ٱلَّذِىٓ

Commentary:

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

2:186; 3:4; 8:42; 21:49; 25:2.

2:287; 5:7; 22:79.

22:38.

Important Words:

رمضان (Ramadan) is the name given to the ninth month of the lunar year. The word is derived from the verb رمض. They say رمض النھار i.e. the day became intensely hot. رمض الرجل means, the man had his feet burnt by the earth which had become intensely heated by the sun. رمض الصائم means, his inside became very hot with thirst owing to fasting. ارتمض من الحزن means, he began to burn, i.e. he was greatly distressed, with grief and sorrow. الرمض means, the first rain of autumn which finds the earth hot and burning (Aqrab & Lane). The month of رمضان is so named because (1) fasting in this month causes heat and burning due to thirst; (2) worship and devotion in this month burns away the traces of sin in man, this signification being corroborated by a saying of the Holy Prophet (‘Asakir and Merdawaih as quoted by Fathul-Qadir); and (3) its devotions produce in the heart of man the necessary warmth of love for his Creator and his fellow beings. The name رمضان is of Islamic origin, the former name of the month being ناتق (Muhit & Mawardi, as quoted by Fathul-Qadir).

القرآن (the Quran) is the name given by God Himself to the Book revealed to the Holy Prophet of Islam, containing the final Law for mankind. The word is derived from قرأ. They say قرأ الکتاب meaning: (1) he read the book, i.e. he read it to himself; or (2) he recited the book, i.e. he read it aloud so that others might hear it; قرأ also means, he conveyed or delivered a message, etc., as they say اقرأعلیه السلام meaning, convey or deliver my salam to him; (3) قرأ الشیء means, he collected or drew together the thing; (4) قرأت المراة means, the woman became pregnant and brought forth a child (Aqrab & Lane). Thus قرآن (Quran) means: (1) a book which is meant to be read. The Quran is indeed the most widely read book in the world (Enc. Brit. 11th edition, article on Koran by Nöldeke); (2) a book or message which is meant to be conveyed and delivered to other peoples. The Quran is indeed the only revealed Book whose delivery or message is absolutely unrestricted; for whereas all other Books are meant for specific times and specific peoples, the Quran is meant for all times and all peoples (34:29; also Bukhari); (3) a Book which comprises and has collected in itself all truth; the Quran is indeed a storehouse of knowledge which not only comprises all eternal truths revealed in previous Books (98:4) but also all such truths as mankind may stand in need of at any time and in any circumstances (18:50); (4) a Book which contains not only visible truth which may be seen and felt by all but, like a pregnant woman big with child, it contains truths that lie hidden from the eyes of most men and, like a newborn child, come to light only as and when time ripens (15:22). All these meanings are not only expressive of an existing state of affairs but also serve as mighty prophecies, the truth of which has been established in all ages.

Commentary:

The ground having been suitably prepared in the preceding two verses, this verse gives the awaited commandment about fasting. But even here the actual commandment is preceded by a suitable description of the month of Ramadan in which fasts were to be observed. The month was not chosen arbitrarily but was selected for the purpose of fasting because it was a sacred month in which the Quran was revealed. And the Quran is not an ordinary book. It is a Book full of right guidance and of bright Signs and of things that help to differentiate between truth and falsehood. This sublime foreword placed before the commandment about fasting contains an implied question to the effect: Will you not now fast when fasting is a tried thing, when it is so useful, when it is to be observed only for a few days, when even in these few days suitable facilities have been provided, and lastly when these few days correspond with a month which is full of blessings?

As hinted above, this verse mentions the reason for which the month of Ramadan was selected for the purpose of fasting. It was in this month that the Quran was revealed. The revelation of the Quran in the month of Ramadan may mean two things: (1) that the revelation of the Holy Book commenced in the month of Ramadan, for it is on record that it was on the 24th of Ramadan that the Holy Prophet received his first revelation (Musnad & Jarir); (2) that the revelation of the Quran was repeated to the Holy Prophet every year in the month of Ramadan, for it is also on record that the angel Gabriel rehearsed every year to the Holy Prophet the whole of the revealed portion of the Quran during this month and this he continued to do till the very year of the Prophet’s death (Bukhari, ch. on Manaqib). Thus in a way even the whole of the Quran may be said to have been sent down in Ramadan.

The words, clear proofs of guidance and discrimination, point out that the Quran is a Book which is not content with making mere assertions. It supports every assertion it makes with necessary reasons and arguments which are both clear and convincing, and it also adduces heavenly Signs which go to discriminate right from wrong with such clearness that they leave no room for doubt. This excellence belongs exclusively to the Quran. Indeed, other scriptures, too have been spoken of as "a light and guidance," but about none of them has it been said that they supply reasons, arguments and Signs in support of their assertions.

Although former Prophets also were given Signs that people might accept them as Divine Messengers, yet the Scriptures they brought contained nothing that might bear testimony to their truth. It is only the Quran that contains all kinds of evidence—rational, scriptural and heavenly—to demonstrate the truth of its teachings so that it might itself furnish necessary evidence of its truth, and that, unlike other scriptures, tales and stories of the past might not form its sole support.

The clause, let him fast therein, signifies that it is necessary to fast all the days of the month of Ramadan; it will not do to fast only for a few days. Thus, out of every twelve months in the year, at least one—that of Ramadan—must be so devoted to the worship of God.

The clause, whoso is sick or is on a journey, he shall fast the same number of other days, at first appears to be an unnecessary repetition of what has already been said in the preceding verse in identical words, but really it is not so; for whereas in the previous verse this clause formed part of a verse that was meant to prepare the ground for the commandment to fast, in this verse it forms part of the actual commandment. The clause signifies that if in the month of Ramadan one happens to be sick or is on a journey, one should not fast, owing to the extra hardship entailed, but should fast the same number of other days when one has recovered from sickness or when the journey is over. The Quran, however, wisely refrains from defining the terms "sickness" and "journey," leaving them to be defined by the common usage of the people.

The clause, He desires not hardship for you, points to the very important principle that divine commands are not meant to cause trouble or inconvenience but to afford ease and facility. In this connection it may well be noted that St. Paul looks upon the Law as an entanglement with "the yoke of bondage" if not as an actual curse (Gal. chs. 3 & 5). But he forgets that true freedom, and for that matter, true happiness lie only in willing obedience to a good and righteous legislation. The Islamic law, even "in meats and drinks and divers washings, and carnal ordinances," is a real help and guidance rather than a hindrance and a bondage.

The clause, so that you may complete the number, indicates that God’s purpose in prescribing a fixed number of days is that believers may be able to complete the number which, in His sight, is essential for their spiritual welfare. A fixed number was essential; for, otherwise, some people might have failed to fast even the minimum number, while others would have unduly suffered for doubt as to their having completed the necessary number even after they had long exceeded it.

The clause, that you may exalt Allah for His having guided you, points to yet another object underlying the commandment. All such expressions in which the offering of a particular praise to God is enjoined signify two things: (1) that man being God’s creation should continuously offer praise to Him, invoking the particular divine attribute that may suit the occasion; (2) that he should also try to reflect in his person the selfsame attribute of God. "Exalting God" would therefore mean not only God’s glorification but the uplift and exaltation of the devotee himself. In fact God stands in need of no praise. He is what He is whether we praise Him or not. So truly speaking, everything is for the benefit of man himself, and the benefit underlying fasting is the exaltation of man, morally and spiritually and, in a sense, physically as well.

The final clause, that you may be grateful, is also full of deep meaning. God is not cruel or unkind; He has due regard for our weaknesses and He does not put us to unnecessary trouble; and whatever seeming trouble He puts us to is for our own good. This kind and loving attitude of God towards us ought to give rise to a corresponding feeling of love for Him in our hearts and we ought to feel grateful to Him for His love and kindness.

To a superficial observer the language of the Quran as used in this verse might appear to be rather unconnected, forming independent clauses. But a closer study reveals a beautiful arrangement between them. In fact the four clauses in the concluding portion of this verse furnish reasons for the four commandments contained in the first portion of the verse, the succeeding reasons following the reversed order of the preceding commandments in a most natural manner. The first reason given by the verse is contained in the clause, Allah desires to give you facility and He desires not hardship for you. Though the apparent wording of this clause is different from the wordings of the succeeding clauses, actually it is also one of those that supply a reason, for in reality the clause stands like this, "that you be afforded facility, etc." Corresponding to this clause we have the last commandment of the verse, i.e. whoso is sick or is on a journey, etc. The second clause supplying a reason is, that you may complete the number, corresponding to which we have the commandment, whosoever of you is present at home in this month, let him fast therein, hinting that God means the Muslims to fast the whole month. The third clause supplying a reason is, that you may exalt Allah for His having guided you. Corresponding to this we have the words, a guidance for mankind, etc. Finally comes the clause, that you may be grateful, corresponding to which we have the clause, the month of Ramadan is that in which the Quran was sent down, hinting that the wise God has chosen the most sacred and the most blessed part of the year for fasting so that you may be doubly benefited by it. Such figure of speech in which parts of a sentence correspond with others occurring in the same sentence in a reverse order, the first clause of the former group corresponding with the last clause of the latter, is known in Arabic rhetoric as لف و نشر معکوس (Mutawwal).

11:2.

39:24.

7:54; 18:79.

4:163.

Important Words:

محکمات (decisive in meaning) is derived from احکم which again is derived from حکم which means, he decided or he judged; he prevented or restrained or withheld. احکمه means, he rendered it firm, stable and secure; he restrained it. Hence محکم means: (1) that which has been made secure from change or alteration; (2) that in which there is no ambiguity or possibility of doubt; (3) that which is clear in meaning and decisive in exposition (Aqrab, Mufradat & Lane).

