إِنِّىٓ

7:130; 10:15; 15:29; 24:56; 38:27.

Important Words:

قال (said) is a common Arabic word meaning, he said. Sometimes, however, it is used in a figurative sense when, instead of a verbal expression, a state or condition amounting to a verbal expression is meant. For example, the expression امتلأالحوض وقال قطنی i.e. the tank became full, and said, 'that will suffice', does not mean that the tank actually said so; it simply means that its condition implied that it was full. The word is also used in the sense of holding a view. We say فلان یقول بقول ابی حنیفة i.e. that man holds a view similar to that of Abu Hanifah. Again, the word is sometimes used to denote something not yet spoken but still in the mind. We say: فی نفسی قول لم اظھرہ i.e. there is something in my mind which I have not yet disclosed (Lisan & Mufradat).

الملائکة (the angels) is the plural of ملك (an angel). Authorities differ as to the derivation of the word. Some derive it from ملك but the more commonly accepted derivation is from الك which is used in the sense of conveying a message, the word الوکة meaning 'a message' (Mufradat & Lane). This explains the object of the creation of the angels. They are meant to convey God’s message to men and to execute His will in the universe.

خلیفة (vicegerent) is derived from خلف which means, he came after, or stood in place of. The word خلیفة is used in three different senses: (1) one who comes after and stands in the place of someone, (2) an امام (Imam) or supreme religious head and (3) a sovereign or king or ruler (Aqrab). The word is also used for one who precedes someone and is followed by him (Qadir).

نسبح (we glorify) is derived from سبح i.e. he went or travelled far away. سبح عن الامر means, he got freedom from the affair, having completed it. سبح فی الماء means, he swam in the water. سبح فی الفلك means, the planet, etc. glided in the firmament. سبحmeans, he prayed. سبح الله or سبح لله means, he declared God to be free from all defects and weaknesses; he glorified God (Aqrab). The word is used about God and conveys the sense of glorifying Him and declaring Him to be free from all defects—anything that may detract from, and adversely affect, His attributes of Oneness, Knowledge, Power, Purity, etc. (Taj & Mufradat).

نقدس (extol holiness) is derived from قدس i.e. he became pure and blessed. قدس الله فلانا means, God purified and blessed him. قدس الرجل الله means, the man declared God to be holy and free from defects (Aqrab). The word thus has a meaning similar to the preceding word, i.e. nusabbihu, but it conveys the further sense of ascribing to God the positive attributes of Holiness, Majesty, etc. (Lisan & Mufradat).

Commentary:

This verse is important, and commentators have differed about its meaning. Who was Adam, where was he placed, why did God speak to the angels about his being appointed as khalifah, why did the angels object to this appointment, are some of the questions which arise here at once.

But before dealing with them, it is necessary to explain what connection this verse has with the preceding one, and why the Quran refers to Adam, while discussing the ministry of the Holy Prophet of Islam. If the Holy Prophet was a true Messenger of God, was he the first to receive a message from heaven or did similar messages precede his? If he was the first Messenger, did God neglect those of His countless creatures who lived before him? These questions make the subject of Adam’s ministry at once relevant. The verse is intended to convey that the Holy Prophet is not the first Prophet; others have gone before him and Adam was the first link of the chain. Thus, by making a reference to the ministry of Adam, God removes the doubt agitating the minds of disbelievers about the mission of the Holy Prophet. It does not matter, if they do not understand his mission; even the angels did not understand the purpose of prophethood at its inception.

Adam, who lived about 6,000 years ago, is popularly believed to be the first man created by God upon this earth. This view is, however, not corroborated by a close study of the relevant facts. The truth is that the world has passed throughdifferent cycles of creation and civilization, and Adam, the progenitor of the present human race, is only the first link in the present cycle, and not the very first man in God’s creation. Nations have risen and fallen, civilizations have appeared and disappeared. Other Adams may have gone before our Adam; other races may have lived and perished, and other cycles of civilization appeared and disappeared. This view has also been held by certain eminent Muslim savants. Muhy-ud-Din Ibn ‘Arabi, the great mystic, says that once he saw himself in a dream performing a circuit of the Ka‘bah. In this dream a man appeared before him and claimed to be one of his ancestors. "How long is it since you died?" asked Ibn ‘Arabi. The man replied, "More than forty thousand years." "But this period is much more than what separates us from Adam," said Ibn ‘Arabi. The man replied, "Of which Adam are you speaking? About the Adam who is nearest to you or of some other?" "Then I recollected," says Ibn ‘Arabi, "the saying of the Holy Prophet to the effect that God had brought into being no less than a hundred thousand Adams, and I said to myself, 'Perhaps this man who claims to be an ancestor of mine was one of the previous Adams' " (Futuhat, iii. 607).

