ROOT و ض ع

Important Words:

مریم (Mary) was the mother of Jesus. She was probably named after the sister of Moses and Aaron, known as Mariam (later pronunciation Miriam). The word, which is probably a compound one consisting of مر and یم it possesses, in Hebrew, a variety of interpretations, some of them being "bitter sea"; "drop of the sea"; "star of the sea"; "bitterness"; "mistress" or "lady". From two alternative roots Mariam might also mean, "the rebellious", or "the corpulent" (Enc. Bib. under Mary). It also means "exalted" (Cruden’s Concordance). Muslim traditionists ascribe to the word the meaning of "pious worshipper" (Kashshaf).

الرجیم (the rejected) is passive participle from رجم. They say رجمه i.e. he pelted him with stones; he smote and killed him; he drove him away; he cursed him; he boycotted or forsook him; he reviled or abused him. رجم الرجل means, the man said a thing on conjecture. رجم القبر means, he put up a stone at the tomb to serve as a sign. الرجیم means: (1) one whom God has driven away from His presence and mercy, i.e. the one rejected; (2) one whom God has cursed; (3) one who has been forsaken and abandoned; and (4) one who has been pelted with stones (Aqrab & Lane). It also means, one driven away or deprived of all goodness and virtue (Mufradat).

Commentary:

Mary’s mother had made the vow in the hope that she would be blessed with a son whom she would dedicate to the service of God. Instead a daughter was born to her. So she was naturally perplexed.

The words, Allah knew best what she had brought forth, form a parenthetical clause spoken by God whereas the following words, the male was not like the female, may be taken to have been either spoken by God or by Mary’s mother. Most probably they are God’s words and mean as rendered in the text, that the female child she had brought forth was superior to the male child she desired to have. If taken to have been spoken by Mary’s mother, they would mean that the female child she had given birth to could not be like the male child she desired, inasmuch as only a boy was fit to do the special service to which she desired to dedicate him.

The clause, I have named her Mary, contains an implied prayer to God to make the girl as exalted and as good and virtuous as the name Mary, meaning exalted or a pious worshipper, signified.

The words, I commit her and her offspring to Thy protection from Satan, the rejected, offer some difficulty. If Mary’s mother intended her child to be dedicated to the service of God, she must have known that the child would remain unmarried for life. What is, then, the sense in offering prayer for the child’s offspring? The most probable explanation is that God had told her in a vision that her daughter would grow up to womanhood and would have a child, whereupon she prayed that Mary and her child might both be granted God’s protection from Satan, the rejected. In spite of this, however, she appears to have left the future of Mary in God’s hand and dedicated her, as she had originally intended, to the service of God (3:38; 3:45; also Gospel of the Birth of Mary). This must have been an exceptional case, for ordinarily only males were eligible for such dedication. The assumption that Mary’s mother had a vision that her daughter would have a son is not unfounded. It finds mention in the Gospel of Mary (3:5) though perhaps in a somewhat different form.

There was nothing unusual about the prayer of Hanna, Mary’s mother, that Mary and her offspring might be protected from satanic influences. All pious parents are actuated by such a desire for their children and pray that they should grow up to lead good and virtuous lives. But unfortunately this simple and natural prayer of Mary’s mother, coupled with a saying of the Holy Prophet to the effect that Mary and her son Jesus were free from the touch of Satan, has given rise to widespread misunderstanding and has been made the basis of an entirely erroneous and misleading belief among a section of Muslims, besides affording to Christians a welcome excuse for attacking Islam. A section among the latter-day Muslims has come to believe that of all men and women, Jesus and his mother, Mary, alone were immune from the evil influences of Satan.