ام (basis) is the noun-infinitive from ام (amma), i.e. he aimed at or sought or took himself to. ام possesses a variety of meanings some of which are: (1) mother; (2) source or origin or basis of a thing; (3) anything which is a means of sustenance and support or of reformation and correction for another; (4) anything to which other things surrounding it are linked (Aqrab & Mufradat).

متشابھات (susceptible of different interpretations) is the plural of متشابھة which is derived from شبه. They say شبھه به i.e. he made it to be like that; he likened it to that. شبه علیه الامر means, he rendered the affair confused or obscure or ambiguous to him. تشابه الرجلان means, the two men were so like each other that it was difficult to distinguish one from the other. متشابهmeans, mutually resembling. Thus the expressions متشابھه is used about (1) that phrase, sentence or verse which is susceptible of different, though concordant, interpretations; or (2) that whose parts resemble or are concordant with one another; or (3) that whose true significance bears a similarity to a sense which is not meant; or (4) that of which the true meaning is known only by referring it to what is termed محکم (decisive); or (5) that which cannot be rightly understood without repeated consideration (Aqrab, Lane & Mufradat).

زیغ (perversity) is the noun-infinitive from زاغ which means, he declined or deviated, or turned aside from the right course. So زیغ means, deviation from the truth or the right course; crookedness; doubt. ازاغه means, he made him deviate from the right course (Aqrab & Mufradat).

تاویله (its interpretation). تاویل is the noun-infinitive from اول which is derived from آل i.e. he or it turned or returned. اولهmeans, he caused it or him to turn or return. اول الکلام means, he interpreted or explained the speech or writing. اول الرؤیاmeans, he interpreted the dream. تاویل means, (1) interpretation or explanation; (2) conjecture about the meaning of a speech or writing; (3) turning away a speech or writing from its right interpretation; (4) interpretation of a dream; (5) end, result or sequel of a thing (Lane & Aqrab). In the present verse the word تاویل occurs twice, the first-mentioned تاویلgiving the second or the third meaning, while the second-mentioned gives the first or the fifth meaning.

الراسخون (firmly grounded) is the plural of الراسخ which is derived from رسخ i.e. he or it was or became firm, stable or established. رسخ الشیءmeans, the thing became firmly established. رسخ العلم فی قلبه means, knowledge became firmly established, or sank deep, in his heart. الراسخ فی العلم is one whose knowledge is extensive and deep-rooted, being firmly established and based on sure ground (Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

The verse, which was revealed when a party of Christians from Najran visited the Holy Prophet in Medina (Jarir), serves a fourfold purpose: (1) it gives the genesis of the later Christian doctrines and explains how the true original doctrines became perverted; (2) it tells how the critics of Islam, particularly the Christians, distort true Islamic teachings in order to find an excuse for attacking Islam; (3) it warns Muslims to take a lesson from the history of Christians; and (4) it supplies a sure and trustworthy principle of interpreting revealed Books, or, for that matter, any writing or speech, in a right manner.

What proved the perversion of the Christian faith was that expressions like "Son of God" etc. used metaphorically were taken literally and the simple and straightforward faith of Jesus was transformed out of all recognition, the متشابهbeing given the place of محکم.

Again, it is on record that when the party of Christians, referred to above, visited the Holy Prophet and had a discussion with him on the godhead of Jesus, they, like clever casuists, who when it suits their purpose tear a passage from its context and then base their arguments on it, asked the Holy Prophet if the words کلمة الله (word of God) and روح(spirit) were used about Jesus in the Quran, and, receiving an answer in the affirmative, joyfully exclaimed that the divinity of Jesus was thereby proved. They did not care to ponder over the explanation of these words in their context, which did not at all bear out the sense which they thought they possessed. It is to such objectionable practices that allusion is made in this verse, which lays down the golden rule that, in order to prove a controversial point, the decisive and clearly worded parts of a Scripture should be taken into consideration, and that if they are found to contradict the construction put upon a certain ambiguous passage quoted in support of an argument, that interpretation should be rejected and the passage should be so interpreted as to make it harmonize with the decisive and clearly worded parts of the text.

This golden rule should always be observed whenever it is required to interpret or explain a passage which is susceptible of several interpretations and is not easily comprehensible. Its observance is all the more necessary when a seemingly difficult and knotty verse of the Quran is sought to be explained. Any interpretation which clashes with other verses of the Quran and runs counter to the clearly worded parts thereof should be rejected and only that interpretation which is in harmony with its basic principles should be accepted.

According to the verse, the Quran has two sets of verses. Some are محکم (decisive in meaning) and others متشابه(capable of different interpretations). The right way to interpret a متشابه verse is that only such interpretation of it should be accepted as agrees with the verses that are محکم and all other interpretations should be dismissed as incorrect. It is on record that one day the Holy Prophet, on hearing people disputing about the interpretation of certain verses of the Quran, angrily said: "Thus were ruined those who have gone before you. They interpreted certain parts of their scriptures in such a manner as to make them contradict other parts. But the Quran has been so revealed that different parts of it should corroborate one another. So do not reject any truth by making one part contradict the other. Act on what you understand thereof and refer that which you do not understand to those who know and understand it" (Musnad).

The above hadith also refutes the theory of abrogation, for it speaks of the Quran as a Book of which all parts corroborate one another and condemns those who think that some of its verses contradict others. To Ahmad, the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, goes the credit of exploding the so-called abrogation theory. He and his disciples have given convincing explanations of those verses which were previously regarded as abrogated.

It may be noted here that in 39:24 the whole Quran is called متشابه and in 11:2 all the Quranic verses have been described as محکم. This should not be taken as contradicting the verse under comment, according to which some verses of the Quran are محکم and others متشابه. The apparent in-consistency is easily explained. So far as the real significance of the Quranic verses is concerned the whole of the Quran is محکم (decisive), inasmuch as all its verses contain decisive and eternal truths. In another sense, however, the whole of the Quran is متشابه inasmuch as the Quranic verses have been so worded as to give, at one and the same time, several meanings equally true and good. The Quran is also متشابه (i.e.mutually resembling) in the sense that there is no contradiction or inconsistency in it, its different verses affording support to one another. But parts of it are certainly محکم or متشابه for different readers according to their mental and spiritual capacities, as the present verse points out.

As regards prophecies, those that are couched in plain and direct language, susceptible of only one meaning, would be regarded as محکم and those that are described in figurative or metaphorical language, capable of more than one interpretation, would be regarded as متشابه. The prophecies described in metaphorical language should, therefore, be interpreted in the light of the prophecies that have been clearly and literally fulfilled and also in the light of the basic and fundamental principles of Islam. For an example of محکم prophecies, the reader is referred to 58:22; whereas 28:86 contains a متشابه prophecy.

The term محکم may also be applied to such verses as embody full and complete commandments while متشابه verses are those which give only part of a certain commandment, and require to be read in conjunction with other verses to make a complete injunction.

Moreover, محکمات (decisive verses) generally deal with the Law and the doctrines of Faith, while متشابھات generally deal with topics of secondary importance or describe incidents in the lives of Prophets or the history of peoples and, while so doing, sometimes make use of idioms and phrases capable of different meanings. Such verses should not be so interpreted as to contradict the clear-worded tenets of the Faith.

The Arabic clause which has been translated as and none knows its right interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge; they say, ‘We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord', may be rendered in two ways, according as the pause is made after the word الله (Allah) or after the word العلم (knowledge). If the pause is made after العلم (knowledge), the clause would be translated as above and the term would in this case apply to verses pertaining to events of the past or verses containing general exhortation. If, however, the pause is made after الله (Allah), the term متشابھات would refer to prophecies of which the real interpretation is known to God only. In this case the clause would be translated as, "and none knows its interpretation except Allah; and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say, "We believe in it, the whole is from our Lord". Grammatically, both constructions are correct.

Finally, it may be noted that the use of metaphors, the main basis of متشابھات verses, in religious scriptures is necessary; (1) to assure vastness of meaning in the fewest of words; (2) to add beauty and grace to the style; and (3) to provide for the people a trial (ابتلاء) without which spiritual development and perfection is not possible.

2:5, 137; 4:163; 5:60.

4:151.

4:117.

Commentary:

In the clause: O ye who believe, believe in Allah and His Messenger… the first-mentioned belief refers to lip-profession and the second to true and genuine belief which really matters. The words thus show that sometimes expressions like "O ye who believe" or "believers" may be used for those who profess to be believers in Islam but do not live up to its teachings by carrying out faithfully its precepts into practice. Their assertion is a mere lip-profession that carries no weight.

2:169; 8:70; 16:115.

5:2, 96.

Commentary:

The word بحر (sea) here includes rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, etc. See 7:139.

As during the time of Pilgrimage, hunting on land is likely to prove inconvenient and even dangerous to pilgrims visiting the Ka‘bah, whereas the catching of sea-game does not interfere with traffic, so the former has been prohibited and the latter allowed.

4:78; 22:79; 24:57.

Commentary:

The concluding theme of the preceding verse has been continued in the present one.

4:3; 7:190; 39:7.

11:7.

Important Words:

انشأکم (has produced you). The word انشأ is derived from نشأ which means, he lived; he rose or became high or elevated; he grew up; it became produced or originated. انشأ means, he created, produced or originated; he raised or lifted (Lane).

مستقر (home) is derived from; قر which means he or it settled or became firm or fixed or established; or he or it remained or continued in a place; or he or it rested; or he or it became still or quiet or stationary. استقر gives the same meaning as above. It also means, it subsisted. مستقر means, place or time of settledness; or of permanence and continuance, i.e. home; also a resting place (Lane).

