مُفۡتَر

2:52, 93; 4:154; 7:149; 20:89.

Commentary:

As it was not Aaron who took the calf for worship, so he was excluded when the offenders were punished. This absolves Aaron of all complicity in calf-worship. The account of the Bible in this connection is certainly misleading, as admitted by Encyclopaedia Biblica (vol. 1. col. 2).

As a matter of fact, only those who took the leading part in making the image of the calf and taking it for worship were punished. The rest, who were misled by the ringleaders and who afterwards repented were granted pardon, as hinted in the following verse.

2:24; 10:39; 17:89; 52:34-35.

Commentary:

This verse corroborates the interpretation put on the previous one. The latter gave two answers to the disbelievers’ vain hope that the Holy Prophet might abandon a portion of the Quran for fear of their objections, viz.: (1) that the Holy Prophet was only a Warner; he did not lay claim to Godhead that he might be required to have with him treasures and angels; (2) that he was only the bearer of a Message from God and his duty was confined to delivering that Message to the people. Now disbelievers could have replied to these arguments by saying that his claim to have come from God was but an empty assertion and that he was an impostor, as he was not attended with any special power. The verse under comment answers this objection by saying that although the Holy Prophet did not possess treasures of gold or silver, yet he possessed vast spiritual treasures the like of which were not possessed by the whole world collectively; and that those treasures were embodied in the Quran. So if they objected that the Holy Prophet was not a true Prophet and that certain portions of his Message were defective and needed to be altered, then let them bring forward a work comparable not to the whole of the Quran, but only to ten such chapters of it as they deemed to be defective. If, however, they could not produce a book comparable even to these so-called defective portions, which they thought needed to be changed, then they would have to admit that the Prophet of Islam did indeed possess a treasure the like of which none could produce. For full discussion of this subject, see under 2:24 where all similar verses of the Quran have been collectively treated.

7:66.

Commentary:

European critics have denied the very existence of the ‘Adites. They say that none of the inscriptions that have so far been discovered in Arabia mention ‘Ad as the name of any people in that country, and therefore they allege that the Quran has only quoted one of the popular legends that were current among the Arabs in the Prophet’s time.

This objection is based on a misunderstanding. In fact, sections of the human race are generally known by two sets of names, one representing the whole race and the other some particular group thereof. "Aryan," for instance, is the collective name of a whole race which comprises many groups and tribes. Now it would be absurd to infer that because inscriptions have been found bearing, for example, only such names as Chandra Gupta or Vikramaditya and no inscription is discovered bearing the name "Aryan," therefore "Aryan" is only a fictitious name and no nation of that name ever existed.

In the same way ‘Ad was not the name of a single tribe but of a group of tribes, whose different sections rose to power at different times. They left behind them inscriptions bearing the name of particular groups. But they all belonged to the main ‘Ad family. The fact that this name is found in ancient books of geography also shows that a people of the name of ‘Ad did indeed live. The geographical works compiled in Greece state that in the pre-Christian era, Yemen was ruled by a tribe called Adramitai who were no other than the ‘Ad who have been called ‘Adi Iram in the Quran. The termination of the Greek name is a noun-suffix, the real name being ‘Adram which is a corruption of ‘Adi Iram.

Some European writers think that Adramitai stands for Hadramaut but this is incorrect, because Hadramaut is the name of a place while Adramitai is the name of a tribe. Moreover, the name Hadramaut occurs both in Greek and Latin books, and nowhere has it been given as Adramitai. In Greek books it is given as Adramotitai, while in Latin books it is given as Chatramotitai. It is not reasonable to think that in this particular case geographers abandoned a generally accepted spelling and invented a new form. Moreover, the same work which mentions the tribe of Adramitai also gives an account of Hadramaut (Adramotitai) which clearly shows that according to the author of that book, Adramitai and Adramotitai are two different names (Al-‘Arab qabl al-Islam).

The Quran gives the following facts about the ‘Adites:

1. They built lofty buildings, and no other people in Arabia attained to that height of power to which they had attained (89:9). The verse referred to above also shows that the tribe of ‘Ad mentioned in the Quran was called Iram. This Iram section of the ‘Adites possessed a powerful kingdom which lasted up to 500 B.C. Their language was Aramaic, which is akin to Hebrew. The Aramaic kingdom was established after the fall of the Semitic kingdom and it included in its boundaries the whole of Mesopotamia, Palestine, Syria and Chaldea and, according to certain authorities, it extended even beyond these limits. Archaeological re-searches have discovered traces of this kingdom,

2. The people of ‘Ad as mentioned in the Quran lived immediately after the people of Noah (7:70). This shows that the Semites and other peoples referred to in history as existing before the Aramites were also sections of the ‘Adites.

3. They built monuments on elevated places (26:129). There still exist ruins of great buildings in Arabia. Only a few miles from Aden there can still be seen remains of lofty buildings erected on high hills,

4. It appears from 46:26 that the history of these people has now become wrapped in obscurity and only some remains of their buildings are to be seen.

