مُّبِیۡنٌ

20:41; 26:20.

Important Words:

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

Commentary:

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

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

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

Commentary:

Moses in this verse seems to reproach the man who called him for help by saying to him, "you are a foolish fellow and not being able to realise the consequences of your actions you become readily involved in trouble." The words do not mean, as is generally misunderstood, that Moses regarded the man as an offender.

5:89; 8:70; 16:115.

2:209; 6:143; 24:22.

7:23; 12:6; 28:16; 35:7; 36:61.

Important Words:

حلال (lawful) is the noun-infinitive from حل which has several meanings. حل العقده means, he unloosened the tie. حل بالمکانmeans, he alighted at the house. حل علیه غضب الله means, God’s punishment came down on him or befell him. حل الشیء means, the thing became lawful. حل الیمین means, he absolved himself from the oath. حلال is, therefore, that the use of which has been permitted by God; a lawful thing. The word is the opposite of حرام which means, a forbidden or unlawful thing (Aqrab).

طیباً (good) is derived from طاب meaning, he or it became good. طاب الشیء means, the thing was good or pure or wholesome. Thus طیب would mean, good, pure, wholesome and agreeable (Aqrab).

خطوات (footsteps) is the plural of خطوة which is derived from خطا which means, he stepped or walked, خطوة means, the distance between the two feet of a person while walking. The clause لا تتبعوا خطوات الشیطان would also mean, do not follow the ways of Satan (Aqrab).

مبین (open) is derived from بان meaning: (1) it became clear and manifest; or (2) it became separated or disunited or cut off. ابان الشیء means (1) he or it made the thing clear; or (2) he or it cut the thing into pieces or made it disunited. ابان الشیءmeans, the thing became clear. Thus مبین would mean: (1) a being or thing which is clear and manifest; (2) a being or thing which makes other things clear; and (3) a being or thing which cuts another thing into pieces and makes it disunited (Aqrab).

Commentary:

Good actions must accompany true faith. So with this verse begins a discussion of the second part of Abraham’s prayer regarding the work of the Promised Prophet, i.e., the teaching of the laws of Shari‘ah and of the wisdom underlying them.

Henceforward ordinances about Prayer, Fasting, Pilgrimage and Zakah are given and so are the laws relating to social matters and as food plays an important part in the formation of a man’s character, regulations concerning it are mentioned first. According to Islam, all food should be: (1) حلال i.e. allowed by the Law; and (2) it should also be طیبi.e. good, pure, wholesome and agreeable. Under the second condition, sometimes even lawful things become forbidden. Thus, for instance, the eating of goat’s flesh is حلال or lawful; but if some flesh becomes rotten and putrefied, it will not be طیب and will consequently not be permissible. This distinction between حلال (lawful) and طیب (good and pure) food is not to be found in any teaching except that of Islam. So comprehensive is the Islamic teaching on this subject that not only are conditions laid down as to when lawful things become prohibited, as in this verse, but also as to when even unlawful food becomes permissible (2:174; 5:4; 6:120, 146; 16:116).

The prohibition against following Satan, coming immediately after the commandment with respect to food, alludes to the influence which physical actions exercise on the moral and spiritual conditions of man. The use of unlawful and unwholesome food tends to impair our moral and spiritual faculties, while lawful and wholesome food improves our morals and helps the development of our spiritual powers. This subject is also dealt with in 23:52.

As explained under Important Words above, the word مبین gives three different meanings. Thus عدو مبین would mean (1) that Satan is a manifest and open enemy of man; (2) that Satan is not only manifest himself but also makes his connections manifest—leaving a visible trace of wickedness wherever he treads; and (3) that he is always striving to create disunion among the Faithful and to cut asunder all such ties as God has ordered to be made firm. In this connection see also 2:28.

See 2:169.

Important Words:

السلم (submission) is derived from سلم meaning, he was or became safe from danger or disease or defect, etc. سالمه means, he made peace with him.

اسلم means, he submitted; he embraced Islam. السلم therefore, means (1) submission; (2) peace; (3) the religion of Islam (Aqrab).

کافة (wholly) is derived from کف. They say کف الاناء meaning, he filled the vessel to the full. کف الشیء means, he collected the thing all in one place. کفه عن الامر فکف means, he turned him away from it and consequently he (the latter) kept back; he prevented or restrained him from the affair, so that, as a result thereof, he (the latter) desisted from it. Thus کف is both transitive and intransitive. کافة is the feminine from کاف and means: (1) all together with none standing aside (Aqrab); (2) wholly or completely, not partially or half-heartedly (Lane); (3) preventing the enemy and turning him back; and (4) restraining oneself, or restraining the people from sin and digression (Mufradat).

Commentary:

Having completed the description of the two classes of men along with their sub-divisions in the previous verses, the Quran now fittingly addresses believers generally and those weak in faith particularly, calling upon them to try to be reckoned among the best and noblest type of men. To attain this end they should do two things, one positive and the other negative: (1) Individually they should come into submission or, in other words, they should enter Islam, wholly. Partial submission and half-hearted obedience will not do; and collectively they should try to offer submission all together, allowing no member to stand aside and remain outside the circle. (2) They should eschew the ways of Satan, who is an open enemy of Islam and is out to cut all holy ties asunder (2:169).

Besides the above two meanings, the clause ادخلوا فی السلم کافة (come into submission wholly) is capable of yet another meaning. As کافة also means, restraining or turning one back, the clause may be translated as, "come into submission wholly, shutting all such doors through which sin may enter". This is indeed a most comprehensive advice and can save many a soul, if people only care to act up to it.

The word خطوات (footsteps) in the clause, follow not the footsteps of Satan, apparently seems to be superfluous, for, "following Satan" seems to give the same meaning as "following in his footsteps", but it is not so really. The word خطوات (footsteps) has been very wisely added to hint that those who follow Satan do so slavishly and blindly. Just as a blind man who cannot see his way, finds it convenient to place his hand on the shoulder of any passer-by and then blindly tread on in his footsteps, so do they.

6:38; 13:28.

22:50; 26:116; 51:51; 67:27.

Commentary:

In the Quran by the sign demanded by disbelievers is meant generally the sign of punishment. This meaning is clear from vv. 54, 55& 56 below. To this demand of disbelievers the Holy Prophet is commanded to say that it is not for him to fix the time when punishment should come, because he is only a Warner whose duty is confined to warning them that if they persisted in their rejection of the Divine Message and did not mend their ways they will perish.

5:20.

Important Words:

یعفو (passes over) is derived from عفا which gives a number of meanings for which see 2:110. Among others the word عفاmeans, it became effaced or obliterated; or He (God) effaced or obliterated (a sin, etc.), i.e. forgave and pardoned. عفوت عن الحق means, I have relinquished or given up my right or what was due to me. The word العفو is also used in the sense of التركi.e. the act of giving up or abandoning or leaving off or passing over (Taj).