If the period covered by the progeny of each Adam be taken to be of seven thousand years, on an average, then, on the basis of the Holy Prophet’s saying referred to above, the age of the human race, as such, works out to be 700 million years; and this is the age of the progeny only of Adams, which does not include such races as may have passed before the creation of the first Adam. As against this, modern science gives one million years as the age of the human race (Enc. Br. 14th Edition, xiv, 767).

It is not claimed that the race which lived before Adam was entirely swept away before he was born. Most probably, there had remained a small degenerated remnant of the old race and Adam was one of them. God then selected him to be the progenitor of a new race and the precursor of a new civilization. Created, as it were, out of the dead, he represented the dawn of a new era of life. In this connection we may well quote from one of the speeches of the Promised Messiah, Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement:

"We do not follow the Bible in holding that the world began with the birth of Adam six or seven thousand years ago, and that before this there was nothing, and God was, as it were, idle and without work. Neither do we claim that all mankind, who are now found in different parts of the earth, are the progeny of the selfsame Adam. On the contrary, we hold that this Adam was not the first man. Mankind existed even before him, as is hinted by the Quran itself, when it says of Adam, 'I am about to place a Khalifah in the earth.' As khalifah means a successor, it is clear that men existed even before Adam. Hence, we cannot say whether the original inhabitants of America, Australia, etc. are the progeny of this last Adam, or of some other Adam gone before him" (Al-Hakam May 30th, 1908).

The word khalifah used about Adam in the verse has, as pointed out above, a reference to the fact that he was a remnant or successor of the old race and was selected by God to bring into being a new race; it also means a vicegerent of God—an Imam or leader appointed by God to fulfil a special mission.

The question here arises, why did the angels object to Adam’s appointment as Khalifah? In this connection, it must be borne in mind that the so-called objection is not really an objection; it is merely a presentation of facts placed before God, not by way of objection but to gain knowledge and obtain enlightenment. In fact, whenever a new Prophet is raised, God intends to bring about through him a revolution in the world, a change in the existing system, an ushering in of a new era. This process naturally entails the destruction of the old system and the construction of a new one. This was to be particularly the case with Adam’s ministry, as he was the first Messenger of a new order.

The people before Adam were without Law and lived almost like savages. Law was to be introduced through Adam and with the intro­duction of Law was to come sin, for sin is nothing but the breaking of Law. The angels, with their limited knowledge and little insight into the future, were naturally perturbed at the idea that with the ministry of Adam, sin and disobedience would come into being, and people would thenceforward begin to be condemned and punished for acts against which there had previously been no bar. In the view of the angels, Adam was nothing but a Lawgiver who was to prescribe limitations for the actions of man and mete out punishment to those who transgressed. The future Khalifah was thus going to shed blood and create disorder in the earth by shaking the foundations of society.

The angels saw the darker side of the picture only, but God saw the brighter side. Adam was, in the sight of God, a trumpet through which His clarion call was going to be sounded to the people. The dead were going to be quickened and the slumberers awakened from their sleep. Henceforward, there were to come into being men who would know their God and manifest His attributes and lead pious and righteous lives.

God could not leave mankind in a state of spiritual death, just because one section would have to be dubbed as disobedient. One obedient soul was better in the sight of God than a million disobedient ones. Scattered spots of light with patches of darkness, however large, were better than a universal veil of gloom covering the entire earth.

Moreover, Adam and his message could not be held responsible for the recalcitrant spirits who rejected him. He was only a harbinger of mercy, and those who rejected him and, thereby incurred the displeasure of God were themselves to blame for their doom. The sun is not to be condemned for the shadows that must result from its light.

This is the deep truth underlying the story which the verse under discussion narrates to the world, and the verse has been very fittingly placed in the beginning of the Quran to serve as a warning and an eye-opener for those to whom the message of the Holy Prophet of Islam was addressed. The Prophet was bringing light from God and in the wake of his message was to come a gigantic process of destruction and construction for which mankind was to be prepared. Some were to be awakened from sleep and saved from fire, and others to be shaken out of slumber to commit yet more acts of mischief and fan the fire that was blazing. But the believers, however small in number, were far weightier in the sight of God than hosts of disbelievers who had brought destruction on their own heads. Nay, the Prophet taken singly was weightier than the whole of mankind put together. According to a hadith God said to the Holy Prophet لولاك لماخلقت الافلاك"But for thee, O Muhammad, I would not have cared to bring into being the whole universe." This is not an idle boast but a statement full of truth and wisdom. For, is not a grain of truth better than a whole mountain of falsehood? And the Prophet was not a grain of truth, but a whole mountain of it. In the verse under discussion, and for that matter, in the verses that follow, the conversation between God and angels need not necessarily be taken in a literal sense, i.e. it is not necessary that the dialogue should have actually taken place in so many words. As explained under Important Words, the word قال is sometimes used in a figurative sense to convey not actually a verbal expression, but simply a state or condition amounting to a verbal expression. In this sense, it would not be necessary to hold that God actually spoke the words ascribed to Him or that the angels actually replied in so many words. It may simply mean that the angels by their state or condition implied a reply that has been here ascribed to them in words.