مستودع (lodging) is derived from ودع (wada‘a) or ودع (wadu‘a) which means, he or it became still, quiet or at rest. ودع الشیء(wada‘a) means, he left off the thing. ودع عندہ مالا means, he left the property with him as a deposit. ودعه (wadda‘a-hu) means, he bade him farewell; he forsook or deserted him. استودعه مالا means, he entrusted him with property for safe custody. مستودع means, a depository; a place of safety or security; womb or the part of the body in which the child lies before its birth (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The expressions مستقر (home) and مستودع (lodging) besides giving distinct and independent meanings are also sometimes used to give identical meanings, being interchangeable. The Quran says ونقر فی الارحام مانشاء i.e. And We cause what We will to remain in the wombs (22:6). Again it says ولکم فی الارض مستقر i.e. and for you there is an abode in the earth (2:37). From these two verses it appears that according to the Quran, "the womb" of the mother and "the earth", though places of temporary residence, are each a مستقر i.e. a resting-place or a home for men. Corresponding to these, "the womb" may be called a مستودع i.e. a lodging or a depository. The next world is truly a مستقر i.e. a home for man. In fact, these are really relative terms, the same place being both a مستقر and a مستودع in reference to different things. Again, a place may be called a مستقر(home) because one stays therein, and it may be called a مستودع (lodging) because it provides security.

The verse signifies that when God has multiplied humanity out of one individual, it could not be without a purpose. The great object for which He has created and multiplied human beings is that He has appointed for them not only a period of residence on this earth but also an everlasting life beyond the grave where the righteous will meet the Lord—a lofty goal to which they can rise under the guidance of Divine Messengers.

14:33; 16:11; 22:64; 35:28.

6:142; 13:5.

Important Words:

متراکبا (clustered) is derived from رکب. They say رکبه i.e. he rode it or mounted it; it got upon it or it became superincumbent upon it. تراکب means, it lay one part upon another; it was or became heaped or piled up. So متراکب means, piled or clustered together one above another (Aqrab).

طلع (sheaths) is from the verb طلع (tala‘a), i.e., he or it rose or appeared or came forth. طلع is what comes forth from the palm tree and becomes dates; the spathe or flowers of the palm tree (Lane).

قنوان (bunches) is the plural of قنو which is derived from قنا . They say قنا المال i.e. he acquired and amassed property for himself. قنو means, a bunch of dates (Aqrab).

ینعه (the ripening thereof). ینع is from the verb ینع (yana‘a). They say ینع الثمر i.e. the fruit became ripened and fit for gathering; it (fruit, etc.) became red. یانع means, the ripe fruit. ینع is both the noun-infinitive from the verb ینع (yana‘a) in which case it means the ripening of a fruit, and the plural of یانع in which case it means the ripe fruits (Aqrab).

Commentary:

In this verse revelation is likened to rainwater and the verse answers the question why there is discord and strife at the advent of Prophets, if revelation is indeed a blessing. The verse says that just as by rainwater all kinds of vegetation grow up, both bad and good, according to the seeds lying concealed in the earth, similarly at the advent of Divine revelation, men, so far remaining mixed up, become divided into good and bad. The good ones accept the Messenger of God, help him and become pious and holy, like trees which bear good fruit or like shrubs which bring forth beautiful flowers or like herbs which give out a sweet odour; but there are others—the bad ones—who oppose the Prophet, persecute his followers and act corruptly in the earth. These are like trees which bear bitter fruit or like flowerless and thorny bushes or like plants and herbs which give out a bad smell.

The words مشتبھا و غیر متشابه (similar and dissimilar) imply that whereas some fruits resemble each other, some differ from others. This may apply either to fruits of different kinds, which resemble one another in certain respects and differ in others, or to fruits of the same kind which, although resembling one another in the main points, differ from one another in minor details, some tasting sweeter than others and some varying in colour or size. The same is the case with those who believe in the Prophets and follow Divine guidance. Although they bear great resemblance to one another, yet there are differences between them, some being morally and spiritually more advanced than others. Again, some are advanced in one phase of spiritual growth, while others are advanced in another. Among the Companions of the Holy Prophet, too, we see that one became an Abu Bakr, another an ‘Umar, and another an ‘Uthman and yet another an ‘Aliand so on. They attained to different stages of spirituality and developed different phases, according to their respective natural capacities and dispositions.

The words, the ripening thereof, refer to an implied objection that might be raised by the deniers of revelation––namely, that even those who accept Divine revelation do not all become pure and holy. The above-quoted words answer this objection by pointing to the analogy of the ripening of fruit. The people are asked first to note the condition of fruits when they are yet unripe and then see how sweet and delicious they become after becoming ripe. Just as it is unfair to judge a fruit by an unripe specimen, similarly, it is unfair to find fault with the fruits of revelation on the basis of such individuals as are yet in the process of development and have not attained to perfection. The verse points out that in the beginning there are bound to be weaknesses and shortcomings even in believers, just as there is bound to be sourness in the taste of an unripe or undeveloped fruit. So it is not just to deny the usefulness of revelation on the basis of weaknesses that are to be met with in believers whose spiritual condition is not yet fully developed.

The verse most beautifully draws attention to three important points that can be deduced from the analogy of the various kinds of vegetation that grow as a result of rain: (1) that rain brings forth both good and bad vegetation (believers and disbelievers); (2) that even in good fruits (believers) some variety is to be found, i.e. points of similarity and dissimilarity; and (3) that in the early stage of development even good fruits are not sweet and may even be sour.

7:53; 12:112; 16:90.

2:147; 6:21.

Commentary:

The words, Shall I seek for judge other than Allah, illustrate how wicked leaders bring forward gilded speech and fallacious reasoning against the Prophets. They try to turn away the attention of men from the revealed Scriptures which bear testimony to the truth of a Prophet and bring forward doubtful traditions and quotations from religious writings of human authors in support of their false notions. Or, as sometimes happens, they propose the names of certain persons to act as judges and to give their verdict after hearing the arguments of both sides. As the Prophets of God have to expose the errors of all parties, therefore, wicked leaders are sure that the judges, influenced by the general opposition to the Prophets, will give their verdict against them. So the Quran makes the Holy Prophet emphatically declare, Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? i.e. in religious matters none beside Allah can be taken as judge. The writings of theologians cannot make us dispense with the revealed Word of God, nor can any human being act as judge in matters pertaining to faith. Allah alone can act as judge and His word alone can guide to the truth.

Now the question arises, How does Allah or His word act as judge? The question is answered by the verse in the words: And those to whom We gave the Book know that it has been sent down from thy Lord with truth. This means that the Quran has come in accordance with, and in fulfilment of the prophecies contained in the previous Scriptures and, as none knows the secrets of the future save God, so the Quran must be accepted as proceeding from Him. The previous Scriptures contain clear prophecies concerning the Holy Prophet and these prophecies bear testimony to his truth and the truth of the Quran; hence, those who have been given a knowledge of the Book and consequently of the prophecies contained therein should know that the Holy Prophet of Islam is a true Prophet and that the revelation that has been sent down to him is a true revelation. It is thus that God acts as judge.

The word "Book" in the clause, those to whom We gave the Book, may also refer to the Quran; for not only the previous Word of God, but also the Quran itself, bears testimony to the Holy Prophet. The Quran contains teachings which run counter to the views and beliefs current among the nations of the world; yet every opponent before whom these teachings are rehearsed and explained is compelled to acknowledge their great reasonableness and superiority. Again, not only were these teachings accepted by thousands in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet but those who believed in them were so convinced of their truth that they were prepared to lay down their lives rather than give up these teachings. So the very lives of the Companions of the Holy Prophet bore witness to the truth of the Quran. A Book which is possessed of such spiritual power cannot be rejected as false.

The last words of the verse, i.e. be thou not of those who doubt, refer to the reader, and not to the Holy Prophet. When the previous Scriptures as well as the Quran bear unmistakable testimony to the truth of the Holy Prophet and of the revelation that has been sent down to him, then no one is justified in entertaining doubt concerning them.

7:39-40; 10:29; 34:32.

Important Words:

معشر (company) is derived from عشر. They say عشر المال i.e. he took one-tenth of the property. عشرھم means, he took one from among them, they being ten. عشرة and عشر mean, ten. معشر means, a company; a collective body; a community; a family. It is so called because a company or community consists of many individuals, the word عشرة (ten) being that large and perfect number after which there is no number but what is composed of the units comprised in it (Lane).

الجن (jinn) is derived from جن (janna). They say جنه i.e. he veiled, concealed, hid, covered or protected him or it. That is the primary significance which is retained in all the derivations of the word. Thus a garden is known as جنة (jannat) because its trees cover or conceal the ground. A child in its mother’s womb is known as جنن because it lies concealed in the womb. The heart is known as جنان because it lies concealed in the bosom. A grave is known as جنن because it conceals the dead body. The piece of cloth worn by a woman is known as جنة (junnah) because it covers her head and bosom. A shield is known مجنة as because it covers and protects the fighter. Madness or insanity is known as جنون because it obscures and, as it were, veils the faculty of reason. A serpent is known as جان because it generally lies concealed in holes or dark corners. Similarly, جن (jinn) are so called because they are considered to be invisible bodies concealed from human sight. جن also means the prime or first part of a thing, probably because it covers or conceals the main body that follows (Lisan & Taj). For a fuller discussion of the word and an explanation of the jinn see note on 15:28. See also 6:101.

استکثرتم (you sought to make subservient to yourselves a great many) is derived from کثر which means, it was or became much or abundant or many or numerous. استکثر من الشیء means, he desired or wished much of the thing; or he reckoned it much, abundant or many (Lane). استکثرتم منھم signifies, you have misled many of them; or you have made many of them follow you; or you have made them subservient to yourselves (Kashshaf).