Commentary:

The verse refers to the suppression of many noble teachings and great truths by the People of the Book and draws their attention to the fact that not only are many of the truths contained in the older Books being re-taught by the Holy Prophet of Islam but also many more are being revealed and new and wider avenues of guidance have been opened, though at the same time some laws and ordinances which proved burdensome to the previous peoples or were meant only for a specific period have not been embodied in the teachings of the new Faith.

The word "Light" at the end of the verse refers to the Holy Prophet, who elsewhere in the Quran has been called "a Bright Lamp" (33:47), because from him later Reformers were to receive the light of divine knowledge. It may also contain a reference to the fact that the Holy Prophet was the "Seal of the Prophets" (33:41) in the sense that he who followed him in the most perfect manner could receive even the gift of prophethood from God—a great truth laid bare by the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement. The Holy Prophet was, thus, a great spiritual light that could kindle other similar lights. But it must be clearly understood that since the Law of Islam is perfect in all respects and is meant for all ages to come, no other Book of Law can come after the Quran.

Important Words:

قرطاس (parchment) means paper; a roll or scroll of paper; anything one writes upon; a writing or book; a butt or target (Lane).

Commentary:

The words, and they had felt it with their hands, mean, "and they had made sure that it was a heavenly thing and not an earthly one". The words also embody a beautiful allusion to the spiritual blindness of the people. Being blind, they cannot see; so they have to feel with their hands.

The verse signifies that when a man gives himself up to doubting, nothing, however clear and manifest, can convince him.

2:88; 2:254.

3:47.

3:49.

3:50.

5:12.

Commentary:

In the clause, thou didst speak to the people in the cradle and when of middle age, the act of speaking in the cradle signifies speaking words of wisdom and piety in childhood. This sort of speaking on the part of Jesus reflected great credit on his mother, who, herself being wise and pious, brought him up as a wise and pious child. And the speaking of good words in middle age shows that not only was Mary a pious woman, but Jesus, too, was a righteous man so that even when he was of middle age and was no longer under the direct influence of his mother, he spoke words of piety and wisdom to men. See also 3:47 & 3:49, 50, where similar works of Jesus, i.e. the creation of birds and the quickening of the dead, etc. have been discussed.

Protection similar to that alluded to in the latter part of this verse in the words, I restrained the Children of Israel from putting thee to death, was promised to the Holy Prophet as well (5:68). This promise met with a remarkable fulfilment. Though, even at Mecca, his life was in constant danger, at Medina that danger very much increased. The Holy Prophet led many expeditions in person and several attempts were made on his life. At Uhud, he was severely wounded and at Hunain he was left alone among a large host of bloodthirsty archers. Yet amidst all these dangers he remained safe, and after having triumphed over his enemies, passed away peacefully in his house at Medina. The reference in the present verse is to the attempts of the Jews to kill Jesus on the cross, from which—accursed death—God delivered him. The words, I restrained the Children of Israel, should not, however, be understood to mean that Jesus suffered even no persecution at the hands of his enemies. A similar expression has been used with regard to early Muslims in the Quran (5:12), but it is a well-known fact that they had to pass through grievous trials and tribulations. The expression thus only means that the enemy will fail to kill Jesus, whom God will protect from being destroyed.

See 2:209.

Important Words:

فرشا (for slaughter) is derived from فرش. They say فرشه i.e. he spread it or expanded it; or he prostrated it; or he threw it down (for slaughter). فرش means, what is spread on the ground, etc.; a plain tract of land; a depressed tract of land; shrubs or small trees; such animals as are fit for slaughter, or such as are thrown down for slaughter (Lane).

Commentary:

Apart from its primary meaning the verse also hints that the eating of lawful things is a means of ensuring one against the attacks of Satan.

2:37; 20:122.

2:169, 209; 6:143; 12:6; 20:118; 28:16; 35:7; 36:61.

Important Words:

دلھما (caused them to fall into disobedience) is derived from دلی or دلا. They say دلاالدلو i.e. he pulled or drew the bucket (of water) out of the well. دلاحاجته means, he sought or demanded the object of his want. ادلی الدلو means, he let down the bucket into the well to draw out water with it. دلی الشیء means, he let down the thing or he let it fall or he made it hang down. It also means, he brought or drew the thing near to another. دلاه بغرور means, he caused him to fall into disobedience by deceit; or he excited his cupidity with deceit and guile; or he caused him to fall into that which he desired without his knowledge and so exposed him to loss or injury (Lane). The expression, as used in this verse, shows that Satan deceived Adam and drew him and his wife to himself or to the forbidden tree by deceitful talk and thus caused them to fall into disobedience, while they knew not.

ورق (leaves) is both singular and plural and is noun from the verb ورق. They say ورق الشجر i.e. the tree put forth its leaves. اورق الرجل means, the man became rich; his wealth and money increased. ورق, therefore, means, leaves, foliage, parchment; sheet of paper; thin plate of metal; minted silver coins; the prime and freshness of a thing; the young lads of a community; any animal having life (Aqrab, Lane & Lisan).

Commentary:

Every person has certain weaknesses which are hidden even from himself but which become exposed at a time of strain and stress or when he is tempted and tried. For instance, some men are cowardly, but they are not generally conscious of their cowardice. When however, they encounter a danger, and their heart fails them, they realize their weakness. So it was when Adam was tempted and deceived by Satan that he became aware of his natural weaknesses. The Quran does not say that the weaknesses of Adam and his wife became known to other people, but that they became known to themselves.

The word سوأة (treated under 7:21 above) is not used here in the sense of "nakedness" but rather of "objects of shame" or "weakness", because no man’s nakedness is hidden from him. Some of Adam’s weaknesses were indeed hidden from him and he came to realize them when his enemy lured him away from his position of security. Before this he did his work, aided and helped by Divine grace which kept covered his failings and weaknesses; but when he allied himself with the family against which he had been warned, he was exposed and he realized, to his sorrow, how weak he was.

As Satan had succeeded in causing a split in the community and some of the weaker members had gone out of its fold, Adam gathered together the اوراق (leaves) of the garden, i.e. the youth of the community and began to reunite and reorganize his people with their help. It is generally the young men who, being mostly free from bias and regardless of dangers, follow and help the Prophets of God. Speaking of Moses, the Quran says: And none obeyed Moses, save some youths from among his people, because of the fear of Pharaoh and their chiefs (10:84).