5. The territory in which these people lived is called Ahqaf (46:22). Ahqaf, which literally means meandering and zigzag sandhills, is the name given to two parts of Arabia, one in the south, known as the Southern Ahqaf, the other in the north, called the Northern Ahqaf These tracts are fertile, but as they lie near the desert, sandhills are caused there by the sand of the desert having been heaped up by the wind. These sand-hills may not have existed in the time when these people lived there and may have come into being when ‘Ad were punished by a sandstorm.

6. From 69:7 it appears that the destruction of the ‘Adites was caused by the blowing of a violent wind which continued to rage over their territory for seven days, burying their chief cities under heaps of sand and dust. This disaster broke the power of these peoples and brought about their fall. The words, so that thou mightest have seen the people therein lying overthrown (69:8), show that their habitations lie buried under mounds of sand and their ruins may still be brought to light if the ground is cleared of the sandhills. This verse also shows that the territory received the name Ahqaf only when after the Divine visitation they became buried under sandhills.

2:107.

Commentary:

Before proceeding to explain this verse it is necessary to understand the real meaning of the word ایة which, primarily means "a sign". Unless there is something in the context to show that a word is taken in any of its secondary senses, we must take it in its primary sense. The verses of the Quran are called ایات (signs) because every one of them constitutes a sign of guidance. The preceding verses spoke of the punishments which were in store for disbelievers. This fact lends support to the view that the word ایة is here used in its original sense, viz. in the sense of a sign. Now the fulfilment of the prophecies of punishment depends on the attitude of those concerning whom they are made. If they are obstinate and persist in rejecting the signs of God, the threatened punishment overtakes them. But if they show repentance it is averted, deferred or delayed, for God is Merciful and His attribute of Mercy predominates over all His other attributes. The case of the people of Jonah is a well-known instance for understanding the nature and purpose of the prophecies of punishment. Jonah predicted destruction of the people of Nineveh, but they repented and renounced their evil ways. So God had mercy on them and averted the impending punishment (10:99), and in place of the sign of punishment, He showed a sign of mercy. On such occasions, i.e. when God averts or delays a predicted punishment in consonance with His attribute of Mercy, the sons of darkness accuse their Prophet of falsehood and declare that his prophecy has not been fulfilled. These critics conveniently ignore the fact that there is a vast difference between a promise and a threat. If a person does not keep his promise, he is rightly regarded as guilty of breach of a solemn undertaking but if he does not carry into actual effect his threat, he cannot be accused of any breach of promise. On the contrary, it will be regarded as an act of generosity and kindness on his part not to have done so. According to Arabic idiom also, whereas the non-fulfilment of a promise is called a breach of promise, the non-fulfilment of threat is regarded as an act of generosity. The Arabs say الخلف فی الوعد عند العرب کذب وفی الوعید کرم i.e. the breach of promise is a lie but the non-fulfilment of a threat is an act of generosity. God is Merciful, and if a person repents, His Mercy demands that punishment should be averted from him, and in such a case it will be foolish to accuse the Prophet of falsehood. The words, and Allah knows best what He reveals, mean that God knows best what kind of sign is required to be shown under particular circumstances. He shows His signs according to the requirements of the time. If He sees that disbelievers have given up their evil course and are penitent, He refrains from punishing them and changes the form of the sign. In that case the threat of punishment is not carried out, and under such circumstances it is foolish to accuse the Prophet of falsehood. So the expression واذا بدلنا ایة مکان ایة would mean, When We avert or delay punishment on account of a change for the better on the part of those who are threatened with such punishment…

Taking the word ایة in the sense of Law, this expression would mean that when in certain matters the Law of Islam is found to differ from Laws previously revealed, disbelievers regard it as evidence of the Quran’s being a forgery. This meaning is in perfect harmony with the context. It is argued that when the Quran declares previous Laws to have been revealed by God, it should not have differed from them. But the admission that previous Laws have been revealed by God does not mean that none of their ordinances could be replaced by new ordinances. According to the Quran, the previous Laws were meant for particular peoples and for particular times. They were suited only to the requirements of the peoples for whom they were revealed. The Quran, on the other hand, constitutes a universal Law, meant for all peoples and all times, and therefore if it is found to contain certain teachings which differ from the teachings of previously revealed Scriptures, that is no evidence of the Quran’s being a forgery. On the other hand, it is but natural and necessary that the perfect and universal Law—the Quran—should differ in some of its ordinances from temporary and provisional Laws previously revealed.

It must be clearly understood that the verse contains no reference to the abrogation of any of the verses of the Quran. The Holy Prophet has not been reported to have ever declared any verse of the Quran to have been abrogated by another verse. Nor are there any verses in the Quran which clash with other parts of the Book and which may therefore have to be regarded as abrogated. All parts of the Quran support and corroborate one another. Moreover, there is nothing in the context to suggest any reference to the abrogation theory.

It is also worth remembering that the passage under comment was revealed in Mecca. In fact, the whole Surah belongs to the Meccan period. And the Surahs of the Meccan period deal with teachings pertaining to morals and matters of belief, and about these there can be no question of abrogation or revocation.