مثوی (abode) is derived from ثوی. They say ثوی بالمکان i.e. he remained, stayed, or abode in the place; or he stayed or dwelt long in it; he settled in the place; he alighted at the place. So مثوی means, a place where one remains, stays, dwells or abides; an abode or a dwelling; a place of alighting (Lane).

Commentary:

The verse definitely proves that at least here the Quran does not use the word jinn to signify a species other than mankind. The very words and the only possible signification of the verse contradict that sense. The word as used in this verse, which thus holds a sort of key position, cannot but mean great and powerful men as opposed to the weak and poor classes. The word جن as shown under Important Words is derived from a root which means to hide or conceal. As the beings properly known as jinn are hidden from the eyes of men, therefore, they have been called جن. The great men have also been called jinn because they very rarely mix with the general public and remain, as it were, hidden from them.

The sentence قد استکثرتم من الانس (you have sought to make subservient to yourselves a great many from among men) has two meanings: (1) you have taken to yourselves many from among the masses, i.e. you have won them over to your side and made them follow you and have thus misled them; (2) you have reckoned the masses to be many (as against God), i.e. you have attached more importance to the masses than to God; you did not accept the truth out of fear of the masses, lest they should desert you and cease to hold you in honour. It is indeed strange that just as the weak do not sometimes accept the truth out of fear of the great, lest they should inflict loss or pain on them, similarly the great are sometimes afraid of their humbler followers and do not accept the truth, fearing lest the latter should turn away from them and desert them. Heraclius, for instance, was convinced of the truth of the Holy Prophet but did not openly acknowledge it out of the fear of his subjects who, he thought, were bitterly opposed to Islam and would rebel against him, if he declared his faith (Bukhari).

The words, we profited from one another, imply that the friendships of disbelievers are also transitory and that they will fall out among themselves on the Day of Judgement. The poor will say: "We led lives of humiliation in subjection to the big ones who derived profit from us. So, o Lord, inflict upon them a double punishment." This also shows that the word jinn, here, does not refer to any creatures separate from human beings but to a special class of men; for if taken in that sense the above-quoted words cannot apply to them, for human beings do not profit from the genii nor the genii from human beings. It is only one class of man that profits by the other, i.e. the great profit by the poor and vice versa.

The words, The Fire is your abode, are addressed to the humble class of people who pleaded that they were merely tools in the hands of the great. They are told that no pleading can do them any good now, and that they must enter the Fire and remain there until God is pleased to deliver them therefrom. Both the big and the poor are alike guilty.

6:3; 15:27; 37:12.

Commentary:

In this and the next few verses an illustration is given of how Islam from its very small beginnings will, as the result of its present renaissance, spread and become a mighty force. The illustration is to be found in the creation of man. Man’s origin is from mere clay and after going through a long process of development he is born a full-fledged human being, the apex and pride of the whole creation. In the same way, the verse implies that Islam will rise from its present very insignificant beginnings and will march from strength to strength. For a detailed explanation of how, starting from mere earth or clay and going through different stages of evolution, man takes his birth, see. 23:13, 15.

6:100; 13:5; 16:12; 35:28; 36:35-36.

Important Words:

معروشات (trellised) is the plural of معروشة and is derived from عرش which means, he built or constructed a frame work or a trellis for supporting grapevines; or he built a shed or an enclosure, etc. So معروشة means, furnished with or trained on trellises. They say کروم معروشات i.e. grapevines furnished with or trained on trellises which are a framework for supporting the vines. عریش means, structure or trellis made for supporting grapevines; an enclosure made for beasts to protect them from cold. عرش means, a shed or booth, etc. constructed for shade; a hut; a house or a dwelling; the roof of a house; a throne (Lane).

حصاد (harvest) is derived from حصد i.e. he reaped or cut a seed-produce or herbage, etc. حصید means, reaped produce; حصادmeans time or season of reaping; also fruit or produce (Lane).

Commentary:

In the foregoing verses the Quran referred to some of the laws which pagan Arabs, unaided by Divine revelation, haddevised for themselves. Now, the Quran proceeds to give some of its own laws, so that the reader may contrast them with the man-made laws alluded to above. One of the man-made laws pertained to the fruits of the earth (6:141 above). Therefore, the Quran gives here its laws about these. It declares them to be lawful and pure, subject only to the condition that in eating them we should "not exceed the bounds", i.e. we should only eat as much of them as is not injurious to our health and morals.

The pronoun in the words حقه (His due) may either refer to God, or to ثـمر (fruit). In the former case, the sentence would mean that on the day of reaping we should give what is due to God as alms. In the latter case, it would mean that on the day of reaping we should give as charity a portion of the fruit which is in the nature of something due against it in order to make it pure.

It may be noted here that there are two kinds of charity in Islam–– obligatory and optional. But as, according to the practice and sayings of the Holy Prophet, زکاة i.e. obligatory charity or legal alms, is not due from all the fruits named in the verse but only from the fruit of the palm tree, so if it is the obligatory charity that is meant here, then the commandment to "pay His due" will apply only to the fruit of palm trees. It is, however, better to take the verse as referring to optional charity which may be given from all kinds of fruits. The use of the imperative mood in the words "pay His due" does not necessarily make it an obligatory command, for this form of the verb is also freely used in the Quran for the purpose of exhortation. This interpretation is in keeping with the practice of the Holy Prophet’s Companions who were in the habit of setting apart a portion of their produce for the poor, and such is also the practice of pious Muslims today.

2:54; 5:45.

7:146.

Important Words:

تماما (completing) is the noun-infinitive from تم. They say تم الشیء i.e. the thing was or became complete or entire or full or perfect or free from deficiency. تم الی کذا means, he reached or repaired to or came to such a thing. تم علیه means, he performed or executed it; or he accomplished it. اتم from which the infinitive is اتمام means, he made (a thing) complete or entire or full, etc. (Lane). For the sake of convenience the word تماما has been rendered in the verse as "completing".

Commentary:

In some of the previous verses the Quran referred to the diverse paths which, when followed, lead away from God’s way. Here we are told that when there come into existence diverse paths, then God sends a Messenger to remove differences and appoints one way for all. Then it becomes incumbent on all to follow that path. This is what is meant by the words, We gave Moses the Book.

The expression الذی احسن (him who did good) refers to Moses. Thus, the sentence means that the Book was revealed to Moses to complete divine favours upon him. The words احسن الذی (him who did good) may also be taken in the general sense, meaning "any person who did good." In that case the sentence would mean that the Book was revealed so that those who were righteous and did good, might have divine favours completed upon them.

The words کل شیء (all things) are not absolute but refer to the things the explanation of which was needed in the days of Moses, the words meaning that the Book given to Moses fulfilled all the needs of the time.

The verse mentions four things as the objects of a revealed Book: (1) That God desires to complete His favour by means of it. (2) That it embodies all the commandments that are needed for the period of time for which it is meant, (3) That it contains the means for guiding men to the right path. (4) That it is a mercy, i.e. those who follow it receive blessings from God.

29:49; 42:53; 62:3.

48:30.

See 3:105.

Important Words:

امی (Immaculate One) is derived from ام. They say امه i.e. he repaired to it; or he aimed at or sought after it; or he endeavoured to get it. ماکنت اما ولقد اممت means, thou wast not a mother, but thou hast come to be sought like a mother. امیmeans, belonging to or pertaining to the mother, i.e. as innocent as a child at the breast of its mother. The word also means, one not having a revealed Scripture, parti-cularly an Arab; one who does not know the art of reading or writing; one belonging to Mecca which was known as ام القری i.e. the mother of towns. See also 3:21.

اغلال (shackles) is the plural of غل (ghullun) which is derived from غل (ghalla). They say غل فلانا i.e. he put upon the neck or the hand of such a one a collar or a manacle, etc. غل, therefore, means, a ring or collar of iron put upon the neck; a shackle for the neck or the hand; a pinion or manacle for the hand; a shackle of iron collecting together the two hands to the neck; a difficult and fatiguing work. The Arabs say ھذاغل فی عنقك i.e. this is tied to your neck, meaning, it is inseparable from you and the punishment of it will stick to you (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse qualifies and explains the last sentence of the previous verse, viz. those who believe in Our Signs.

The verse puts the words "Messenger" and "Prophet" side by side which may lead some to think that one may be a Messenger without being a Prophet or vice versa. But this is not so. A رسول (Messenger) of God is also a نبی (Prophet) of God. The former epithet is applied to him in his relation to God from Whom he brings a message, while the latter is applied to him in his relation to men to whom he conveys that message, the word نبی (Prophet) meaning, one who prophesies, or makes known hidden secrets.

The word امی (Ummi) literally means "belonging to the mother", i.e. as innocent as a newborn child. The Promised Prophet, who is none other than the Holy Prophet of Islam, has been called امی because he was to be innocent like a child at the breast of its mother. The word has also been translated as "illiterate" or "one belonging to Mecca" or "an Arab", but "innocent" or "immaculate" is a preferable rendering, inasmuch as it is in keeping with the sense of the prophecy contained in Deut. 18:18-22 to which this verse particularly refers and wherein truthfulness has been mentioned as a distinctive feature of the Promised Prophet. For some of the prophecies of the Bible about the Holy Prophet see under 2:42 and also Matt. 23:39; John 14:16, 26; 16:7-14; Acts 3:21-24.

If the word امی be taken in the sense of "unlettered", the verse would signify that although the Prophet had received no education whatever and was quite unread and illiterate, yet God vouchsafed to him such knowledge as can impart light and guidance even to those who are considered to be most advanced in learning and enlightenment.