As hinted above, this doctrine is based on a tradition of the Holy Prophet which says: "No child is born but Satan touches it at the time of its birth and makes it cry, except Jesus and his mother Mary" (Bukhari). Unfortunately, this saying of the Holy Prophet has been shorn of its true setting and utterly misunderstood. These words of the Prophet, besides being not strictly relevant as they refer only to the touch of Satan at the time of the birth of a child and not absolutely, were necessitated by the fact that the Jews, out of their enmity towards Jesus, charged him and his mother with the infamous accusation that, God forbid, Mary led an immoral life, and conceived out of legal wedlock, and that consequently Jesus, her son, had an illegal birth. It was to refute this filthy charge that the Holy Prophet uttered the above-quoted words. So this saying of the Prophet is not intended to be general but has only a particular significance with a specific setting. In fact this hadith mentions the names of Jesus and his mother Mary only by way of citing an instance and what is meant is that all mortals born of a woman are likely to come under the influence of Satan except such as possess moral and spiritual qualities like unto those possessed by Mary and her son. The Arabic language is not wanting in instances where a person is named not in his individual capacity, but as representing a class of people (Kashshaf & Manawi). The names of Jesus and Mary have been specifically chosen because of the aspersion upon them by the wicked Jews. Another equally good interpretation is that the words "no child is born" occurring in this hadith are, as hinted above not general but have been used in a restricted sense, signifying not all children absolutely but only such children as were born out of wedlock in the days of Jesus, and the name of Mary has been added because it was her abnormal conception that occasioned such birth of Jesus. Another saying of the Holy Prophet supports this interpretation. Says he, "every child is born in the likeness of Islam; it is only his parents that make him a Christian, a Jew or a Fire-Worshipper" (Bukhari). So the "touch" of Satan referred to in the foregoing hadith cannot be general; it must be taken in a restricted sense.

That Jesus and his mother are not alone in being free from the touch of Satan is clear from a number of Quranic verses and several sayings of the Holy Prophet. To quote only one instance from each, the Quran says: (O Satan,) surely thou shalt have no power over My servants, except such of the erring ones as choose to follow thee (15:43). And the Holy Prophet says: "If a person goes in unto his wife praying, 'O my Lord, keep me away from Satan and so too, keep away the child you grant me', and the wife conceives on such an occasion, the child born will be free from the touch of Satan" (Bukhari).

As for himself personally the Holy Prophet says, "Every one of you has a satan attached to him (who tries to lead him astray) but God has helped me against my satan who has turned Muslim, i.e. obedient and submissive" (Musnad). This means that so far as the Holy Prophet was concerned, Satan had become virtually non-existent. This is certainly a much more exalted position than mere protection against the attack of Satan. Truly has the Prophet remarked, "If Moses and Jesus had been alive, they would have found themselves forced to follow me" (Kathir).

Finally, it may be noted that though Islam declares all Prophets of God to be virtually safe from the influence of Satan, the Bible does not ascribe this protection to Jesus for the New Testament clearly states at a number of places that he was tempted by the Devil for no less than forty days (e.g. Mark 1:12, 13).

5:98; 27:92; 28:58; 29:68; 106:4, 5.

Important Words:

بکة (Becca) is the name given to the valley of Mecca. The word is probably derived from بك. They say بکه i.e. he pushed him into a narrow and crowded place. بك عنقه means, he dealt blows on his neck and broke it. تباك القوم علی الشیء means, the people crowded round the thing. The valley of مکة (Mecca) is called بکة (Becca) probably on account of the crowding of the people there, or because it used to break the necks of the tyrants (Aqrab). The word بکة (Becca) is also considered by some to be the same as Mecca, its م having been changed into ب. These two letters are interchangeable as in لازم and لازب.

Commentary:

See note on 2:128 with regard to the antiquity of the Ka‘bah.

In this verse, the Quran draws the attention of the People of the Book to the antiquity of the Ka‘bah in order to point out that the real and original centre of God’s religion is the Ka‘bah, those adopted by Jews and Christians being of later origin. Just as certain foods which Jews abstained from were not originally forbidden but came subsequently to be held unlawful, similarly their Qiblah was not the original Qiblah but was adopted as such at a subsequent time.

2:76; 3:79; 5:42.

2:105.

Commentary:

The verb یقولون (they say) is used in Arabic both for words of mouth, and for what one expresses by one’s condition or conduct (see 2:31). In this verse, the expression has been used of the Jews in both these senses, viz. "They say with their tongues that they have heard and obeyed, but their conduct shows that instead of obeying they disobey and defy."

