ROOT خ ر ج

20:54; 27:62; 43:11; 51:49; 71:20; 78:7.

51:48; 78:13; 79:28, 29.

Important Words:

فراش (a bed) is derived from فرش. They say فرش الشیء i.e. he spread out the thing; he expanded it. فراش means, a thing that is spread upon the ground: a thing that is spread for one to sit or lie upon: a bed on which one sleeps; a wide or spacious plain or tract of land (Lane).

بناء (a roof) is derived from بنی meaning, he built; he constructed. So بناء means, a building; a structure; a thing that is built or constructed; also the roof or ceiling of a house or of a chamber or the like (Lane).

الثمرات (fruits) is the plural of ثمرة meaning, a fruit. The word is derived from the verb ثمر which means, the fruit became ripe. اثمر means, the tree, etc. produced fruit. The word ثمرة is also used figuratively, meaning, son or offspring; or profit of a thing (Taj).

انداد (equals) is the plural of ند which means, the like of a person or thing; or the like of a thing by participation of substance. It is a more specialised term than مثل which signifies alike by participation of anything. The word ند also means, a thing which does or may supply the place of another thing; or a like that is contrary or opposed to another thing; a thing taken as an object of worship instead of the true God (Lane). ند is to be distinguished from شریك; for whereas ند is the like of a thing, being contrary or opposed to it, شریك is simply a participant that shares the attributes or work of a thing (Aqrab under شریك and ند)

Commentary:

The subject matter of the last verse has been completed in this. It was said in that verse that رب should be worshipped because He is the Creator and He alone can foster man’s powers. In the present verse it is said that not only man but the heavens and the earth also have been created by God. It is evident that human actions depend upon environment. Trade, agriculture, industry, travel, etc. are made possible ultimately by the nature and influence of the heavens and the earth. So human actions can be guided aright only by a Being Who has made the heavens and the earth. It is only He Who can harness them for the use of man. None else has such knowledge, power or authority. So man should worship God alone.

The expression, and Who made the heaven a roof, suggests that just as a building or a roof is a source of protection for those living in or under it, similarly the remoter parts of the universe are a protection for our planet; and those who have studied the science of the stars, the clouds and other atmospheric phenomena know how the other heavenly bodies, running their courses through the boundless expanse rising high above the earth on all sides, make for its safety and stability.

In the clause, caused water to come down from the clouds, the word سماء has been used in the sense of "cloud", whereas in the preceding clause, and Who made the heaven a roof, it signifies "heaven". Had it meant the same thing in the two places, it would have been replaced in the second place by a pronoun. The repetition of the word is intended to convey a difference of meaning in the second place.

After making it clear that everything in this world is the creation of God, attention is drawn to the fact that God has no equal. There is nothing in the whole universe which can show any part of it to have been created by anyone other than God. Why, then, should man worship anyone else?

In this verse it is also hinted that the perfection of the material world depends upon a co-ordination of earthly and heavenly forces. When water is made corrupt by men on earth, fresh and pure water is supplied from heaven. Breathing makes the air foul but it is purified by nature. The eye is useful, but of what avail is it without the rays of the sun? In short, if the earth is a bed for man, the heaven is a roof. So is the case with the spiritual world. Man is gifted with reason but, like the eye, reason cannot function properly without the help of divine revelation. Human instincts are pure but they become polluted by greed, malice, etc. They can only be cleansed by the water of revelation. Hence man cannot attain to spiritual success without attaching himself to God. By showing material life to be dependent upon both earth and heaven, God points to a parallel in the spiritual world, and teaches that in spiritual matters also man should not trust earthly means alone. The intellect is not enough. Like the material world, the spiritual world also requires heavenly help. Just as there is a heaven above the earth, there is a heaven above the heart and brain of man. This is God’s guidance received through revelation.

