رَجُلٌ

Commentary:

The implied reference in the verse is to the counsel that the leaders of Mecca had held to kill the Holy Prophet. But whereas Moses was informed of the designs of the Egyptian chiefs by a well-wisher of his, as the verse under comment says, the Holy Prophet was made aware of the evil designs of the Quraishite leaders against him by God Himself (8:31).

4:177.

Important Words:

کلالة (one who has neither parent nor child) is derived from کل i.e. he was or became fatigued, tired or wearied and could proceed no further; he was or became one having no child and no parent, the latter meaning being based on the former, as a person having no child or parent becomes, as it were, too fatigued for the racial march. کلالة is (1) a person who leaves behind neither father nor child, male or female; or (2) a person who leaves behind neither father nor son. According to Ibn ‘Abbas, کلالة is a person who leaves no son irrespective of the fact whether his father is living or not. This would thus be the third meaning of کلالة (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).

Commentary:

The first part of this verse determines the share of the husband and the wife in inheritance and needs no comment. The latter part deals with the case of a Kalalah, i.e. one who leaves neither parent nor child and whose property is inherited by his or her brother and sister. Now, if there is only one brother and one sister, each of them will get one-sixth. But if they are more than that, they will be sharers in one-third.

It should, however, be noted that in this respect brothers and sisters fall under three heads; firstly, real brothers or sisters, offspring of the same parents (such brothers or sisters are technically known as اعیانی a‘yani); secondly, brothers and sisters on the side of the father only (these are technically known as علاتی ‘allati); thirdly, brothers and sisters on the side of the mother only, their father being not the same as that of the deceased (such brothers and sisters being technically called اخیافی akhyafi). It is to the last-mentioned class that the commandment given in the present verse pertains; the law with regard to the first two classes of brothers and sisters being given in the last verse of this Surah.

The reader will further note that the shares allotted to the brothers and sisters of the last-mentioned class are smaller than those allotted to the brothers and sisters of the first two classes, the reason being that the brothers and sisters of this class are on the side of the mother only, while the brothers and the sisters of the other two classes are the children of the same father as the deceased.

It is also noteworthy that in the property of a person who dies as a Kalalah, as mentioned in the present verse, both brothers and sisters have equal shares, the usual ratio of two to one not being observed in their case.

The words, "without prejudice to the debt", are important. They mean that the payment of debts should not suffer by the payment of bequests. In other words, debts are to be paid prior to the payment of bequests. It was in compliance with this Quranic injunction that the Holy Prophet used to have the debts paid before the payment of bequests. The rights of other people must be safeguarded before any bequest made by the deceased is complied with. So strict was the Holy Prophet in these matters that he refused to perform the funeral service of the man whose debts were likely to remain unpaid.

It may incidentally be noted here that heirs are divided into two main groups:

1. ذووالفرائض (Dhawul-Fara’id), i.e. persons to whom Islam allots a fixed and definite share (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 2/3, 1/3 or 1/6), or in the estate of a deceased person.

2. عصبات (‘Asabat), i.e. the heirs who receive the residue after the Dhawul-Fara’id have received their allotted shares.

It is, however, not necessary that a member of the first group should always remain a Dhul-Faridah. In certain cases, he may be both a Dhul-Faridah (sharer) and an ‘Asaba (residuary) and in other cases he may be simply an ‘Asaba.

The Dhawul-Fara’id (sharers) are 12 in number, four males and eight females. The males are: 1. father, 2. paternal grandfather, 3. husband and 4. half-brother on the maternal side. The females are: (1) daughter, (2) son’s daughter, (3) mother, (4) wife, (5) full sister, (6) half-sister on paternal side, (7) half-sister on maternal side, and (8) grandmother whether paternal or maternal.

The ‘Asabat (residuaries) are of four kinds: (1) ascendants of the deceased, i.e. father, paternal grandfather, etc. (2) descendants of the deceased, i.e. son, son’s son, etc. (3) descendants of the father of the deceased, i.e. full brother, brother’s son, etc. (4) descendants of the grandfather, i.e. full paternal uncle, paternal uncle’s son, etc.