It must be noted here that the being whom the Quran has represented as having refused to submit to Adam is called Iblis, while the person who tempted him is called Satan. This distinction is observed not only in the verse under comment, but in all the relevant verses throughout the Quran. This shows that, so far as this narrative is concerned, Satan and Iblis were two different persons. In fact, the word Shaitan (Satan) is applied not only to evil spirits but to certain human beings also who, on account of their evil nature and wicked deeds, become, as it were, fiends incarnate. Just as a man can advance in virtue and piety so as to become like an angel, similarly he may become morally so depraved and degenerate as to be called a devil. Thus the Shaitan, who tempted Adam and caused him to slip, was not an invisible evil spirit but a wicked man of flesh and blood, a devil from among human beings, a manifestation of Satan, and an agent of Iblis. He was a member of the family which Adam had been bidden to avoid. The Holy Prophet tells us that his name was Harith, literally meaning a farmer, (Tirmidhi, ch. on Tafsir) which is further evidence of his being a human being and not an evil spirit. See also 2:15 & 2:37.

Adam’s error lay in taking this man-devil for a well-wisher, although God had warned him against having anything to do with him.

20:21; 26:33; 27:11; 28:32.

Important Words:

ثعبان (serpent) is derived from ثعب. They say ثعبه i.e. he gave vent to it; or he made it (water, etc.) to flow or run or stream. ثعبان means, a kind of long serpent; a great serpent, whether male or female, but particularly the male; or the serpent in general whether male or female, great or small; also applied to an enormous fabulous serpent (Lane).

Commentary:

The Quran has used three different words for describing the turning of the rod of Moses into a serpent; (1) ثعبان as in the verse under comment and in 26:33; (2) حیة as in 20:21, and (3) جان as in 28:32 and 27:11. The words ثعبان and حیة are applied both to a large or a small serpent, while the word جان signifies only a small serpent. Thus, there is no conflict or contradiction in using these three different words for the same thing, as all of them may be used to give the same meaning, i.e. a small serpent.

Moreover, on carefully pondering over the verses in which these words occur, we find that different words have been used to suit different occasions. The word جان has been used on the occasion when the rod is made to appear as a serpent to Moses alone (27:11) while the words ثعبان and حیة have been used in connection with the occasion when the miracle was wrought in public. This shows that to Moses the rod appeared as only a small serpent. While in the presence of Pharaoh and other men, it was made to appear like a big serpent. Thus the use of three different words for different occasions was not haphazard and casual, but deliberate and evidently intended to serve a definite purpose.

Moreover, in the verses in which the word جان is used, it is not said that the rod actually turned into a جان (small serpent) but that it moved as though it were a جان. This does not mean that the rod necessarily turned into a small serpent but that it only moved quickly like a small serpent, though it may have been a large serpent. So the different words used by the Quran do not conflict with each other, whether the rod be taken as turning into a small serpent or a large one.

It should also be noted here that this miracle did not really contradict any law of nature. If the existence of a thing is proved beyond doubt, it must be admitted, even if we are unable to explain it in the light of the laws of nature, as we know them. Our knowledge of the laws of nature is evidently very limited and so we cannot deny a fact on the basis of our limited and imperfect knowledge. Moreover, the said miracle did not take place in the manner in which it is popularly understood to have occurred. Indeed, miracles shown by God’s Prophets are not like the performance of jugglers. They are meant to serve some great moral or spiritual purpose. One of their primary objects is to bring about certainty of faith and engender feelings of piety and fear of God in the minds of those who witness them. If the rod had actually turned into a serpent, the whole performance must have looked more like the hand-tricks of a juggler than the miracle of a Prophet. In spite of what the Bible might say about this miracle, the Quran lends no support whatever to the view that the rod actually turned into a real and living serpent. No such thing ever took place. The rod only appeared like a moving serpent. It was a sort of a vision in which God either exercised special control over the sight of the onlookers in order to make them see the rod in the form of a serpent or the rod itself was made to appear like a serpent; and this vision was shared by Pharaoh and his courtiers and the enchanters along with Moses. The rod remained a rod, only it appeared to Moses and others as a serpent. It is a spiritual phenomenon of common occurrence that in a vision when man rises above the encumbrances of the flesh and becomes temporarily transported to a spiritual sphere, he can see things taking place which are beyond his ken and are quite invisible to his physical eyes. The miracle of the rod turning into a serpent was one such spiritual experience.

A similar spiritual phenomenon took place when in the time of the Holy Prophet the moon was seen as rent asunder not only by the Holy Prophet but by some of his followers and opponents as well (Bukhari, ch. on Tafsir). Such visions, which constitute a peculiar state between sleep and wakefulness, are a common spiritual experience of God’s Prophets and His Elect, but sometimes they are shared by ordinary men and by even disbelievers. Tradition tells us that Gabriel whom the Holy Prophet often saw in his visions, was also once seen by his Companions, who were sitting with him (Bukhari, ch. on Iman). Similarly, some angels were seen even by some of the disbelievers at the Battle of Badr (Jarir, vi.47). Another instance of this kind occurred when a Muslim army under the well-known Muslim general, Sariyah, was fighting the enemy in Iraq at a distance of hundreds of miles from Medina. ‘Umar, the Second Khalifah, while delivering his Friday sermon at Medina, saw in a vision that the Muslim army was being over-whelmed by the superior numbers of the enemy and that a disastrous defeat was imminent. Thereupon, ‘Umar suddenly discontinued his sermon and cried out from the pulpit, saying, "O Sariyah, take to the mountain, take to the mountain." Sariyah, hundreds of miles away and surrounded by the deafening noise of the battlefield, heard the voice of ‘Umar and obeyed it; and the Muslim army was saved from destruction (Khamis, ii. 270).

The miracle of Moses mentioned in the verse under comment possessed a special significance. It may be interpreted something like this. God told Moses to throw down his rod which then appeared to him like a serpent; and when subsequently on God’s bidding he took it up, lo! the rod was a mere piece of wood. Now a serpent, in the language of visions and dreams, is a symbol of the enemy, while a rod is emblematic of one’s community (Ta‘tirul-Anam). Thus, by means of this vision, God made Moses understand that if He cast away his people from him, they would become veritable serpents. But if he kept them under his care, they would grow into a strong and well-knit community of righteous and God-fearing men. Moses had in the beginning begged to be excused from being entrusted with the onerous task of reclaiming a morally depraved people, but God told him by means of this vision that the well-being of his people depended upon his taking them in his charge, failing which they would turn into veritable serpents.

Abu Jahl, the arch-enemy of Islam, was also once made to see a similar vision. It is reported that the Holy Prophetone day went to him and asked him to pay a certain sum of money which he owed to a poor man, a stranger in Mecca, but which he had so far declined to pay. On the Holy Prophet’s demand, Abu Jahl, in spite of his great enmity to the Prophet, made the payment at once, and when asked by his friends the reason for his doing so, he said he saw two enraged camels on both sides of Muhammad about to tear him to pieces if he refused to comply with his demand (Hisham). Arabia is a land of camels, so Abu Jahl was made to see camels, while Egypt being a land of magic serpents, Pharaoh was made to see a serpent.