An interesting question arises here. According to a widespread modern belief, the idea of God has evolved out of a primitive belief in spirits, ghosts and fairies. It is also said that in primitive times man worshipped beasts and poisonous insects and then gradually advanced to the idea of God. Modern critics appear to be in agreement that the idea of many gods has always preceded the idea of one God. The history of man’s beliefs is cited as evidence.

Some of those who hold such a view seem anxious to reconcile it with religion. They claim that their view does not go against religion. They say that God revealed the laws of nature by degrees; therefore there is nothing surprising if He should have revealed Himself also by degrees. Now, all religions base themselves upon revelation. And if the basis of religion is revelation, then the belief—that God revealed Himself by degrees and that He first guided the world to other gods, and then to Himself—at once falls to the ground. It is against all reason that God should first guide man to spirits, stones, rivers and snakes and then reveal Himself. What was there to hinder Him from guiding man to Himself from the very beginning? The living religions of the world have ever believed in revelation. Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Islam, all teach that revelation began with the creation of man. This being the case, there can have been no gradual evolution of the idea of God. Evolutionary accounts, therefore, conflict with religion. Those who hold them must deny revelation, the basis of religion.

The denial of revelation is, of course, very common in the Christian West. Christendom has failed for a long time to provide any examples of persons with revelation experience. Little wonder that those speculators, who have had no such experience themselves and who have not been made aware of such experience in others, should deny revelation outright. According to the Quran, however, God has spoken to man in all ages. The Quran itself is a record of revelation and, according to the Quran, the followers of Islam must continue to receive revelation. The recipient in our age is the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement. Nobody who knows all this can be impressed by denials of revelation. He can only treat them as mere ignorant conjectures.

Evolutionary accounts have little foundation in fact. It is said that the idea of God found amongst uncivilised peoples of the world today is polytheistic, therefore the idea of one God must have originated in polytheism. But it is not realized that the uncivilized peoples of today are not samples of the earliest human beings. Civilization has known many ages. Greece, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, India and China were centres of civilization and culture in their own days, but now they seem engulfed in darkness and ignorance. If ignorance can grow out of civilization, why not polytheism out of monotheism? In India, Krishna preached the doctrine of the Unity of God, but after his time a wave of idolatry swept over the country; and when Muslims came here, they found idol-worship rampant throughout the land. In Judaism false gods have taken the place of Jehovah. Jesus preached a simple faith in One God, but Christendom now believes in Trinity. A lower conception can easily supplant a higher one. Islam is an historical religion. Even its enemies admit that it teaches belief in the pure Unity of God. But today even Muslims have degenerated to the worship of things other than God. These examples refute the doctrine that monotheism has necessarily grown out of polytheism.

Moreover, a study of primitive religion itself shows that among the primitive people the idea of a perfect Deity exists side by side with their worship of many deities. Only, God is known by different names among different peoples. There also exists among the primitives the idea of revelation; they hold it to be the medium through which they came to have a knowledge of God.

7:21, 28; 20:121.

2:62; 7:25; 20:124.

7:25, 26; 20:56; 77:26, 27.

Important Words:

ازلھما (caused them both to slip). ازل derived from زل i.e. he slipped. ازل means: (1) he caused him to slip; (2) he turned him from the truth or from the right path (Aqrab). The word زل is sometimes used of slipping without intention (Mufradat).

اھبطوا (go forth) is derived from ھبط meaning, he descended or alighted or went down. But when the word is followed by the preposition من it generally means, he went forth or he departed. Thus ھبط من الوادی means, he went forth from the valley (Baqa). Arabic grammar, however, permits of the preposition being omitted. Thus the word اھبطوا in the present verse would mean, go forth or depart. Further on (in 2:39) we read اھبطوامنھا which means, go out of it or go forth from it.

مستقر (abode) is derived from استقر which again is derived from قر. They say قر فی المکان or استقر بالمکان i.e. he stayed or became established in the place; he adopted the place as his residence. So مستقر means, a place where one resides or abides for some length of time (Aqrab).