The illiteracy (امیة) of the Holy Prophet, mentioned in this verse and believed to have also been hinted at in 10:17, has been subjected to much hostile criticism. George Sale, a well-known Christian commentator of the Quran, writes as follows: "For so old was Muhammad before he took upon him to be a Prophet, during which time his fellow-citizens well knew that he had not applied himself to learning of any sort, nor frequented learned men, nor had ever exercised himself in composing verses or orations, whereby he might acquire the art of rhetoric or elegance of speech" (Prelim. Disc, Section II).

Referring to this view of Sale, another Christian commentator of the Quran, the Rev. E. M. Wherry, says:

"This view, however, does not agree with what is recorded of his previous career. Is it likely that he should have been trained in the same household with ‘Ali, who knew both how to read and write, and not have received similar instruction? Could he have conducted an important mercantile business for years without some knowledge of letters? That he could read and write in later years is certain. Tradition tells us, he said to Mu‘awiyah, one of his secretaries: 'Draw the ب straight, divide the س properly', etc., and that in his last moments he called for writing materials. The question arises, when did he acquire this art? The commentators say that God gave him the power, as he did his inspiration, and they quote chap. xcvi. 4, one of the earliest verses of the Quran, in proof. Certainly that verse seems to teach clearly that he could write as well as read, though it by no means teaches that he had not received the knowledge of both beforehand, or that he did not receive it in the ordinary way. His use of amanuenses does not militate against his knowledge of the art of writing, for such use of amanuenses was common in that age, even among the most learned. But still there remains the testimony of many traditions and the almost universal belief of Muhammadans. How account for this? I am inclined to think it originated with a misunderstanding of Muhammad’s repeated claim that he was the "Illiterate Prophet", or rather the "Prophet of the Illiterate", the term "illiterate" being generally applied by the Jews to the Arabs. See notes on chap. v. 85, 86. This misunderstanding turned out to the furtherance of Muhammad’s claims, inasmuch as the miracle of the matchless style of the Quran was enhanced by the consideration that the Prophet was illiterate. On the whole, we think there is very good reason for believing Muhammad to have been acquainted with the art of both reading and writing from an early period in his life" (Commentary of the Quran, ii. 326).

The above constitutes the gist of Wherry’s criticism of the generally accepted view that the Holy Prophet was امی or illiterate. But this contention seems to possess no substance. It is indeed a poor argument to say that because the Prophet "had been trained in the same house with ‘Ali, who knew both how to read and write", therefore he should also have learnt reading and writing. It only betrays ignorance of elementary facts of the Holy Prophet’s life on the part of the reverend gentleman. Even a desultory acquaintance with the life history of the Holy Prophet should make one know that ‘Ali and the Holy Prophet could not be brought up together. There was a great difference between the ages of the two. The Prophet was no less than 29 years older than ‘Ali; therefore, it was impossible for the two to be trained and brought up together.

Those whom prejudice against the Holy Prophet has not blinded to the patent facts of history know that, let alone the Prophet being educated and trained together with ‘Ali, which the great disparity in their ages evidently obviated, it was ‘Ali who got his training in the house and under the fostering care of the Holy Prophet (Hisham). Abu Talib in whose house the Holy Prophet was brought up was a man of very meagre means. He did not know the value of learning and knowledge nor was their possession regarded as an asset and acquisition in his time. The Holy Prophet, therefore, remained illiterate in his house. But ‘Ali was brought up in the house of the Holy Prophet himself, whose marriage with Khadijah, a wealthy lady of great repute, had placed ample means at his disposal. The Prophet also fully realized how priceless a thing good education was. So under his benign care and ennobling influence, ‘Ali, judged by the standards of that time, naturally grew up to be a young man of good education.

Wherry’s second objection is that if the Holy Prophet had been illiterate and did not know how to read and write, he could not have proved such a successful business man as he actually was. This objection is born of the mistaken concept of a good and successful Arab business man of the Prophet’s time. Judging by the present European standards of a successful business man, Wherry thought that lack of education and success in business could not go together. He would not have made this objection if he had known that in Asia even in the present twentieth century, highly successful business men are to be found who have not received even elementary education. In Mecca, in the Holy Prophet’s time, education was not much in favour. There were very few persons there who could read and write, though hundreds carried on most successful and flourishing business. Education was not at that time regarded in Arabia as the sine qua non of a good business man. Moreover, the fact that Khadijah had given the Prophet, a slave named Maisara who knew reading and writing and who always accompanied him on his trade journeys, knocks the bottom out of Wherry’s objection.

The tradition which says that the Holy Prophet had once asked Mu‘awiyah to write correctly the letters ب and س does not seem to be quite reliable. In the ‘Abbasid period many traditions derogatory to the Umayyads were forged. This tradition seeks to show off Mu‘awiyah, a prominent member of the distinguished House of Umayyah, as a man of very poor education who could not even write properly such simple letters as ب and س. Even, however, if this tradition be proved to be reliable, it does not show that the Holy Prophet was literate, because he had become so used to dictating the Quran that it was not impossible for him to have become familiar with the general form of letters and to give instruction regarding an improperly written word. It is also possible that someone, while rehearsing some portion of the Quran to the Prophet, might have stopped at a certain place, not being able to decipher the writing, and the Holy Prophet having asked the cause of stopping, the reader might have replied that the delay was due to the letters ب and سnot having been written properly or legibly. This might have led the Holy Prophet to instruct Mu‘awiyah to see that the letters were written correctly.

The fact that the Holy Prophet sent for pen and paper in the last moments of his life also lends no support to Wherry’s assumption. It is an established fact of history that whenever any verse was revealed, the Holy Prophet used to send for pen and paper and dictate to one of his scribes what had been revealed to him. The mere sending for pen and paper cannot, therefore, prove that the Holy Prophet himself knew how to read and write.

Nor do the words, referred to by Wherry in support of his contention viz. "read in the name of thy Lord", prove anything. The Arabic word اقرء (read) used in the verse referred to above not only means the reading of a written thing, but also repeating and rehearsing what one hears from another person. Again, the words ھویحسن القراءة (i.e. he recites well) occurring in a tradition can be spoken of even of a blind man who can recite the Quran properly and well. Moreover, the Hadith establishes the fact that when, at the time of the first revelation, the angel Gabriel said to the Prophet اقرء(read), no writing was actually placed before him to read. He was simply asked to repeat orally what the angel was reciting to him. The word قراءة not only means to read a writing but to repeat orally or recite or rehearse what another man has uttered.

Wherry’s inference that the idea that the Holy Prophet could not read or write originated with a misunderstanding of his repeated claim that he was the "Illiterate Prophet", is as strange as it is ill-based. It is really very surprising to say that those with whom he had lived day and night for years could not find out that he was illiterate but were misled into this belief only by his own repeated claim that he was امی (illiterate). Only a man of Wherry’s hostile attitude could come to such a conclusion. The question is whether it was the Prophet’s own contempor-aries who suffered from this misunderstanding or those who came afterwards. If it were the former, then the question would naturally arise how those, who saw him daily with their own eyes reading and writing, could possibly fall victims to the glaring misunderstanding that he was illiterate. If it were the latter class, even then the whole theory of misunderstanding advanced by Wherry looks frivolous, because the argument put forward by him is that because the Holy Prophet was considered to be illiterate, therefore, the matchless style of the Quran was regarded as a miracle. This inference is both foolish and flimsy, inasmuch as Muslims and other contemporaries of the Prophet, who were fully aware that he knew quite well how to read and write, could never believe in such a miracle.

Wherry’s last argument in support of his contention, that "his (the Holy Prophet’s) use of amanuenses does not militate against his knowledge of the art of writing, for such use of amanuenses was common in that age, even among the most learned," betrays his ignorance of Arab and Islamic history. The fact is that there were no ulema or learned men among the Arabs in the time of the Holy Prophet in the sense in which this word is understood now, nor were they used to keeping amanuenses and scribes. There is no instance on record of an amanuensis having been kept by an Arab. We know of only one learned man among the Meccans in the Prophet’s time, viz. Waraqah bin Naufal, and he was his own secretary. It is a pity that in their zeal for misrepresenting Islam, some Christian writers do not even hesitate to invent historical facts.

The words, and remove from them their burden and shackles, occurring in the latter part of the verse, contain a hint that by accepting the Promised Prophet Christians will get rid of the curse of the original sin of Adam and Eve and of the punishment thereof which, according to them, has dogged their footsteps through no fault of theirs.

Important Words:

انسلخ (stepped away) is derived from سلخ. They say سلخ جلدھا i.e. he stripped off its skin. سلخت عنھا قمیصھا means, I pulled off or stripped off her shirt. سلخنا الشھر means, we passed the month, or passed forth from the month. One would say سلخ النبات i.e. the plant shed its foliage and became leafless and then became green again. انسلخ means, he or it became stripped, or he or it passed, or he quitted a thing entirely. They say انسلخت الحیة من قشرھا i.e. the serpent came off, or divested itself of, its slough. انسلخ منه means, he or it became altogether separated from it; or he or it quitted it entirely (Lane & Aqrab).

اتبعه (followed him up). اتبع is derived from تبع. They say تبعه i.e. he followed him or it, or he went or walked after him or it. اتبع besides giving the causative sense is also used like تبع in the sense of following. They say اتبعه i.e. he followed his footsteps; he sought him; also he overtook him (Lane).

Commentary:

The verse does not refer to any particular individual but may apply to all persons to whom God shows signs through a Prophet and who reject them. Similar expressions which do not refer to any particular individual, but are of general application, also occur elsewhere in the Quran (e.g. 2:18). The verse under comment has been applied to one Bal‘am bin Ba‘ura who, it is related, lived in the time of Moses. He is reported to have been a virtuous man, but pride turned his head and he ended in disgrace. But the verse also aptly describes also the case of Abu Jahl who had clearly seen and even admitted the truth of the Holy Prophet, but proudly and scornfully remarked that his people had never owed allegiance to the house of ‘Abd Manaf, a progenitor of the Holy Prophet. The verse may equally apply to ‘Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul, the arch-hypocrite, who witnessed many signs establishing the truth of the Holy Prophet and even apparently professed his faith in him, but at heart ever remained his implacable enemy.

