water (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat). See also 21:97.

برزخ (partition) is a thing that intervenes between any two things; a bar; an obstruction; or a thing that separates two things i.e. a partition (Lane). See also 23:101.

Commentary:

Taking "two waters" in the verse to represent the true religion and the false one, the verse signifies that both Islam, the true religion, and other corrupted faiths will continue to exist side by side, the former yielding sweet fruit and slaking the thirst of the spiritual wayfarers and the latter barren and bitter, incapable of producing any good results.

The "two waters" may also signify the water of the sea and that of the river. The former is saltish and bitter to taste while the latter is drinkable and sweet. When the sweet water of the river flows into the sea and becomes mixed with its saltish water, it also becomes bitter. As long as these two waters keep themselves separate, they have different tastes. Similarly, when the teaching of a true religion becomes mixed up with the teachings of false religions, it loses its sweetness and usefulness. But God has so ordained that in spite of its close proximity to false religions Islam will never lose its sweet taste as God has taken upon Himself to protect and guard it (15:10). There is an unbridgeable barrier between the two which keeps them apart. Or the word بحر meaning both river and sea, the verse may signify that under the system instituted by God rivers are fed by rain and snow and their water is always fresh, and though they fall into the sea, sea water is always saltish and bitter. This is in effect an illustration of Divine guidance, which when it is constantly reinforced by fresh revelation remains fresh, sweet and life-giving, but when it becomes stale, it loses all value.

28:44.

20:114; 42:8; 43:4.

Commentary:

Verse 11 above referred to the appearance of a Prophet among the Ishmaelites. The present verse refers to Arabia as the scene of the advent of the Prophet who was to be the like of Moses and to the Book (the Quran) which was to fulfil the prophecies contained in the Book of Moses and which also was to supersede it. The relevant prophecy is as follows:

The burden upon Arabia. In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye travelling companies of Dedanim. The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty, they presented with their bread him that fled (Isaiah 21: 13-15).

See also 26:198.

90:2.

Commentary.

The Fig, the Olive, Mount Sinai and "this City of Security" have been invoked as witnesses to support and substantiate the claim made in the Surah that the Holy Prophet will succeed in his mission. Various views have been expressed as to what is meant by these things and how they support the above-mentioned claim. Here are some of these views:

1. "The Fig" and "the Olive" are symbolic of Jesus, "Mount Sinai" of Moses; and "this City of Security" of the Holy Prophet. These three verses together point to the well-known Biblical reference, viz. "The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir with them; and He shined forth from Mount Paran, and He came with ten thousands of saints: from His right hand went a fiery law for them. (Deut. 33:2).

2. "The Fig" is symbolic of the Mosaic Dispensation and "the Olive" of the Islamic Dispensation. In the Bible good people and the bad among the Israelites have been likened to two baskets of good and bad figs (Jer. chap. 24:1-5); and in the Quran Islamic teaching has been likened to "the oil of a blessed olive tree which is neither of the East nor of the West" (24:36). This simile has been further expressed in more concrete form by the words "Mount Sinai" and "this City of Security." The simile is very apt, since "the Fig" and "the Olive" are both used as medicines and as articles of food, with this difference that the former tastes sweet but rots very soon while the latter is used as fruit, its oil is in general use and when mixed with condiments it preserves and protects pickled articles from rotting and decaying.

3. According to some commentators "the Fig" stands for Buddhism, "the Olive" for Christianity, "Mount Sinai" for Judaism and "this City of Security" for the Holy Prophet of Islam.

4. But perhaps the best explanation of the symbolism used in these verses is the one according to which the four words represent four periods in the history of human evolution, "the Fig" representing the era of Adam, "the Olive" that of Noah, "Mount Sinai" that of Moses and "this City of Security" the Islamic epoch. This explanation finds ample support from the Bible and the Quran. When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and found themselves naked, they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons (Gen. 3:7). About Noah we read: "And the dove came in to him in the evening; and lo! in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off; so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth" (Gen. 8:11) And it is an accepted fact that Moses received the Divine Law on Mount Sinai and that Mecca, the birthplace of Islam was, from time immemorial, regarded as, and proved to be, the "City of Security." These four periods represent the four cycles through which man had to pass to reach the stage of complete development. In the cycle of Adam the foundations of human civilization were laid. Noah was the founder of the Shari‘ah. In the cycle of Moses the details of the Shari‘ah were revealed, while with the advent of the Holy Prophet the Divine Law became complete and perfect in all its manifold aspects, and man attained his complete intellectual, social, moral and spiritual development.

The verse signifies that the circumstances of the Holy Prophet resemble those of Adam, Noah and Moses. Like them he will suffer hardships in the beginning and like them will succeed in the end.