متاع (provision) is derived from متع. They say متعه الله بکذا. i.e. God made him profit by it for some length of time. So متاعmeans: (1) any of the necessaries of life like food, clothes and furniture; (2) goods of the world; (3) any short-lived profit that does not last for long (Aqrab). The word also means, deriving benefit from a thing for some length of time (Mufradat).

Commentary:

The pronoun "it" in, caused them both to slip by means of it, evidently refers to the شجرة or tree. The first two clauses of the verse mean that a satanic being enticed Adam and his spouse from the place where they were and thereby deprived them of the comforts they enjoyed. As explained in 2:35 above, it will be noted that he who beguiled and brought trouble on Adam was Shaitan and not Iblis who is spoken of as refusing to serve Adam. This distinction is to be found not only in the verse under comment but throughout the Quran which invariably speaks of Iblis while mentioning the incident of refusal to bow down through pride, and of Shaitan wherever mention is made of Adam being instigated to eat of the prohibited شجرة (tree). The distinction points to the conclusion that the word Shaitan does not here refer to Iblis, but to someone from among the fellow beings of Adam who was hostile to him. The inference is further supported by the verse: As to My servants, thou (O Iblis) shalt certainly have no power over them (17: 66). As Adam was a vicegerent of God, Iblis could have no power over him, and the being who beguiled him was someone else. Hence, in order to bring out this fact, the word Shaitan, which has a much wider significance than Iblis, has been used here.

The concluding words of the verse, i.e. for you there is an abode in the earth, also prove that the Quran lends no support to the idea of anybody ascending to the heavens alive, for the verse clearly fixes the earth as the lifelong abode of man. Thus the Quran rejects the idea that Jesus or, for that matter, anybody else ever went up to the heavens alive.

A short note here on the word 'satan' will not be out of place. As will be readily seen, the word 'satan' is of much wider significance than Iblis, for whereas Iblis is the name given to the Evil Spirit who belonged to the jinn and refused to serve Adam, thereafter becoming the leader of the forces of evil in the universe, the word 'satan' is used about any evil or harmful being or thing, whether a spirit or a human being or an animal or a disease or any other thing. Thus Iblis is a 'satan'; his comrades and associates are 'satans'; enemies of truth are 'satans'; mischievous men are 'satans', injurious animals are 'satans' and harmful diseases are 'satans'. The Quran, the Hadith and the Arabic literature are full of instances in which the word 'satan' has been freely used about one or all of these things. Thus the Quran says that there are 'satans' both among men and the jinn (6:113). Again, mischievous enemies of truth are also called 'satans' in the Quran (2:15). The Holy Prophet once used the name 'satan' about a thief who had repeatedly robbed Abu Hurairah (Bukhari). Similarly the Holy Prophet once said that a black street dog was a 'satan' (Majah). Again he once ordered his Companions to cover up their utensils containing food and drink lest 'satan' should find its way into them, evidently meaning harmful insects and germs (Majah). At another place the Holy Prophet exhorts his followers to clean their nostrils when they rise from sleep in the morning as 'satan' rests in them, hinting that harmful matter accumulates in the nostrils which, if not removed, may injure health (Muslim).

From the above instances it is clear that 'satan' is a very general term and is freely used about all evil or harmful beings or things. For the meaning of the word 'satan' see note on 2:15.

3:113.

2:91; 3:113; 5:61.

2:88; 3:22, 113, 184; 5:71.

Important Words:

فومھا (its wheat). فوم means: (1) wheat; (2) any corn suitable for making bread; (3) garlic; (4) chick-pea (Aqrab).

مصر (a town) means:(1) a town or a city; (2) the frontier between two countries; (3) the thing that intervenes between two things (Aqrab).