8:65.

Commentary:

An offer of peace by the enemy must be accepted, even if there is the risk of his playing false. See note on the preceding verse.

48:29; 61:10.

Commentary:

The previous verse ends with the word کافرون (disbelievers), while the present verse ends with the word مشرکون (idolaters). Christians are کافر because they disbelieve in the Holy Prophet of Islam and they are مشرک because they associate co-partners with God. The difference is significant in another way also. The word کافرون (used in the preceding verse) is derived from کفر which literally means "to cover." The Quran has used this word to explain the fact that the "light" of God cannot be extinguished by those who try to cover it. In the present verse the word مشرکون (idolaters) has been used to point to the fact that while in the case of God, Christians do not refrain from associating co-partners with Him (thereby implying that His attributes can be shared by others), in their own case they cannot bear to see the favour of prophethood, which they enjoy, shared by others. They cannot reconcile themselves to the idea that Prophets may be raised among any other people, as they have been raised among them. The verse thus tells them that God has caused others to share the gift of prophethood with them, whether they like it or not.

The promise that God would make Islam prevail over every other religion stands for all time. The promise was fulfilled when in its early history Islam triumphed over all peoples, including Christians and the fulfilment of this promise is going to be repeated in the present age, when God has raised the Promised Messiah, Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, to serve and help the cause of Islam. This triumph is going to be complete and permanent. In fact, most commentators (e.g. Bayan), agree that the final and perfect fulfilment of this promise, as made in the present verse, is to take place at the time of the second advent of Jesus.

Commentary:

When a believer has gone through the three stages of spiritual development mentioned in v. 33 above, all fear of faltering or falling disappears. His spiritual future becomes safe. This state of mind of a true believer is described elsewhere in the Quran in the words لا خوف علیھم ولاھم یحزنون i.e. they will not grieve over their past failures, if any, nor will they have fear about any possible future failures.

15:49.

Important Words:

لغوب (weariness) is infinitive-noun from لغب which means, he was tired or wearied to the utmost or he was languid in consequence of fatigue or he was wearied in spirit or mind. لغوب means, extreme tiresomeness, weariness of mind or spirit (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

Complete freedom from every kind of fear and anxiety and perfect peace of mind and satisfaction of heart coupled with the pleasure of God is the highest stage of Paradise that the Quran, as the verse under comment shows, promises to believers in this and the next world.

7:139; 20:78.

20:79; 26:61; 44:25.

Commentary:

The verse throws interesting light on an important political question. Islam enjoins Muslims to obey their rulers. If, however, the latter deny to them religious freedom and resort to compulsion in matters of faith, Muslims are enjoined to migrate from their country rather than offer resistance to the established authority. But what should they do if the authorities do not even permit them to migrate and force them to remain in the country and suffer persecution? The verse under comment supplies an answer to this question by saying that Pharaoh pursued the Israelites "wrongfully and aggressively," which means that in preventing the Israelites from migrating Pharaoh was doing a thing to which he had absolutely no right. Thus if rulers prevent an oppressed subject people from peacefully leaving a country, the latter would be justified in resisting and opposing them by all legitimate means and in that case defiance of the authority will not be held as a breach of the law or an act of rebellion. Just as nobody is allowed to defy and break the law of the land in which he lives, similarly no Government has a right to compel any person to live under it while denying him freedom of religion and conscience.

The words, He in Whom the children of Israel believe, spoken by Pharaoh at the time of his drowning, show the utterly abject state of his mind at that time. If he had said that he believed in the God of Moses, he might be considered to have had some sense of dignity left in him because, having been brought up in the royal household and being the leader of his people, Moses was entitled to respect even from worldly considerations; but to say that he believed in Him in Whom the children of Israel believed—the very children of Israel whom it was his pride to trample under foot—bespeaks the great depth of abasement to which the proud Pharaoh had fallen.

25:61.

Commentary:

The previous two verses spoke of the people to whom God grants perfect peace of mind and who enjoy a truly happy end. By the words, Thus have We sent thee, the Quran means to suggest that God has raised the Holy Prophet so that he may, by his noble teaching and noble example, produce men of this type.

The verse draws the attention of disbelievers to God’s attribute of الرحمن (the Gracious) in a very striking manner. It says that whereas disbelievers demand immediate punishment, God continues to delay and postpone it. It is His attribute of Ar-Rahman which is at the root of this postponement, and yet disbelievers say that He is not Ar-Rahman. If God had not been Ar-Rahman they would have met their destruction long before.

The question also arises here, how could the Holy Prophet raise a stone-hearted people like the Arabs to the high standard of moral and spiritual excellence mentioned in the preceding verse? In reply to this natural misgiving, the Holy Prophet is bidden to say, "It is not my work, but God’s. In Him do I put my trust, and to Him will I repeatedly turn for help till this object is attained." The verse also draws our attention to the great spiritual lesson that real reformation, which is the purification of the heart, is brought about only through trust in God and constantly turning to Him in prayer. Those who seek to reform the hearts of men by physical and material means can never succeed. Material means can at best reform the exterior of men. It is only spiritual means that can engender conviction and purity of heart. This is why the so-called cultured and enlightened nations of the West have, in spite of their best efforts, failed to present that high standard of morality and spirituality to which the Holy Prophet raised his Companions, notwithstanding his utter lack of material resources.

13:20; 22: 55; 35:32; 47:3; 56:96.

2:23; 6:100; 13:18; 16:66; 22:64

Commentary:

The Arabs were the first addressees of the Quran and in Arabia water is very scarce. So they have been told in this verse that water which is the source of all life and which brings out food and vegetation for them and their cattle is indeed a great gift of God. And, repeating the argument embodied in the preceding verse, the present verse goes on to say that when God has made ample provision for the physical needs of man, He could not have neglected to provide for his spiritual needs. Also that when man very gladly accepts and uses all the physical provisions made for him, why should he decline to make similar use of God’s spiritual gifts?

The expression لکم (for you) in the verse points to the truth that the whole universe has been created for the service of man because he is the acme and end of all creation. So it is really very strange that God should have omitted to fix a great object for man’s creation or should have neglected to provide means for the fulfilment of that object. This subject has been further developed in the next verse.

22:7; 57:18.

Important Words:

نشور (Resurrection) is an infinitive noun from نشر. They say نشر الخبر i.e. he spread or spread out or published the news. نشرت الارض means, the land, being rained upon, its herbage or pasturage became green after it had dried up. نشر الله الموتیmeans, God raised the dead to life. نشور means, raising the dead: Resurrection. The word has also been used in the sense of spiritual resurrection in this life (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

In the Quran the plural form ریاح (winds) is generally used in good sense as in the present verse and in vv. 7:58; 25:49; etc. while the singular has been used to denote Divine punishment as in 17:70; 33:10; 41:17; 46:25; 51:42; 54:20 & 69:7. The word النشور (Resurrection) if taken to mean the resurrection of a people from a state of spiritual decline and degradation, the verse would mean that just as dead and dry land blossoms into new life when rain falls upon it, so will a people, morally and spiritually dead and steeped in sin and wickedness as the Arabs are, rise to a new life by means of the heavenly water of Divine revelation—the Quran.

5:22; 7:138.

Important Words:

اسری (carried) is derived from سری. They say سری باللیل او سری اللیل i.e. he journeyed or travelled by night or in the night. اسراهاو اسری به means, he made him journey or travel, or he transported him by night or in the night; he journeyed or travelled with him, by night or in the night, or simply, he carried him. The Quranic expression سبحان الذی اسری بعبدہ لیلا means, Glory be to Him Who transported His servant by night. According to some lexicologists اسری is used for journey in the first part of the night and سری for the last part of it. According to others, the verb اسری is from سراة which means, a wide tract of land. According to this meaning the expression اسری بعبدہ means, Who transported His servant over a wide tract of land (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).

المسجد الاقصی (the Distant Mosque). اقصی is derived from قصی. They say قصی المکان i.e. the place was or became distant. اقصیmeans, distant or very distant (Aqrab). المسجد الاقصی may signify the Prophet Solomon’s Temple at Jerusalem, the Holy Prophet’s Mosque at Medina or the Promised Messiah’s Mosque at Qadian.

Commentary:

The verse is supposed by almost all commentators of the Quran to refer to the معراج (Spiritual Ascension of the Holy Prophet). The subject of Mi‘raj has become much complicated and confused on account of the many divergent traditions that deal with it. Contrary to popular view we are, however, inclined towards the opinion that the present verse deals with the اسراء (Night Journey) of the Holy Prophet while his Mi‘raj (Spiritual Ascension) has been dealt with in Surah An-Najm. That Surah removes all the obscurities and ambiguities that have confused the popular mind in regard to this important subject. In Surah An-Najm we have:

It is nothing but a revelation that is revealed. The One of mighty powers has taught him (this knowledge): the One Possessor of strength. So He manifested His ascendance (over everything) and He revealed His Word when he was on the uppermost horizon. Then he drew nearer (to God); then he came down to (His creatures), so that he became, as it were, the one chord of two bows or closer still. And He revealed to His servant that which He revealed. The heart (of the Prophet) was not untrue to that which he saw. Will you then dispute with him concerning that which he saw? And certainly he saw Him a second time, near the Lote-tree beyond which none may pass, near which is the Garden of Abode. This was when a wonderful and glorious Divine manifestation covered the Lote-tree. The eye deviated not nor did it wander. Surely, he saw the greatest of the Signs of his Lord. (53:5-19).