23:26; 34:47; 52:30; 81:23.

Important Words:

صاحب (companion) is derived from صحب which means, he was or became his companion, associate, comrade, fellow or friend. صاحب of which the plural is اصحاب or صحابة means, a companion, associate, comrade, fellow or friend; owner or master; possessor; inmate; manager or disposer; one who keeps or adheres to a thing (Lane). Figuratively the word is also used in the sense of helper.

Commentary:

The word صاحب (companion) meaning both a companion and a helper is not intended as a plain reference to the Holy Prophet. The word has been specially chosen to imply a refutation of the charge of insanity brought by some of his enemies against the Holy Prophet, as well as a veiled rebuke to the Meccans. They are told that the Prophet was their companion and associate. He lived and moved among them and they knew him perfectly well and, therefore, they could easily see, and indeed in their heart of hearts they knew that there was nothing of insanity about him. He was also their helper and was constantly working for their good which constituted further proof of the fact that he was not insane. That he was نذیر مبین (a plain warner) and issued his warnings in a clear and reasoned manner also pointed to the same conclusion—that he was in full possession of his senses.

7:64, 70; 50:3

Important Words:

قدم (rank) is the substantive noun from قدم. They say قدم القوم (qadama) i.e. he went before the people or he preceded them; or he took precedence of them; or he led them so as to set an example; قدم البلد (qadima) means, he came to or arrived at the town. قدمه علی غیرہ (qaddama-hu) means, he gave him precedence over another in time, place or rank; he preferred him to another or honoured or esteemed him above another. The expression لزید عند بکر قدم means, there is strength or rank or good footing for Zaid, with Bakr. They say فلان علی قدم عظیم i.e. such a one is on an excellent footing or foundation. فلان علی قدم فلان means, such a one is the successor of such a one (literally, such a one treads in the footsteps of such a one). قدم means, the human foot; precedence, or preference; rank, footing or foundation (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

It is generally believed that the occasion for the revelation of this verse was when disbelievers taunted that God could find no one better to act as His Messenger than the orphan boy of Abu Talib. Though no great value can be attached to this or that incident as being the cause of the revelation of a particular verse, the incident referred to above at least throws some light on the treatment which the Meccans meted out to the Holy Prophet and the contempt in which he was held by them after he had laid claim to prophethood. To call the Holy Prophet the orphan boy of Abu Talib, who was his uncle and guardian, and not to call him after his own father, was intended to insinuate that a man who was the son of an unnamable person and who had been brought up by another could not be worthy of a Messenger of God.

The verse also brings to light the important fact that those who become morally depraved lose all sense of self-respect as well as all confidence in themselves, for here the disbelievers are represented as looking upon themselves as being so degenerate that they could not think that anyone from among them could come and rescue them from the morass of degradation into which they had fallen and that only someone from outside could reform them. This tragic fact also holds good in the case of present-day Muslims. They, too, are anxiously waiting for Jesus to come down from the heaven to take them out of the slough of despair and degradation and are refusing to accept the heavenly Reformer whom God raised from among themselves to lead them to moral perfection and spiritual glory.

The words, give glad tidings to those who believe that they have a true rank of honour with their Lord, embody a promise that whoever acts upon the teachings of the Holy Prophet will achieve all kinds of prosperity and glory. This was another cause of surprise for disbelievers. According to them, the followers of the Holy Prophet lacked those qualities that go to make a people great and prosperous. They, therefore, wondered how Muslims dared hope to succeed in their great aim of destroying the old order of things and building on its ashes a new and better order. The words, with their Lord, signify that Muslims would make not only moral and spiritual but also material progress. By referring to their connection with a Being Who has the power to bestow all forms of advancement, the Quran alludes to the complete glory and many-sided success of Muslims.

The words, Surely, this is a manifest enchanter, signify that when disbelievers heard the above announcement, they said that Muhammad had succeeded in representing falsehood as truth, because he knew how to take advantage of the weakness of man. He had inspired the cowardly with fear and had held out false hopes to the greedy, and had thus managed to bring people over to his side. This is the very criticism which is levelled at the Holy Prophet by modern Christian writers. They also allege that Muhammad converted the ignorant Arabs to his faith by threatening with punishment those of them who disbelieved and tempting those who were credulous and greedy with promises of bliss and happiness. If that was indeed a stratagem, where is the religion which does not promise Heaven to its believers

and Hell to disbelievers? If speaking of blessings—which are the inevitable result of accepting truth—be called tempting a people with false promises, then no religion is safe from the charge of holding out such temptation. And what will Christian critics say of Jesus, who promised the keys of Paradise to Peter and to his other followers and threatened disbelievers with deprivation of the kingdom of God? (Matt. 16:15-19; 18:3 & 19:28, 29).

7:60; 23:24; 71:3.

Important Words:

مبین (plain) is derived from ابان which again is derived from بان for which see 2:169. مبین gives three meanings: (1) plain and clear; (2) he who or that which makes a thing clear by giving reasons and arguments; (3) he who or that which cuts something asunder.

Commentary:

In the previous verse it was stated that disbelievers did not care either to ponder over the inglorious end to which false prophets and their followers came or to the great success attained by true Prophets. The former class of people were likened to the blind and the deaf and the latter to the hearing and the seeing. With the present verse begin some illustrations of these two classes of men. The first illustration is that of Noah, who was one of the great Prophets of God.

All Prophets of God are نذیر مبین (plain Warners) i.e. (1) there is no secrecy about their teaching and manner of work. Unlike false pretenders, they do not conceal their teaching. With them everything is fair and above board. (2) Their teaching is also based on reason and argument. Thus, unlike the warning of the false prophets, the warning of the true Prophets causes no despair or despondency among their followers. The Holy Prophet has strongly condemned warnings which occasion despair. He is reported to have said: من قال ھلك القوم فھو اھلکھم i.e. "He who says that the people have perished, it is really he himself who causes them to perish by so saying" (Muslim, ch. on Birri Was-Silah). Such a person, in fact, makes people lose faith and confidence in themselves and makes them despair of their future. Lost in the slough of despond, they begin to think lightly of sin and iniquity and feel hopelessly discouraged and disheartened. It is the function of a divine reformer to tell people that he has with him the remedy of their corruption. Thus when Noah said that he was نذیر مبین i.e. a plain Warner, he meant that all his work was above suspicion and that his warning was based on reason; that he had come not to dishearten his people, but to make them realize their true condition. He also meant that he not only warned them of impending punishment but also pointed out to them the way in which they could escape that punishment. It was to "worship none but Allah."

40:26.

Important Words:

سحر (enchantment) means, producing what is false in the form of truth; embellishment by falsification and deceit; enchantment or fascination (Lane). See also 2:103 & 7:110.