یقتلون (would kill) is derived from قتل i.e. he killed. The infinitive means: (1) killing with a sword or with a stone or with poison or by any other means; (2) attempting to kill; (3) making up the mind to kill; (4) boycotting or cutting off all connections; (5) killing one’s carnal desires; (6) weakening the strength of a thing, as alcohol is "killed" with the addition of water, or hunger is "killed" with food, etc.; (7) humbling a person completely; (8) rendering a person like unto one killed either physically or morally or spiritually; (9) acquiring complete and certain knowledge about a thing; and (10) cursing a person or thing (Aqrab, Mufradat & Lisan)

Commentary:

In this verse another instance is cited to show how the Israelites made no effort to turn the favours of God to good account. When they were in the desert, God sent them Manna and Salwa. But soon after this they began to exhibit discontent with one kind of food and to clamour for a variety of grain, onions, salad and green-stuff (Num. 11:5-11). It may be noted that both Manna and Salwa taken together were considered one kind of food as they were taken continuously for a long time. It is further learnt from the Bible that the supply of Salwa was discontinued after a while and the Israelites were thus left to live on Manna alone (Num. 11:6). As the demand was not based on a right understanding of the wisdom of God Who wanted the Israelites to breathe the free air of the desert for a time, they met with disgrace and drew upon themselves the wrath of God.

God’s displeasure with the Israelites was not due to their demand for other food. The real cause lay elsewhere. Having lived for a long time in bondage and a state of dependence, they had become cowardly and indolent. So God wished them to stay in the desert for sometime, living on game and wild herbs, that they might get rid of their cowardice and indolence by living an independent life in the desert. Thus revitalized, they were to be led to the Promised Land and made rulers of Palestine. The Israelites, however, failed to understand the real purpose of God or having understood it, failed to appreciate it, and foolishly insisted upon living in a town. God pointed out their error, saying that they had asked for a life of agriculture in preference to what was to lead them to sovereignty. He wanted to prepare them for rule over the Promised Land, but they hungered for husbandry. So He indignantly ordered them to go down to a town where they would get the desired things.

The Israelites deserved punishment, because their impatience was the outcome of a want of faith in the promise of God. This lack of faith in God was due to their opposition to His Prophets and, disbelief in His Signs, and they opposed the Prophets because they were transgressors and evildoers. The Prophets invited them to guidance and virtue which they disliked, and, as a result, they opposed them. Thus the Quran admirably traces the causal sequence of every evil to its origin and strikes at its very root so as to prevent all possibility of recurrence.

The words, we will not remain content with one kind of food, contain a threat and are full of arrogance. If the Israelites had meant simply to express a wish, the words would have been "we are unable to remain content with one kind of food," and not as they stand in the Quran. The Bible gives a vivid picture of their insolent and almost rebellious attitude on this occasion (Num. 11:5-15).

The words یقتلون النبیین translated in the verse as "would kill the Prophets" do not mean that the Israelites actually killed the Prophets, because, up to the time of Moses, no Prophet is known to have been slain by them. As a matter of fact, Moses is the first Prophet who was sent to the Israelites as a nation. Thus Moses and his brother, Aaron, are the only persons to whom the words can be applied; but obviously these two Prophets were not killed by the Israelites, although the latter often opposed them and were sometimes even bent upon killing them (Exod. 17:4). Hence, the word قتل in the verse cannot possibly mean actual killing. Its only meaning here is that they severely opposed the Prophets and were even prepared to kill them. This interpretation finds corroboration not only in Arabic lexicons, for which see Important Words, but the Quran itself supports it in a number of verses where the word قتل has been used undoubtedly, not in the sense of actual killing but in that of attempting to kill or intending to kill (3:22 and 40:29). Bukhari also relates a tradition to the effect that once certain hot-headed Quraish youths brutally assaulted the Holy Prophet in the precincts of the Ka‘bah, whereupon Abu Bakr rushed to his rescue, saying, اتقتلون رجلا ان یقول ربی الله "Do you kill a man because he says Allah is his Lord and Master?" (chapter on Tafsir). In this hadith the word قتل is clearly used in the sense of attempting to kill or intending to kill and not actual killing.