The expression غیر مسمع (without being heard) gives a number of meanings: (1) mayest thou not be made to hear, i.e. mayest thou not hear by reason of deafness; (2) mayest thou not hear any speech or news which thou wouldst like or which may please thee; (3) may not what thou sayest be accepted, or may not thy invitation be accepted and thy call responded to; (4) mayest thou not be obeyed; or (5) the expression may mean, though it was not certainly intended by the Jews, mayest thou not hear anything offensive or unpleasant.

For the expression راعنا (ra‘ina) see note on 2:105.

The Jews used the aforesaid ambiguous expressions in order (1) to conceal what evil thoughts they entertained about the Holy Prophet; (2) to make Muslims imitate them and use analogous expressions while addressing the Holy Prophet; and (3) to taunt Muslims with regard to matters affecting their religion, saying to them in effect, "We speak to your Prophet jestingly and abuse him in ambiguous words; if he had been a true Prophet of God, he would have certainly come to know of this."

Commentary:

Whereas the preceding verse spoke of the Prayer in time of fear in the case of individuals, the present one gives the details of the manner of its performance when the Faithful are in the form of a company or group and the Prayer is to be performed in congregation. Apparently the Holy Prophet alone seems to have been addressed here, but really the verse possesses general application. When a Muslim army is about to say their Prayer in congregation, half of them should say the Prayer with the Imam, carrying their arms, and the other half should stand facing the enemy, to fight him or repulse his attack, as the case may be. When the first half have finished one Rak‘at, they should retire to take the place of those who are facing the enemy. The latter should then come forward and say one Rak‘at with the Imam.

As many as eleven different ways in which these Prayers were said on different occasions are described in the Hadith(for details see Al-Bahrul-Muhit). In some cases, each of the two parties said only one Rak‘at of Prayer, while the Imam said two. In other cases, each of the parties said two Rak‘at, one Rak‘at with the Imam and the other alone, thus all saying two Rak‘at. On yet other occasions each of the two parties said two rak‘at of Prayer with the Imam, the Imam himself having said four Rak‘at—two Rak‘at with each party. These different methods were observed in different circumstances. If the danger was great, each of the parties said only one Rak‘at of Prayer with the Imam while the Imam himself said two; but if the danger was not so great, each party said two Rak‘ats while the Imam said four. Again, methods varied with the varying position of the army. If the enemy, for instance, was in front of the Imam, the congregation followed a method different from that which they followed on other occasions.

To sum up, whereas Prayer in a state of simple journey consists of two Rak‘ats in such Prayers as ordinarily consist of four Rak‘ats, the Prayer in time of fear may assume different forms, the more important being:

(a) Splitting up the worshippers into two parties, each party either saying one part of its Prayer with the Imam and then retiring, or saying one part of its Prayer with the Imam and the other part separately, the number of Rak‘ats performed by the worshippers being either one or two as the case may be (the present verse);

(b) Shortening the duration of Prayers only (the preceding verse);

(c) Doing away with all form and repeating the words of Prayer while walking, running or riding (2:240).

The verse observes a difference between: اسلحة (arms) and حذر (means of defence or simply precautions). Whereas the former may be put aside in moments of comparative security, the latter should always be adhered to and never neglected. See also 4:72.

4:156.

2:76; 3:79; 4:47; 5:42

Important Words:

قاسیة (hardened) is derived from قسی which means: (1) it was or became hardened; (2) it became darkened (Aqrab). Thus, the words جعلنا قلوبھم قاسیة rendered as, We have hardened their hearts, may also mean, We have made their hearts devoid of light.

نسوا (have forgotten) is derived from نسی meaning, he forgot, or he abandoned or ceased acting on (Aqrab).

خائنة (treachery) is both the noun-infinitive and the active participle from خان i.e. he acted unfaithfully or treacherously. They say خانه i.e. he was unfaithful to the confidence or trust that he (the other party) reposed in him; he was treacherous or perfidious to him. خائنة means: (1) treachery, perfidiousness or unfaithfulness; (2) one who is very treacherous, unfaithful or perfidious. In the latter sense the word خائنة is the intensive form of خائن. The expression خائنة الاعین used elsewhere in the Quran (40:20) means, a surreptitious or intentional look at a thing at which it is not allowable to look; or the looking with a look that induces suspicion or evil opinion; or the making of a sign with the eye to indicate a thing that one conceals in the mind; or as some say, the contracting of the eye by way of making an obscure indication (Lane). The word خائنة may also be taken to have been used as an adjective qualifying the noun امة (people or party) which may be taken to be understood before it.