مبین (manifest) has three meanings: (1) manifest, apparent or clear; (2) that which makes a thing clear or manifest; (3) that which separates, disunites or severs (Lane). See also 2:169.

Commentary:

In the two simple words سحر and مبین lie hidden almost all the stratagems and machinations that the enemies of the Prophets of God employ to defeat and discomfit them. People with a religious bent of mind are told by them that the new teaching is nothing but a سحر or a fraud which would corrupt the religion of the land, whereas those nationalists who profess to have the material good of their country at heart are frightened away from it by being told that the new teaching is مبین i.e. the acceptance of it would create dissension and discord among the different communities in the land and would thus give a death-blow to the national cause. (For the meaning of the word مبین see Important Words). This double weapon has always been used against heavenly Messengers—from Moses right up to the Holy Prophet—and it was employed in our own times against Ahmad, the Promised Messiah, Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement. His opponents accused him of misleading people by deceitful teachings and of creating discord among Muslims, naively forgetting that discord had already eaten into the national entity of Islam and the efforts of Ahmad were all directed to uniting the broken threads of the Faith.

7:55; 10:4; 25:60.

5:49; 6:166; 67:3.

Commentary:

This verse reminds us how God has created things by a gradual process of evolution to bring man into existence and to make provision for his progress. This gradual process of evolution has culminated in the creation of man. This shows that the real object of the creation of the whole universe was that man should come into being. Man is the real object of the creation of the universe because he has been endowed with an unlimited capacity for spiritual progress. It is, therefore, inconceivable that God, having endowed man with unlimited powers, should have neglected to provide means for his unending spiritual growth and development. For an explanation of the expression ستة ایام (six periods) see 7:55 and 10:4.

As water has been repeatedly described in the Quran as the source of all life (see 21:31; 25:55; 77:21 and 86:7) the words, His Throne rests on water, signify that all the great attributes of God have found their manifestation through "life" (i.e. living creatures) and above all through man, who is the culminating point of all life. The words that follow, viz. that He might prove you to know which of you is best in conduct, also corroborate the above explanation; otherwise, how can the works of man be tested by the resting of the Throne of God on material water? Indeed the passage can bear no other interpretation than this that it is through living creatures that God’s attributes are manifested and that God desires to see who benefits most by His attributes.

The words, His Throne rests on water, may also mean that the attributes of God are dependent for their manifestation on His word, which has been compared at several places in the Quran to water. Water stands, therefore, here for "the Word of God" and the verse means that God has bound up the manifestation of His attributes with His Word, which indeed is the source of all spiritual life. This subject is further explained in 58:22 where it is laid down that God’s Messengers on whom His word descends and their followers who benefit by the Divine Word are granted power and dominion over their enemies.

The verse may also be said to embody what may be called the Islamic theory of evolution. In this case، the word کان(is) will be rendered as "was" (for which see 2:35) and the verse would mean that God placed His Throne on water, viz. on the manifestation of life in this universe, so that the capacities of various animals might be compared and it might eventually become evident which of them deserved to be the aim and end of the whole of creation. In fact, the real and ultimate object of God in creating life was to bring into existence a being who might prove to be the best and highest manifestation of life fit to receive the impress of his Maker. This shows that the creation of man who was to prove the best of all creation, took place in the last cycle of life. Thus, although Islam does not accept the theory of evolution as commonly understood—that man is a development of a lower animal––yet it does teach that the creation of man formed the culminating point in the creation of life which began with the lower form of life and ended with the higher one, finding its consummation in man, and that this system of creation was from the very beginning intended to lead finally to the creation of man.

It is pointed out in the words, You shall surely be raised after death, that this system of creation itself shows that man should have a second life after death, for the creation of such a vast universe in which a being with a volition and independent will should live, makes it clear that the creation of that being is intended to serve a great purpose. But the life of this world is short-lived, a temporary place of tests and trials like the examination hall, over which hangs a veil of mystery and doubts, so much so that even the existence of God is sometimes denied. All this goes to prove beyond reasonable doubt that after this temporary abode of tests and trials man must pass on to his permanent or eternal abode of recompense. Hence (the verse says) how strange it is that, when people are told that creation has passed through a gradual process of development they readily admit it (even atheists accept the evolution theory) but when they are told what is but the natural sequence of this process, viz. that the life of man cannot come to a stop in this world, but must continue into another and higher life after death, they deny it.

Commentary:

The Surah had opened with the subject of revelation, of which the basic purpose is the establishment of Divine Unity. This and the following few verses repudiate the idolatrous doctrine of assigning sons and daughters to God.

2:169; 18:51; 35:7.

Important Words

رؤیا (dream) is derived from رأی which means, (1) he saw with the eye; (2) he saw mentally; (3) he saw in a dream or vision; (4) he held the opinion; (5) he thought or considered, etc. The Arabs say رأیته رأی العین i.e. I saw him where the eye or sight fell upon him, i.e. I saw him actually with the eye. رؤیا means, a dream or vision seen in sleep. According to most lexicologists رؤیا is synonymous with حلم (hulm) but according to others the former is such as is good and the latter is the contrary (Lane).

Commentary:

Here again the Quran differs from the Bible and again the Quranic version is decidedly more reasonable and correct. According to the Quran, Joseph told his dream to his father first, while according to the Bible he first related it to his brothers (Gen. 37:9). But the Bible itself says that Joseph had seen another dream, even before this dream which the Quran relates and, on listening to this first dream, his brethren had said to him: "Shalt thou indeed reign over us or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us?" And they hated him yet the more for his dreams, and for his words (Gen. 37:5-8). Now, after the rebuke he had received from his brothers on telling them his first dream, it is highly unreasonable and improbable that Joseph should have related his second and similar dream to them before acquainting his father with it. So the Quranic account is clearly nearer truth and reason than the Biblical account.

The Quran represents Jacob, the father of Joseph, as having forbidden him to mention his dream to his brethren. It also gives the reason why he forbade him to do so. The reason was that the dream would excite their envy and they would be tempted to plot against him. That this fear of Jacob was only too well-founded is borne out by the Bible itself, for it says that Joseph’s brethren hated him yet the more for his dreams. This also goes to support the Quranic version.

The verse under comment mentions another important resemblance between Joseph and the Holy Prophet. Just as Jacob, on hearing the dream of Joseph, told him that when his brothers heard of it, they would plot against him and seek to do him harm, similarly, when Waraqah bin Naufal heard of the first revelation from the Holy Prophet, he told him that a time would come when his people would plot against him and turn him out of their town.

37:11; 67:6.

Important Words:

استرق السمع (hears stealthily). استرق is derived from سرق. The expression سرق منه or سرقه means, he stole from him a thing; he took a thing from him secretly and by artifice; or he came clandestinely to a place of custody and took what belonged to another. استرق منه or استرقه means, he stole from him a thing or robbed him of it. استرق also means, he deceived or circumvented secretly or by stealth. The expression استراق النظر means, taking an opportunity of looking by stealth. السمعmeans, the sense of hearing; the thing that is heard; the faculty in the ear whereby it perceives sounds; the ear itself. The word is used in both the singular and plural. استرق السمع or سرق السمع means, he listened or heard by stealth (Lane).