It will not be out of place to point out here that the purport of verse 2:59 discussed above is altogether different from the one under comment. Though in both of them God apparently orders the Israelites to go to some habitation, yet the meaning is entirely different, rather quite the opposite in each case. As a matter of fact, whereas in verse 2:59 God Himself willingly commands the Israelites to go to some habitation, His ordering them to "go down into a town" in the verse under comment is expressive of definite displeasure and anger. In the previous verse the قریة or habitation meant only a habitation found in the desert by going into which the Israelites did not leave the free desert life but rather combined it with the facilities of a habitation. On the contrary, by "going down into" a مصر i.e. a town or city as mentioned in the verse under comment, they altogether abandoned the desert life and adopted a life of ease, as is led in towns and cities. Hence the difference. This is why the Quran uses the simple word ادخلوا i.e. "enter" in 2:59 and the word اھبطوا i.e. "go down", a term expressive of decline, in the verse under comment. Similarly, whereas in verse 2:59 the Quran follows up the commandment with the words eat therefrom plentifully wherever you like, in the present verse the commandment is followed by the words and they were smitten with abasement and destitution. The difference is apparent. The former expression is indicative of the freedom of life in the desert, and the latter of the suffocating atmosphere and mental slavery of towns and cities.

Important Words:

قتلتم (you slew) is derived from قتل which means: (1) he killed; (2) he attempted to kill; (3) he rendered a person like unto one killed (see also 2:62).

نفساً (a person) has been used here as نکرة i.e. in an indefinite or undefined form. It may, according to the rules of the Arabic language, refer either to an unimportant person that need not be named, or to a very important personage; for sometimes a word used as نکرة denotes a sense of greatness (Mutawwal).

فادارءتم (differed among yourselves) is derived from درأ meaning, he repelled it or he thrust it back. ادارءتم is originally تدارءتمmeaning: (1) you repelled one another by casting blame or responsibility on one another; (2) you disagreed or differed among yourselves (Aqrab & Lane).

تکتمون (you concealed). See 2: 34.

Commentary:

See under next verse.

5:14; 6:44; 57:17.

Important Words:

یشقق (cleave asunder) which is originally یتشقق is derived from شق meaning, he cut it open or he clove it.

تشقق means, it clove or broke asunder (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The murder of the innocent Muslim referred to in the preceding verses sealed the fate of the Medinite Jews who thereafter became more and more hardened, their hearts becoming like stones or even worse.

The verse goes on to say that even lifeless things like stones are useful, but the Jews, although rational beings possessing understanding and descended from holy men, have become so hardened as virtually to become worse than stones. Stones have functions to perform; but as they possess no volition, their work can bring them no reward. Deeds are in fact of two kinds, firstly those which are performed through volition or exercise of will, and secondly those which are performed not through volition but under some natural law. According to Islam, it is only the deeds of the former class that bring reward; but the deeds of the latter class, though unable to bring a reward, are also sometimes useful. Most of the Jews, however, had become so depraved that, far from performing any act of virtue out of a desire to be virtuous, they did not even involuntarily perform anything that might be called virtuous. They had become worse than stones; for even from stones there comes out water which people profit by.

It has, however, been added that these remarks do not apply to the whole nation; for some of the Israelites were, no doubt, swayed by the fear of God. Of these the Quran says: Of them (the hearts) there are some that humble themselves for fear of Allah. It may be noted that the pronoun ھما (them) in the clause, and indeed of them there are some that humble themselves for fear of Allah, stands for قلوب (hearts) and not for حجارة (stones). The fact that of the two pronouns in the verse the first refers to حجارة (stones) and this one to قلوب (hearts) need not create any doubt. The Quran contains many instances of what is termed انتشار ضمائر i.e. where similar pronouns occurring in the same verse stand for different nouns. For example, we read in 48:10: That you may believe in Allah and His Messenger and may help him and honour him, and glorify Him morning and evening. In this verse the pronoun 'him' refers to the Holy Prophet in the first two places and to God in the third.