15:68.

7:81; 29:29.

15:72.

Important Words:

یھرعون (came running trembling with rage) is derived from ھرع. They say ھرع الیه (hara‘a) i.e. he went to him quickly and in a perturbed state of mind. ھرع الرجل (huria) or اھرع الرجل (ahra‘a) means, the man went quickly; and اھرع الرجل (uhri‘a) means, the man was made to tremble with rage, fear, cold or weakness; he was made to go fast. The Arabs say, اقبل الشیخ یھرع (yuhra‘u) i.e. the old man came fast and trembling or came running in a perturbed state of mind. (Aqrab).

Commentary:

In ancient times, generally every town had a separate government of its own, which was carried on by the chiefs of the place by mutual consultation as a sort of republic: or by a king whose authority was confined to one village or a number of villages. The two towns, Sodom and Gomorrah, with which Lot was connected had such a government. They possessed no established government in the modern sense of the word (Gen. ch. 14).

The inhabitants of these two towns had adopted the calling of the road and used to plunder wayfarers (Jew. Enc. under "Sodom"). A people who thus molested their neighbours naturally had to be on their guard against them and to be constantly apprehensive of reprisals. Besides, the people of Sodom were practically in a state of war with their neighbours (Gen. 14). Therefore they would not allow strangers to enter their towns, lest the latter should open the gates at night and let in the enemy. Lot, like all Prophets of God, being an hospitable man, naturally used to look after the comfort of strangers and entertain them (15:71). His people, apprehensive as they were, repeatedly warned him to give up that practice. So when, on this occasion, he brought strangers into his house, his townsmen became infuriated and hastened to him with angry faces, because they thought they now had a suitable opportunity to punish him for giving shelter to strangers in defiance of their protests.

Some commentators say that these visitors had come in the form of handsome boys and that Lot’s people came running to him with evil intent. But there is nothing in the context to warrant such an inference. On the contrary in 15:71 we read that on seeing the strangers with Lot, his people demanded of him why he had brought these strangers when they had already forbidden him to do so. If they had come with an evil intention, they should have rejoiced at the sight of the strangers and not been displeased at seeing them. Moreover, vv. 15:68-70 signify that Lot’s people rejoiced at having an opportunity to punish and disgrace him because he defied their protests. They were angry with him because he had brought in the strangers against their protests and were glad that they now had an opportunity to settle old scores with him once for all.

The words, before this too they used to do evil, show that in view of their past mischievous behaviour Lot feared lest his people should do any mischief and thus disgrace him in the presence of his guests. There is no reference here to any particular mischief. They were wicked people, therefore Lot was naturally afraid that they might do harm.

When the townsmen came to Lot running, he referred to his two daughters who had been married in the town and said, they are purer for you, meaning that if his people insulted his guests and turned them out, they would thereby disgrace themselves; but if they really entertained fear that he might do them harm in league with the strangers, they had his daughters in their custody and they could wreak vengeance on him by punishing them. That was a better and purer course for them to adopt, for in that way they would also avoid the disgraceful act of insulting the guests.

There can be nothing more absurd than to say that Lot offered his daughters to his wicked people to satisfy their lust. Even the meanest of men would not do such a shameful and dishonourable act; then how could a noble Prophet of God, who must possess a far greater sense of honour than ordinary men, stoop to such a mean course? The absurd story given in the Bible seems to be responsible for so stupid an interpretation of this Quranic verse by some commentators.

Some other commentators have suggested that Lot offered his daughters in marriage, but this explanation also seems unsatisfactory. It appears from the Bible that Lot had two daughters who were married. But if it be supposed that they were unmarried, they could be married only to two of the townsmen. How could then this offer give satisfaction to a large number of people? And how was it relevant to their demand?

There is, however, one explanation which seems plausible, if it be supposed that the people came with the intention which these commentators ascribe to them. A Prophet is, as it were, the father of his people, so he can speak of their women as his daughters.