مبین (bright). See 2:169.

شھاب (flame) is derived from شھب which means, it was or became of the colour in which whiteness predominated over blackness; or in which whiteness was interrupted by blackness. شھاب of which the plural is شھب (shuhub) means, a brand or a flame of fire; or a مشعلة of fire gleaming or radiating; a shooting or falling star; a star or the like of a star that darts across the sky; a shining star; one who is penetrating, sharp or energetic in an affair (Lane).

Commentary:

The verse purports to say that so long as the Word of God is in the heavens and till it descends on the Prophets, it is secure and safe against all interference and stealing, but when, after descending on the lowest heaven it is recited to human beings and when men begin to repeat it to one another, then satans i.e. the enemies of God’s Prophets, try to steal it and make a wrong use of it. Then either as a result of this stealing they are visited by heavenly punishment or the Prophet of the day and his followers explain the true nature of the Divine revelation to the people and expose the deception of the stealers, who then become disgraced and humiliated. Thus the stealing of the Word of God in this verse means that, like thieves who take unlawful possession of the property of other people, the enemies of God’s Prophets seek to steal the Word of God not in order to believe in it but to mislead people by mis-representing and misinterpreting it.

Stealing the Word of God may also refer to the action of such people as seek to represent the teachings of the Prophets as their own. In this way they seek to deceive other people into believing that the Prophets have brought no new thing and that they too have access to that knowledge which the Prophets of God claim to possess. Some of them even go so far as to pretend that it is from them that the Prophets stole their knowledge. But, just as a stolen dress does not fit the body of the thief, similarly the teachings which are stolen from the Prophets do not fit in with the false beliefs of those who steal them and consequently their theft becomes easily exposed.

The words, But if anyone hears stealthily, make it clear that in verse 17 the words, "the heaven" represent the spiritual system, and not the physical firmament, for the stealing away of the Word of God has nothing to do with the physical heavens. The word مبین (bright) which means both a thing that is bright in itself and a thing that illuminates others (2:169) and which has been added to the word شھاب (flame) in the present verse also, shows that the verse speaks of no physical or material flame. The physical شھاب (flame) either means a flame of fire or the light which appears in the sky and looks like a shooting star. It is superfluous to qualify a thing which itself is bright by the epithet مبین (bright). But if the heavens be taken to mean the spiritual heavens and شھاب (flame) be taken as meaning a Prophet of God who brings with him the illuminating light of heavenly signs and fights the evil machinations of those who seek to tamper with the Word of God, then the word مبین (bright) can be used as quite an appropriate adjective to the noun شھاب (flame), for in this case this word would express an additional idea by referring to the bright signs shown by the Prophets.

Stars in these verses represent God’s Prophets, while شھاب مبین (bright flame) or شھاب ثاقب (penetrating flame) occurring in 37:11 represent the Prophet of the day, for although every Prophet is a star and serves as an ornament for the spiritual heaven, yet every Prophet is not always acting as شھاب (flame) destroying the satans who tamper with religion. This is done only by the Prophet of the day or by a living Prophet whose prophet-hood knows no end and whose Law is always in force. When the people of the time of such a Prophet become corrupt and God raises from among his followers a Reformer or subordinate Prophet, in that case also the Master-Prophet is called a شھاب (flame), because it is his spiritual power and influence which works through the subordinate Prophet. According to this significance of the word, Moses, Jesus, and other past Prophets may indeed be called the stars of the spiritual heavens, but they cannot be called شھب(flames), for they have now ceased to be the means for the destruction of satans. But the epithet of شھاب (flame) will always apply to the Holy Prophet, for his mission will continue till the end of days and Divine Reformers will continue to be raised from among his followers who, by receiving spiritual power and influence from him, will continue to destroy the satans of their day.

Of the different meanings of شھاب (see Important Words), it is in the sense of star that the word is used in the verse under comment. This interpretation is supported by vv. 37:7-8 & 67:6, in which it is stated that the protection of the heavens is secured by means of stars which are used as a means of stoning satans. So the pursuing of satans by شھبmeans that so long as a Divine revelation continues to be a living revelation and deserves to be called الذکر (v. 10), God also continues to send شھب or, in other words, heavenly Messengers for its protection. In the verse under comment it has been promised that this method of protecting Divine revelation applies particularly to the Quran. In fact, it constitutes the most effective method of protection, for the heavenly Messengers not only defend the Divine Law from the attacks of satans by the help of heavenly signs but, being favoured by Divine revelation, they are also in a position to give believers a true interpretation of the Word of God, which leaves no room for doubt. Believers thus get rid of those contradictory interpretations which had been puzzling the minds of the people before the coming of the heavenly Messenger.

But what is the significance of the shooting stars that dart across the physical heavens and do they also in any way strike a blow at the satans? This is a pertinent question and the answer is that they too serve a purpose. As a matter of fact it is an invariable divine law that at the advent of every new Prophet God shows two kinds of Signs: (a) those that are manifested in the world round about us; (b) those that take place in the celestial bodies. One of the signs of the latter class is the falling of stars. History testifies to the fact that in the time of Jesus and the Holy Prophet the phenomenon of the falling of stars was frequently witnessed. In the time of the Holy Prophet meteors fell in such large numbers that disbelievers thought that both heaven and earth were going to fall asunder (Kathir, under 72:9). This sign was witnessed in fulfilment of the prophecy of the previous Scriptures, for some changes in the heavens were predicted by the Israelite Prophets as a sign of the appearance of the Holy Prophet. It was from these extraordinary happenings that Heraclius who, it appears, had some knowledge of astronomy inferred that the Prophet-King of the Arabs must have appeared (Bukhari, ch. on Bad’ul-Wahy).

From the traditions it appears that in the time of Jesus also meteors fell in unusually large numbers (Bihar). With regard to the second advent of the Messiah the Gospels say: And there shall be signs in the sun and in the moon, and in the stars (Luke 21:25; Matt. 24:29). And this actually happened in 1885 in the time of Ahmad, the Promised Messiah. Thus both history and traditions bear testimony to the fact that the falling of meteors in unusual numbers has been fixed by God as a sign of the advent of a Prophet. One reason why this phenomenon has been fixed as a sign is that it is beyond a Prophet’s power to cause such a phenomenon and its occurrence therefore leaves no doubt that it has been brought about solely by God. There may also be other unknown reasons for the occurrence of such a phenomenon on the advent of a Prophet. For instance, there may be some hidden influences accompanying the phenomenon which, unknown to man, may be helpful in counteracting the wicked designs of the opponents of the Prophets.