The sentence, for of stones indeed there are some out of which gush forth streams, and of them there are some out of which flows water when they cleave asunder, signifies that even among lifeless things there are grades, some being more useful than others; and the Quran hints that we should recognise the difference in the grade and usefulness of all things. Everything must have its due, whether small or great.

See under 2:87.

See under 2:87.

See 2:145.

Important Words:

خرجت (thou comest forth) is from خرج which means: (1) he came forth; (2) he went forth; (3) he came forth or went forth for a battle (Aqrab).

Commentary:

Now when the Ka‘bah had been appointed the Qiblah of Muslims, it became necessary that Mecca should come under their control. The verse under comment suitably refers to that matter. Muslims are bidden henceforward to direct all their energies to the conquest of Mecca. In all his campaigns, the Holy Prophet was commanded to keep in view the taking of Mecca, which had now become the centre of Islam. This is borne out by the expression خرجت (thou comest forth) which also means "thou goest forth for a battle". The word خرجت "thou comest forth or goest forth" has thus nothing to do with the turning of the face to the Ka‘bah, at the time of Prayers; for Prayers are not performed walking. Obviously the commandment cannot mean that one should, while walking, pray with one’s face turned toward the Ka‘bah.

The words, for that is indeed the truth from thy Lord, evidently imply that Mecca was sure to fall one day into the hands of the Holy Prophet. As considering the then helpless condition of the Muslims, such an achievement appeared to be almost impossible, so God gave His Messenger the assurance that the promise was a true one and its fulfilment was absolutely certain.

The expression, and Allah is not unmindful of what you do, provides a reason for the above promise. God was well aware of the deeds of the Muslims, knowing full well how they were striving to win His favour; so He could not let their labours go unrewarded. Just as He had established their connection with the Ka‘bah spiritually, so would He make them its masters physically.

2:145, 150.

5:4.

5:4; 12:7.

Commentary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23:100; 26:103.

Important Words:

کرة (return) is the infinitive noun from کر. They say کر الفارس i.e. the horseman returned to the attack after he had raced back. فعله کرة بعدکرة means, he did it again and again. کرة therefore means: (1) returning to the attack; (2) returning to the original state (3) a turn or time (Mufradat & Aqrab).

حسرات (anguish) is the plural of حسرة which is derived from حسر. They say حسرالبحر i.e. the sea sank or receded from the shore. حسرالرجل means: (1) the man was tired and wearied (2) he was sorrowful and grieved. حسرة means: (1) feeling intense anguish at a loss sustained or harm suffered; (2) regret or compunction; (3) grief or sorrow for a thing that has escaped one (Aqrab & Taj).

Commentary:

Having despaired of receiving help from their leaders, the disbelievers will, on the Day of Judgement, wish that they may be sent back to the world so that they may denounce these leaders in this world just as they were disowning them in the next. But this will be only a vain desire doomed to perish unfulfilled. Nay, the selfsame desire will become a source of anguish and punishment for them.

The clause, they shall not get out of the Fire, does not mean that the punishment of Hell will be unending. Islam does not believe in the eternity of Hell. While the Quran speaks of the blessings of Paradise as never-ending and everlasting, it does not say so of the punishment of Hell but simply speaks of it as being very long (11:108, 109). The sayings of the Holy Prophet also support this view. "There will come a time over Hell," he is reported to have said, "when there will remain none in it" (‘Ummal). The verse only means that, being unable to bear the torment of Hell, the dwellers of the Fire will wish to come out of it, but will not be able to do so (32:21), until their term of punishment is over. The word Fire as used in this verse may also mean the fire of anguish and agony in which they shall burn on account of their designs and cherished hopes having come to naught.