These verses give a graphic description of the Mi‘raj, for the facts mentioned in them all relate to it, e.g. the Holy Prophet went up to the Lote-tree; (2) the Lote-tree was covered with "something"; (3) the Prophet saw the Paradise (the Garden of Abode) near the Lote-tree; (4) he became, as it were, the one chord of two bows; (5) he saw God (and the heart of the Prophet was not untrue to that which he saw); and (6) the word of God descended on the Lote-tree.

All these details have also been mentioned in the traditions which deal with the Mi‘raj. As for the Lote-tree, AbuHurairah (as reported by Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abu Hatim, Ibn Merdawaih, Abu Ya‘la and Baihaqi) says, "In the night of Mi‘raj, after having seen other Prophets of God in heaven, the Holy Prophet proceeded further till he reached the Lote-tree." The same fact has been mentioned in the tradition quoted on the authority of Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri by Ibn Jarir, Ibn Mundhir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Merdawaih, Baihaqi, and Ibn ‘Asakir, and in the tradition quoted on the authority of Malik Ibn Sa‘sa’ by Ahmad bin Hanbal, Bukhari, Muslim and Ibn Jarir and in the tradition quoted on the authority of Anas by Bukhari (Bukhari, chapter on Mi‘raj, & Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. 1, pp. 153, 167 & 174).

The second important detail mentioned in Surah An-Najm is that when the Prophet reached the Lote-tree, he saw it covered with some extraordinary thing (53:17). This has also been mentioned in the traditions that deal with Mi‘raj. In the tradition reported by Abu Hurairah to which reference has been made above we read فغشیھا نور الخلاق عزوجل i.e. when the Holy Prophet reached the Lote-tree, the light of the Powerful and Glorious Creator covered it (Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 174). Similarly, in the tradition reported by Anas we have: "Then the Lote-tree became covered with a special Divine grace so much so that in its newly changed condition its beauty defied all description" (Muslim, Kitabul-Iman)

The third incident referred to in chapter 53 (An-Najm) is that the Holy Prophet saw Paradise near the Lote-tree. This has also found mention in traditions which deal with Mi‘raj. In the tradition quoted on the authority of Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri by Ibn Jarir and mentioned in some other books of Hadith we read: ثم انی رفعت الی الجنة i.e. after I had seen the Prophets in the heavens I was taken up to Paradise. This is followed by the words ثم انی رفعت الی سدرة المنتھی i.e. after paradise I was led up to the Lote-tree (Ibn Jarir, vol. 15, p. 11).

The fourth important detail mentioned in chapter 53 is that when the Holy Prophet had a vision of those celestial scenes he was transported into a highly spiritual state which has been described in the words, So that he became, as it were, the one chord of two bows or closer still.

This fact has also been mentioned in the traditions about Mi‘raj. In the tradition reported by Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri and referred to above we find the words: فکان قاب قوسین او ادنی i.e. between God and the Prophet there was the one chord of two bows or closer still.

The fifth important and relevant incident mentioned in chapter 53 is that during the Mi‘raj the Prophet had a vision of God Himself (53:12). This fact has also been mentioned in the traditions quoted by Ibn Merdawaih on the authority of Asma’, daughter of Abu Bakr (Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 177), and by Muslim on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas (Muslim, Kitabul-Iman). In the latter tradition we read راٰہ بفؤادہ مرتین i.e. twice the Prophet saw God with the eyes of his heart.

The sixth notable detail mentioned in chapter 53 is that God spoke to the Holy Prophet near the Lote-tree (53:11). This fact has also found a mention in the traditions. For instance, in the tradition reported by Abu Hurairah we have فکلمهاللّٰه تعالی عند ذالک i.e. so God spoke to him near it—the Lote-tree (Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 174). Similarly, Ibn Abu Hatim has reported on the authority of Anas bin Malik that when the Prophet arrived near the Lote-tree, God addressed him by name saying یا محمد i.e. O Muhammad, and then Anas continues to finish the hadith. These very striking similarities and resemblances between the subject matter of Surah An-Najm and the traditions about Mi‘raj leave no doubt that it is the Mi‘raj of the Holy Prophet which has been described in that Surah.

After having established the fact that Surah An-Najm contains a description of the Mi‘raj it is important to point out that this Surah has been admitted by the consensus of scholarly opinion to have been revealed in the fifth year of the Call or even earlier. The following very well-known historical event proves it. A party of early Muslims had sought refuge in Abyssinia. They left Mecca in the seventh month of the fifth year of the Call (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, 1923, p. 69). Now the traditions agree that three months had hardly elapsed since this little band of the Faithful had left for Abyssinia when they returned to Mecca (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, 1923, p. 80). The reason which, according to traditions, led to their early return was this. The Holy Prophet was one day reciting chapter 53. When he came to the words, Rather prostrate yourselves before Allah, and worship Him (53:63), the Prophet and the Muslims with him fell prostrate on the ground. The disbelievers present on the occasion, being overwhelmed with the grand theme of the Surah and the solemnity of the occasion, also joined the Prophet in prostration. This gave rise to the rumour that the Quraish had converted to Islam. When this rumour reached Abyssinia, Muslim refugees hastened back to Mecca. This shows that the recitation of the Surah which led to this incident having taken place, must have been revealed in the fifth year of the Call or sometime prior to it.

After a brief description of the Mi‘raj or the Spiritual Ascension of the Holy Prophet and of the time when it took place, it may be noted here that the اسراء Isra’ or the Night Journey of the Holy Prophet from Mecca to Jerusalem, with which the present verse deals took place in the eleventh year of the Call (Zurqani, vol. 1, p. 306). Christian writers, however, put it in the twelfth year of the Call (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, 1923, p. 121). Traditions relating to this incident also corroborate the date referred to above. According to the traditions quoted by Ibn Merdawaih and Ibn Sa‘d, the Isra’ took place on the seventeenth of Rabi‘ul-Awwal, a year before the Hijrah (Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 162). Similarly, a tradition quoted by Baihaqi on the authority of Ibn Shihab, relates that the Isra’ took place a year before the Hijrah. Another tradition also quoted by Baihaqi places the Night Journey to Jerusalem six months before the Hijrah (Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. 1, p. 162).

All these traditions go to prove that the Isra’ took place six months or a year prior to the Hijrah and it has been shown above that the Mi‘raj took place about the fifth year of the Call. Thus the two incidents are separated from each other by an interval of six or seven years and therefore cannot be identical; the Mi‘raj must be regarded as quite distinct and separate from the Isra’.

Irrefutable evidence which shows that the Mi‘raj and the Isra’ were two separate incidents is the fact that it was during the fifth year of the Call that the five daily prayers were enjoined upon Muslims. If the Mi‘raj be considered as identical with the Isra’, then it will also have to be admitted that the five daily Prayers were enjoined upon Muslims in the eleventh or twelfth year of the Call which is evidently wrong because all traditionalists agree that the five Prayers were prescribed in the very early years of the Call.

It may incidentally be stated here that the Mi‘raj itself seems to have occurred twice. As it appears from the Hadith, the first Mi‘raj occurred in the beginning of the Holy Prophet’s ministry when the foundation of the Shari‘ah may be said to have been laid and Prayers were made obligatory, which seem to have taken place in the first year of the Call (Bukhari, chapter on Tauhid; Jarir, vol. 15, p. 4). The second or the better known Mi‘raj took place about the fifth year of the Call when the five prescribed Prayers were made obligatory and chapter 53, containing a description of it, was revealed (or it may have taken place even earlier and may have been subsequently referred to in Ch. 53). The Isra’, however, is quite a separate event which undoubtedly occurred in the eleventh or twelfth year of the Call when the Prophet was living in the house of his cousin, Ummi Hani, after the death of his wife, Khadijah, which took place in the tenth year of the Call after the Prophet had come out of the Valley (شعب) of Abu Talib.

In addition to this strong historical evidence, other relevant circumstances also lend support to the view that the two incidents are quite distinct and separate from each other:

(1) The first evidence in this connection is furnished by the Quran itself. It gives an account of the Prophet’s Mi‘raj(Spiritual Ascension) in chapter 53 but makes no reference to his Isra’ (Night Journey to Jerusalem), while in the present Surah it speaks of his Isra’ but omits all allusion to his Mi‘raj. This shows that the two incidents took place separately and, therefore, could not be mentioned together. It is inconceivable that the Quran should have mentioned the concluding portion of this incident in one Surah and the first portion of the selfsame incident in another Surah five years later.

(2) The second evidence which supports this inference is the fact that there was only one person, namely Ummi Hani, who was present with the Prophet during the night when the Isra’ (Spiritual Night Journey to Jerusalem) took place and she speaks only of his visit to Jerusalem and makes no mention of his journey to the heavens. She was the first person whom the Prophet informed of his Night Journey to Jerusalem and at least seven collectors of traditions have given her account of the incident on the authority of four different reporters who have reported the incident from her. All these four reporters concur in saying that the Prophet went to Jerusalem and returned to Mecca the same night. If the Prophet had spoken of his Ascension to the heavens also, Ummi Hani could not have failed to refer to it in one or other of her reports. But she does not do so in any of her reports, which conclusively shows that during the night in question the Holy Prophet made the Isra’ or the Spiritual Night Journey to Jerusalem only and that the Mi‘raj did not take place on that occasion. So the Isra’ or the Prophet’s Spiritual Night Journey to Jerusalem should not be confused with the Mi‘raj or his Spiritual Ascension to heaven.