So when Lot said to the people, "these are my daughters; they are purer for you," he, as a Prophet and an old man, must have referred to their own wives as his daughters, who, of course, were purer for them, He thus asked them to follow the lawful course rather than satisfy their lust unnaturally.

17:95; 23:25.

Commentary:

This verse sums up the subject matter of the whole Surah. The preceding verses deal with the mission of the Holy Prophet and answer the criticisms and objections of disbelievers against him. Their first objection was that the Prophet had split up the people into groups and parties and thus had sought to carve out of this chaos a new community for himself and to impose his leadership on them (v. 8). This objection was answered by a reference to the Divine practice that whenever there came a Prophet into the world, the people to whom he preached his Message naturally became split up into two hostile camps with the result that those who accepted it and followed the Prophet’s lead triumphed over their opponents and became a strong community. To this the disbelievers would retort that the Prophet could not succeed in the face of their great resources, power and numbers (v. 36). When this objection was also refuted by the argument that power and wealth belonged to God and that it was not these things but right beliefs and good actions that led to the success and prosperity of a people and that Muslims being righteous and holding right beliefs were destined to triumph over them (vv. 37-40), the disbelievers pretended to derive consolation from the false and flimsy plea that the Prophet could not succeed because three great factors worked towards his failure, viz. that he acted against the old traditions of their forefathers, that he was a liar and an impostor and that he employed unfair and deceitful means for the furtherance of his cause and held out false promises. It is to these three objections of disbelievers that the verse under comment refers.

Commentary:

The present and the preceding five verses contain the objections which disbelievers have always raised against God’s Messengers and these exactly were the objections which Noah’s opponents had raised against him, and which, in fact, were raised against every Prophet, viz. "There is no life after death; men live and die and are followed by others; this is how the world has gone on and how life will continue; it is foolish to give up the time-honoured beliefs of our forefathers and accept the leadership of a man who is in no way superior to us and is subject to all the weaknesses and frailties to which human flesh is heir and who has invented some stories, seeking in this way to impose his leadership upon us."

28:21.

Commentary:

The implied reference in the word رجل signifying "a great man", may be to the Promised Messiah who has been referred to as رجل in several sayings of the Holy Prophet. In one of his very well-known sayings the Holy Prophet is reported to have said:

لو کان الایمان معلقا بالثریا لناله رجل من أبناء فارس i.e. If the Faith were to go up to the Pleiades, a man from among the sons of Persia would bring it down to the earth (Bukhari, Kitabut-Tafsir).

المدینة (the town) in the expression اقصا المدینة (farthest part of the town) may stand for القریة (36:14) or for مدینة النبی i.e. the town of the Holy Prophet. In the latter sense of the word, the expression أقصا المدینة may signify that the Promised Messiah would be born in a place far away from المدینة, the second Centre and Headquarters of Islam. In another verse of the Quran (17:2), the scene of the Second Advent of the Holy Prophet has been spoken of as المسجد الاقصی i.e. the Distant Mosque. Words analogous in meaning and significance to the word یسعی (running) have also been used about the Promised Messiah by the Holy Prophet in some of his sayings which point to his tireless, quick and indefatigable work for the cause of Islam.

All the above references seem to point to the Promised Messiah as being the رجل (the Great Man) mentioned in the verse under comment. It is the Promised Messiah who, for the first time, revealed to the world the Quranic truth that Founders of all the great religions of the world were Divine Messengers, as the words, "he said, 'O my people, follow the Messengers'", point out.

69:45, 47.

Commentary:

It seems that under the influence of Pharaoh’s wife who was a very righteous woman (66:12) some other members of his household had also believed in Moses and the "believing man" might have been one of them. The good man kept his faith concealed in order to give expression to it on a suitable occasion. The bold manner in which he expressed his belief and spoke to the people of Pharaoh shows that the concealment was not due to fear.

The verse also embodies an infallible criterion to test the truth of the claim of a Divine Reformer viz. that (1) a forger of lies is never allowed to grow and prosper and that (2) the opponents of a Divine Reformer do not go unpunished.