There is also a saying of the Holy Prophet to the effect that sometimes satans succeed in carrying their words to the people before they are overtaken by the shooting stars, and sometimes the latter overtake them before they carry their message to the people. This hadith means that whereas some enemies of the Prophets are overtaken by the sudden and immediate wrath of God, others are granted some respite until the cup of their iniquities is full and then they too are consumed by Divine punishment.

In short, these verses speak of the protection of the Word of God. The Quran says that none can know the Word of God until it is revealed to a Prophet. But when it has actually been revealed, the devils among men (i.e. common folk) and jinn (i.e. high-placed men or those who work clandestinely) try to get access to it by various means and propagate it among men by mixing much falsehood with it, and thus strive to incite the people against the Prophet. They seek to do it by quoting a passage from the teaching of the Prophet and then putting upon it a wrong interpretation. Or they tear a passage from its context and try to mislead the people by quoting it to them. This has been the invariable practice of the enemies of the Prophets of God in all ages.

It is only such "stealing" by the satans which God in His infinite wisdom has deemed fit to permit and against which He has not protected the mission of a Prophet. In fact, God Himself sometimes affords such opportunities to the opponents of the Prophets (6:113). In short, while on the one hand God has so protected His word that no enemy, external or internal, can make any change in it; on the other He, in His infallible wisdom, has permitted satanic people to disseminate wrong interpretations of His word among men and incite them by uttering lies about the revelation vouchsafed to His Prophets. When, however, they have finished doing so, a flame from the heavens pursues and strikes them, with the result that their deception is exposed by the Prophet. This peculiar treatment of the enemies of the Prophets by God casts no reflection on His power, nor does it do any real harm to His religion. The false notions spread among the enemies of the Prophet afford them only a temporary joy of which they soon become deprived.

It also appears from the Quran that satans who carry on wicked campaigns against the Word of God, are of two classes: (a) internal enemies or hypocrites; (b) external enemies or disbelievers. Proof of this division is to be found in the fact that in verse 18 and in 67:6 opposition to the Prophet has been ascribed to شیطان رجیم (Satan, the rejected), while in 37:8 it has been ascribed to شیطان مارد (Satan, the rebellious). Now the word رجیم literally means, "driven away" while مارد means, "rebellious"; hence in the present Surah as well as in Surah 67 the enemies of the truth spoken of are disbelievers who are described by the words شیطان رجیم (Satan, the rejected) for they always keep away from Islam, it being thus hinted that God will protect His word from the attacks of disbelievers; while in Surah 37 we are told that some men, though professing to be Muslims, will try to distort the sense of the Quran intentionally or unintentionally. Such people are called شیطان مارد (Satan, the rebellious). They outwardly pass as Muslims but in their heart of hearts they are rebels against Islam, though they themselves may not be conscious of the fact. God has held out the promise that He will protect His word even from the mischief of this latter class. This was really a prophecy about the future, and it was declared that whenever the so-called followers of Islam became incapable of understanding the true significance of the Quran and began to distort its true meaning, God would protect His word from such mischief by raising a Messenger who would interpret it rightly.

A word about astrologers and so-called spiritualists will not be out of place here. The Prophets of God succeed in extirpating the false notions and make-beliefs of these people as well. The science of the stars and the idea that they influence the actions of man so far as they deal with realities are not opposed to the teachings of Islam. The Quran, on the contrary, repeatedly exhorts its followers to study the laws of nature. It is therefore inconceivable that on the one hand God should have exhorted Muslims to study nature, which includes the study of heavenly bodies, and on the other hand should Himself have sent شھب (flames) upon those who desire to gain a knowledge of the heavenly bodies. Islam is only opposed to superstition and idolatry, and not to true knowledge and rightly-conducted research. Hence so far as these sciences tend to cause and create superstition or mere supposition, they are condemned by Islam. Similarly, these sciences are denounced when they are given the status of, and are treated as religion because then they lead to idolatry (shirk). The physical movements of stars certainly exercise influence upon man, but their influencing the actions of men falls within the purview of the laws of nature. There are thousands of things which are exercising similar influences at one and the same time, but no result can be definitely ascribed to one influence only. It is God alone Who exercises His influence independently of all others. So to think that anything happens in the world as a result of the influence of any single material object, whether a star or anything else, is virtually an act of shirk, which Islam condemns in the strongest terms. This is why the Holy Prophet is reported to have said: "Whoever says, 'We have been favoured with rain through the influence of such and such a star,' is a disbeliever in God and a believer in that star" (Bukhari, Kitabul-Istisqa).

If the word "satans" be taken to refer to astrologers, then the pelting of the satans will mean that during the time when there is no Prophet in the world, astrologers succeed to a certain extent in their trade in hoodwinking simple-minded people but, with the appearance of a Prophet, their falsehood becomes exposed and people can easily distinguish between true prophecies made by heavenly Messengers and the mere conjectures of astrologers.

Some commentators have explained these verses as meaning that satans or jinn ascend to heaven and try to listen to what is decided there and then communicate what they hear to their friends—soothsayers and diviners—mixing with it much falsehood. They further say that God has appointed sentinels to guard His decrees and when it comes to the knowledge of these sentinels that satans are listening to what is being decreed in heaven, they hurl shooting stars at them. This interpretation, however, is open to many objections. Firstly, it is inconsistent with the previous verse wherein we are told that the heavens are guarded by God against satans. It is inconceivable that satans should succeed in violating the guardianship of God and should be able to hear anything that God does not want them to hear. Secondly, if it be supposed that satans are able to steal something out of that which has been guarded by God, they may also be regarded as being able to steal something out of the revelation which is sent down to the Prophets of God, and thus the very sanctity and inviolability of the Word of God will become subject to serious doubts. Thirdly, if it be supposed that satans can have access even to such things as are under the special protection of God, then they can also succeed in tempting the Prophets of God whom He has promised to protect (v. 18). Moreover in v. 43 we are clearly told that Satan has no power over the righteous servants of God. Fourthly, if it be conceded that satans can steal things which are under the protection of God, then even the prophethood of heavenly Messengers will become doubtful, for if satans can manage to steal a little, they can also steal a considerable portion; nay, in that case they can steal even the prophethood of a Prophet. Fifthly, we know that astrologers and diviners are always trying to predict future events. If it is satans who convey and communicate to them secret things, and if they are pelted with shooting stars whenever they try to steal heavenly secrets, then whenever astrologers seek to predict the future and satans try to pry into the secrets of heaven, there should always appear in the heavens a shooting star to drive away a Satan. But such is not the case. Sixthly, the Quran says: Say, none in the heavens and the earth knows the unseen save Allah (27:66). How then is it possible that Satan should be able to know the unseen? The unseen is known only to God and His Chosen Ones. In 72:27, 28 we read: He is the Knower of the unseen; and He reveals not His secrets, to anyone, except him whom He chooses, namely, a Messenger of His. And then He causes an escort of guardian angels to go before him and behind him. This shows that the secrets of the unknown are revealed only to chosen Messengers of God. If these hidden secrets can be stolen by satans on the way, they cannot be said to reach the heavenly Messengers intact. Seventhly, satans cannot steal anything from the decrees of God because, according to the Quran, it is mere falsehood that they communicate to their friends. In 6:113, we read: And in like manner have We made for every Prophet an enemy, evil ones from among men and jinn. They suggest one to another gilded speech in order to deceive. The expression "gilded speech" according to Arabic idiom means, "lies." Eighthly, the Quran says: The satans have not brought it down, nor is it meet for them, nor are they able to do so, for they are debarred from hearing (26:211-213).