(3) All the different reporters of this incident may be placed in three categories: (a) those who speak of the Prophet’s Ascension direct to heaven and make no mention of his Journey to Jerusalem; (b) those who speak first of his Journey to Jerusalem and then of his Ascension to heaven; and (c) those who only speak of His Journey to Jerusalem and make no mention at all of his Ascension to heaven. Of the reporters of this last group, there is a goodly number who say expressly that the Prophet returned to Mecca after his Journey to Jerusalem.

It is evident that the reports of the first group point to the Mi‘raj as being distinct from the Isra’ inasmuch as, according to them, the Holy Prophet was taken from his house direct to heaven, so Jerusalem could not lie in his way. The reporters of this group are Anas, Malik bin Sa‘sa’ and Abu Dharr, who was one of the earliest converts to Islam.

Similarly, the reports of those who speak only of the Prophet’s Journey to Jerusalem and make no mention of his Ascension to heaven also show that when he made his Night Journey to Jerusalem, he did not ascend to heaven, for if he had ascended to heaven after his visit to Jerusalem, it is inconceivable that the reporters, after mentioning the less important part of the vision, should have omitted to mention its more important part which related to his Ascension to heaven, and to his having seen God and having had communion with Him. The reporters of this group of traditions are Anas and ‘Abdullah bin Mas‘ud, the latter being one of the earliest and best-loved of the Prophet’s Companions.

Reports of the third group clearly state that the Prophet returned to Mecca after his visit to Jerusalem and did not ascend to heaven. These also demonstrate the two events to be distinct and separate from each other. The reporters of this group are ‘Abdullah bin Mas‘ud, ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas, ‘A’ishah and Ummi Salma and Ummi Hani. All of them with the exception of ‘Abdullah bin Mas‘ud, who, as stated above, was among the earliest converts to Islam, were the Prophet’s very near relatives and enjoyed his intimate and constant company. It is impossible to impugn their evidence.

Another argument in favour of Isra’ being distinct from Mi‘raj are the traditions which speak of the Prophet’s transportation to the heavens after his visit to Jerusalem and then of his return from the heavens to Jerusalem and from Jerusalem back to Mecca (Al-Khasa’isul-Kubra, vol. I, p. 154). Now, going to Jerusalem before ascending to heaven may be considered as reasonable, for it served for the Prophet the purpose of offering Prayers at the place where a large party of heavenly Messengers had delivered their Divine Message, but it is difficult to understand why the same route should have been followed during the return journey, when on his return from heaven the Prophet is not reported to have performed any specific act at Jerusalem. The only reasonable assumption is that the account of the Isra’ became mixed up with that of the Mi‘raj. Anas seems to have related the account of both the Isra’ and the Mi‘raj to some reporters who mixed up the two accounts and mistakenly thought that they formed the two parts of the same event and thus these reporters were led to believe that while coming back from his Mi‘raj the Prophet went to Jerusalem from where he returned to Mecca. In fact, the confusion seems to have arisen from the same word اسراء (which means a night journey) having been used for both the Holy Prophet’s اسراء (Spiritual Night Journey to Jerusalem) and his معراج (Spiritual Ascension to heaven); and the resemblance that existed in some of the details in the description of the اسراء (Isra’) and the معراج (Mi‘raj) heightened and confirmed it.

Internal evidence of the traditions also points to the fact that the Isra’ and the Mi‘raj were two distinct and separate events. The traditions which first give an account of the Prophet’s visit to Jerusalem and then of his transportation from Jerusalem to heaven also state that at Jerusalem he met the former Prophets, including Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, and that in the heavens he met the same Prophets again but could not recognize them. Now how did these Prophets whom he had met at Jerusalem reach the heavens before him and why could he not recognize them while he had seen them only a short while ago in the course of the same journey? If the two meetings had taken place separately and at a distance of long intervals, it was possible that he could not have recognized some of them at the time of the second meeting in a changed atmosphere. But it is inconceivable that he should have failed to recognize them when he had met them only a short while ago in the course of the same journey.

It having been established that the Isra’ and the Mi‘raj were two separate and distinct events, it is necessary to give a somewhat detailed account of Isra’ as given in the traditions as it forms the subject matter of the verse under comment. The most reliable account of it is to be found in the tradition quoted by Ibn Jarir on the authority of Anas bin Malik. It is briefly as follows:

'When the Archangel Gabriel brought the Buraq to the Holy Prophet, he mounted it, and had gone only a short distance, when he saw an old woman. The Prophet asked Gabriel who she was, but Gabriel gave no answer to his question; on the contrary he told him not to ask questions, just as Moses in his معراج (Spiritual Ascension) was told not to put unnecessary questions (18:71). After the Prophet had gone a little further he saw a man calling him by name from across the road in order to invite his attention to himself. But Gabriel asked him again not to heed his call. When the Prophet had proceeded a little further, he met a party of men who greeted him with the greeting of peace. Gabriel told him to return their greeting. After this, the Prophet reached the Holy House in Jerusalem. There Gabriel presented him with three cups containing water, milk and wine. The Prophet took the cup containing milk and drank it and refused to accept the other two. Upon this Gabriel said to him, "Thou hast, indeed, chosen the right course which is in perfect harmony with a pure, unsullied nature. If thou hadst accepted water or wine, thou and thine followers would have been lost." Then Adam and the other Prophets were presented to him, and the Holy Prophet led them in Prayers. After this Gabriel explained to him that the old woman he saw on the way was an embodied representation of the life of this world and only as much was left of the life of the world as was left of the life of that old woman. As for the person who called him from across the road, he was Iblis, the enemy of God. The party of men who greeted him were the Prophets Abraham, Moses and Jesus' (Ibn Jarir).

This tradition serves as a key to resolve this whole allegory. It gives the most reliable and correct account of the Isra’. It shows that the Journey to Jerusalem was no physical act but only a vision. This is clear from the following facts:

(a) It is stated in this tradition that during the Night Journey to Jerusalem, the Prophet saw an old woman, a person standing on one side of the road, and three cups full of water, wine and milk (of which the Prophet chose the last), and Gabriel told him what all these things signified. The explanation and interpretation by Gabriel of the things the Prophet saw shows that the Journey was only a vision, for it is only things seen in visions that need interpretation and explanation.

(b) The Night Journey has been spoken of as a vision in the present Surah (v. 61). Accordingly, we find that several Companions of the Prophet and some of the later scholars of Islam have, on the basis of this verse, declared the Isra’ to be a vision. For instance, Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Jarir report that when Mu‘awiyah was asked concerning the Isra’, he said that it was a vision which came out to be true (Manthur, vol. 4, p. 197). ‘A’isha is also reported to have held the same view. (Hisham and Mas‘ud, vol. 1).

(c) We learn from the hadith that when the Holy Prophet spoke of his Night Journey to Jerusalem he was asked to give a description of the Temple at Jerusalem. The Prophet is reported to have said that at that time God presented before his eyes an embodied representation of the Temple and he was thus able to describe it as demanded of him (Ibn Kathir, vol. 6, p. 18).

The Vision of the Prophet referred to in the present verse implied a great prophecy. His journey to the Distant Mosque (المسجد الاقصی) meant his Migration to Medina where he was to build a Mosque which was destined to become later the Centre of all Faiths and Dispensations and the Holy Prophet’s seeing himself in the Vision leading other Prophets of God in Prayers signified that the new Faith Islam was not to remain confined to the place of its birth but was to spread all over the world and the followers of all religions were to join its fold. His going to Jerusalem in the Vision may also be understood to mean that he was to be given dominion over the territory in which Jerusalem was situated. This prophecy was fulfilled in the Caliphate of Umar.

The words of the verse also lend support to the view that the Vision constituted a prophecy about the great future of Islam. The Distant Mosque (المسجد الاقصی) that the Prophet saw in the Vision represented his own Mosque at Medina, Jerusalem stood for Medina and his going to Jerusalem signified his Migration to Medina. The Vision begins with the words سبحان الذی (Glory be to Him) which indicated that the Migration of the Prophet would redound to the Glory of God. The word سبحان itself shows that the Vision embodied a prophecy; for a physical journey to the Temple at Jerusalem could not be regarded as evidence of the Glory of God. But as establishment of the Islamic State at Medina was to fulfil a prophecy, that event did serve as evidence of Divine glory. Thus the words, Glory be to Him Who carried His servant by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Distant Mosque, signified that God would take the Holy Prophet to a Mosque resembling المسجد الاقصی (the Distant Mosque) at Jerusalem so that His word might be fulfilled.

The words, We might show him some of Our Signs, pointed to the great possibilities of the Prophet’s journey to Medina. The Prophet’s Migration to Medina served as a prelude to the glorious future of Islam which was then hidden from the eyes of the world and thus God’s great signs were manifested. The reason why the Holy Prophet’s Mosque was called المسجد الاقصی (the Distant Mosque), and why Medina was shown to him in the Vision in the form of Jerusalem was that the blessings which God had conferred on the Mosque at Jerusalem were also in store in a greater measure for the Prophet’s Mosque at Medina.

The Prophecy implied in the words, Who carried His servant by night, was fulfilled when the Prophet left Mecca at dead of night. He did not undertake this journey of his own accord but in pursuance of God’s express command. And as in his Night Journey to Jerusalem in the Vision he was accompanied by the Archangel Gabriel, so in his Flight to Medina he was accompanied by his most faithful companion, Abu Bakr. The word "Gabriel", which means "Man of God", fitly applies to Abu Bakr and portrays his spiritual eminence.

The Vision may also be taken as referring to a spiritual journey of the Holy Prophet to a distant land in some future time. It meant that when spiritual darkness enveloped the entire world, the Prophet would appear in spirit a second time in the person of one of his followers, in a land far away from the scene of his first advent—in the Punjab. A pointed reference to this second advent of the Holy Prophet is to be found in 62:3-5.