Commentary:

The words, They pervert the words from their proper places, may mean: (1) they tamper with the text of the Book, or (2) they distort the true meaning of the text.

The words نسواحظا rendered as they have forgotten a good part, may also be translated as, "they have abandoned and ceased to act on a goodly part".

9:47.

2:76; 3:79; 4:47.

Commentary:

The expression سماعون للکذب (who would fondly listen to any lie) is capable of bearing two meanings: (1) they listen to you in order to lie, i.e. they come to you so that they may listen to your words, and then go out and distort and twist your words and their meanings before their own people and ascribe to you things which you did not say or mean; (2) they hearken to lies and accept them, i.e. they believe the lies which others utter about you and accept them as true. Similarly, the clause سماعون لقوم آخرین (who listen for conveying it to another people) means: (1) they listen (to you) for the sake of another people; i.e. they come and listen to what you say in order to report it to another people; (2) they believe what others say about you and take it as true.

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

48:30.

See 3:105.

Important Words:

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

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

Commentary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:119.

Important Words:

خبالا (trouble) is the noun-infinitive from خبل (khabila), i.e. he was or became corrupt, unsound or disordered in his reason or intellect. خبله (khabala-hu) of which the infinitive is خبل (khablun) means, it rendered him insane or it corrupted or disordered his reason or intellect. خبال means, corruptness or unsoundness; or a disordered state in an absolute sense, or in reason or intellect; an affection in the heart resembling insanity or egregious stupidity; loss or a state of diminution; a state of perdition or destruction; distress, embarrassment, trouble or difficulty (Lane). See also 3:119.

خلالکم (to and fro in your midst). خلال is derived from خل. They say خل الشیء i.e. he or it perforated or pierced the thing through. خلال which is both singular and plural, means, inter-space or intervening space or a break or breach or gap between two things; looseness or want of compactness. They say دخلت بین خلال القوم i.e. I entered among the inter-spaces of the party. ھو خلالھم means, he is amid them.جسنا خلال دور القوم means, we went to and fro, or went about amid the houses of the people (Lane).

Commentary:

The verse declares that the defection of the hypocrites did no harm to the Muslims. On the contrary, it proved a blessing in disguise. For, if the hypocrites had gone forth with the Muslim army, they would only have caused trouble and mischief and tried to create discord and dissension.

The latter portion of the verse shows that some hypocrites or those weak of faith had actually gone forth with the Muslim army. These were ever ready to lend ear to the leaders among the hypocrites who generally remained behind. So if the latter too had accompanied the army, both would have joined hands to injure the cause of Islam.

3:31; 99:8-9.

39:70.

Commentary:

When Divine decree about the punishment of these iniquitous people comes into force, they will realize the baselessness of the misconception that their rule and dominion will last forever and they will begin to fear that the civilization and culture of which they were so proud will soon perish.

The words, What kind of a book is this. It leaves out nothing small or great but has recorded it, signify that disbelievers will be punished for all their past misdeeds. They will then know that God is the Lord and Ruler of heavens and earth and that He does not allow any action of man to go unrequited.

The clause, and thy Lord does not wrong any one, denotes that the punishment will be very severe and their end very bitter but it will all be the natural and inevitable consequence of their own evil doings; the Merciful God does not wrong any one.

4:41; 18:50.

Important Words:

خردل means, grain of mustard seed. خردل الطعام (khardala) means, he ate the best part of the food. خردل اللحم means, he cut the meat into small pieces (Aqrab).

Commentary:

Besides being a continuation of the subject dealt with in the preceding verses the present verse makes it clear that Hell is not everlasting. If even the slightest good work done by a man is to be rewarded, as the verse says, then a time must come when the punishment of his evil deeds should come to an end and the reward of his good works should begin. Contrary to the teachings of other religions the Quran teaches us that it is the Heaven and not Hell that is everlasting. The Islamic conception of Heaven and Hell is evidently more in keeping with reason and common sense. See also (11:109).