From the above it is clear that the secrets of the heavens are God’s guarded treasure to which satans have no access and which are made known only to God’s chosen ones.

18:38; 22:6; 23:13-14; 35:12; 36:78; 40:68.

Important Words:

نطفة (drop of fluid) is noun-infinitive from نطف. نطف الماء means, the water flowed little by little. نطفة means, the sperm of a man or [ovum of] a woman; clear water whether much or little; (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The verse means to say that after God had created the heavens and the earth according to a definite system of laws, He created man and sent down His revelation for his guidance. But notwithstanding the fact that after having created man from an apparently contemptible seed, God endowed him with highest faculties, yet he, instead of acting upon the guidance vouchsafed to him by God, begins to question His powers and prerogatives. Some men are so presumptuous as to say that God could not bring the universe into existence from non-existence and that it had come into existence by itself. Others say that God did not create matter, but has only arbitrarily subjected it to His control. Yet others object that God has no right to impose a law upon man and that man is a free agent and can frame a law for his own use. In this way these people begin to deny the favours of God and declare themselves independent of Him. The verse supplies an answer to all these objections.

The verse also implies the beautiful hint that while on the one hand man, in spite of being created from an apparently contemptible substance, begins to arrogate to himself such greatness as even to presume to dispute God’s authority; on the other he refuses to admit that God Who created him from a mere sperm and endowed him with such noble qualities has the power to raise an apparently lowly and humble man to the rank of a Prophet.

The verse may also suggest that it certainly could not be the object of the creation of the universe that only a disobedient and sinful man should have come into being. God’s purpose in creating the universe must have been quite different and much higher and nobler. If such is the case, then why should men wonder when there appears in the world a noble personage who fulfils the real object and purpose of God’s creation?

The verse also implies a reply to an objection raised by the opponents of the Prophets. They look down upon them and regard them as contemptible persons unworthy of such distinction. The opponents of the Holy Prophet held similar views with regard to him, as is apparent from 43:32. The verse draws the attention of disbelievers to man’s humble and lowly beginning to point the moral that when from such humble beginnings men can rise to great eminence and glory, why is it impossible that God should raise to spiritual eminence a man who appears contemptible and humble in their eyes?

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.

Important Words:

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

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

Commentary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6:51; 7:204; 10:16; 33:3.

Commentary:

بدعاً (new) is derived from بدع which means, he originated a thing or brought it into existence for the first time, the thing not having existed before, and not after the similitude of anything pre-existing. They say فلان بدع فی ھذا الامر i.e. such a one is the first person to do this thing. بدع means, first; new; a first doer of a thing; novel; a thing existing for the first time; an innovator (Lane & Aqrab). See also 2:118.

Commentary:

The Holy Prophet is here enjoined to tell his people that his being raised as a Divine Messenger was not a new thing. He was no innovator. They were already conversant with the phenomenon of prophethood. God had been raising His Messengers during the ages when people forsook the path of righteousness. He had raised Prophets in their neighbourhood, and, now, He had selected them for the bestowal of this great gift. They should, therefore, judge the Holy Prophet by the criteria by which the former Prophets were judged. The Holy Prophet is further asked to tell them that though there was no doubt that ultimately his cause would triumph, he was not vouchsafed the knowledge of the vicissitudes of circumstances through which he himself would have to pass during the intervening period, nor did he know how God would treat his opponents. His mission was confined to delivering the Divine Message to them and to warn them that if they did not behave they would come to grief.

26:116; 29:51; 51:51; 67:27.

Commentary:

The verse refers to the universality of the Message of Islam. The Holy Prophet was sent for the whole of mankind and the Quran is humanity’s infallible guide till the end of time.

15:10; 65:11.

Commentary:

The verse purports to say that the fact that God has intended that a nation, the Arabs, who so far had been very low in the scale of humanity should now rise to the heights of power and glory is no idle dream, no poetry. A Prophet of God, a Divine Messenger, who shall lead them to spiritual and material grand-eur, has arisen among them. It is inconsistent with the dignity of this great Prophet to be a poet, because whereas poets are generally given to idle dreaming and making castles in the air, the Prophets of God have before them very high and noble ideals and programmes. The verse, however, does not mean that all poetry is bad and that all poets are dreamers but it does mean that a Divine Prophet is far too dignified and spiritually exalted to be a mere poet. The pronoun ہ in له can also apply to the Quran.

18:38; 22:6; 23:14; 35:12; 40:68.

Commentary:

Continuing the theme of the preceding verse, the present verse may be taken as saying to the Holy Prophet that he has no cause to grieve over his rejection by disbelievers when they, forgetting their insignificant origin, have the hardihood even to doubt and dispute God’s own Almightiness. This is one meaning of the verse. But this and the next two verses may also constitute an answer to those disbelievers who doubt the possibility of a spiritually dead people rising to a new and vigorous life. Or these verses may point to the inevitability of Resurrection, saying that when God can raise a dead people like the Arabs to new life through the Holy Prophet, He does certainly possess the power to give new life to dead and decayed bones.

7:108.

Commentary:

The miracles referred to in this and the following verse have been fully discussed in 7:107-108, and 20:21-23. Briefly, it may be stated here that the rod of Moses did not actually turn into a serpent. It appeared to the audience as if it were a serpent. In fact, it was a vision of Moses in which the whole assembly were made to join. Now a rod in a vision symbolizes a community and the serpent an enemy. Thus by the miraculous happening Moses was made to understand that if he cast away his people from him, they would become veritable serpents but if he kept them under his fostering care they would grow into a strong and well-knit community and would not only become men of light and learning themselves but would also impart these things to others.

Moses’ white hand seemed also to signify that the great spiritual movement he had founded would one day enlighten the world with divine light and that his teaching would radiate and his people would undergo a complete transformation, and would become a community of highly righteous men. In fact, noble and righteous servants of God to whom He entrusts the task of bringing about a great change in the lives of his people become invested with a divine light which sometimes takes a material form and is seen by other people also.