Much has been said about the place where Adam was born or where he was raised as a Reformer. The popular view is that he was placed in Paradise but was later expelled therefrom and put somewhere on the earth. But the words in the earth belie this view. These words definitely prove that Adam lived on the earth and it was on the earth that he was raised as a Reformer. As to the place of Adam’s residence, it may be noted that a study of the relevant facts, into a detailed discussion of which we need not go here, indicates that most probably Adam was first made to live in Iraq but was later directed to move down to a neighbouring land.

As we have not held Adam—God’s vicegerent spoken of in this verse—to be the first man created by God, we will not enter here into the discussion as to how and when the first man was created. The subject of the initial creation of man will be dealt with under relevant verses. As will be noted, the word khalifah has been used in the verse under comment in the sense of a Prophet; for truly speaking Prophets are also the khalifas of God, manifesting the divine attributes in accordance with the requirements of their age. In fact, the word khalifah has been used in three senses:

Firstly, it is used to denote a Prophet of God. Prophets are, as it were, the images of God. Adam was a khalifah in this sense. David has also been called a khalifah in this sense in the Quran. Says God: (We said), O David, We have made thee a khalifah or vicegerent in the earth' (38:27).

Secondly, the word khalifah is spoken of a people who come after and stand in place of another. Thus, when a people decline or are destroyed and another people take their place, the latter are called their khalifahs as in 7:70 and 7:75.

Thirdly, the successors of a Prophet are also called khalifahs because they follow in his footsteps and enforce his Law and maintain unity among his followers. Such a khalifah may either be elected by the people or appointed by the Prophet or raised directly by God as a Prophet serving the cause of the preceding one. Abu Bakr was a Khalifah of the Holy Prophet elected by the people after him. Moses appointed Aaron as his khalifah when he went up the Mount, saying to him, Act for me (lit. be my khalifah) among my people in my absence, and manage them well, and follow not the way of those who cause disorder (7:143). Though Aaron was a Prophet himself, yet he also acted as a khalifah in the absence of Moses. In the same way, God sometimes raises a Prophet to reform the followers of another Prophet. Such a Prophet does not bring a new Law but only enforces the existing Law. As he carries on the work of his predecessor, he is called his khalifah or successor. He is neither appointed by his predecessor nor elected by the people but is directly commissioned by God. There have been many such khalifahs among the Israelites. They were Prophets of God but brought no new Law, simply serving the Law of Moses (5:45). Jesus was the last of these khalifahs. He brought no new Law as he himself says: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt. 5:17, 18).

Muslims have been promised all these three kinds of khalifahs. Says the Quran: Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and do good works, that He will surely make them khalifahs in the earth, as He made khalifahs those who were before them; and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them; and that He will surely change their condition, after their fear, into peace and security: They will worship Me, (and) they will not associate anything with Me. But whoso is ungrateful after that, they will be the rebellious (24:56). God made Muslims the inheritors of the earth in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet. Then after the Holy Prophet He established the Khilafat of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali. And finally now, according to the Ahmadiyya Movement, God has made Ahmad of Qadian a Khalifah of the Holy Prophet in the same sense in which He made Jesus a khalifah of Moses. Ahmad has attained to prophethood by following in the footsteps of the Holy Prophet and has brought no new Law. He has been raised to serve Islam and make it dominant in the world.

This is the first verse of the Quran which makes mention of angels, so a short note about them will not be out of place here.

As pointed out under Important Words, the word ملك has the literal meaning of a "message-bearer" or "agent". This explains the object of the creation of the angels. They bring messages of God and execute His will in the universe. This does not mean that God is not All-Powerful and All-Knowing and All-Encom­passing and that He stands in need of any agents to execute His will or to carry His messages. But in His eternal wisdom He has decided to work with a system. Just as He has a system in the physical world, He has a system in the spiritual world also. The establishment of a system or a method of work is not due to any weakness in God but is, on the other hand, a sign of perfection. Thus angels are part of the system with which God executes His will in both the physical and the spiritual worlds. In the physical world they form the first link, with a number of physical links descending downwards but in the spiritual world they form a direct link between God and man. We may not quite understand the nature of their being, but we may well understand the object of their creation and the functions which they are meant to perform.

According to the teachings of Islam, there is quite a large number of angels, and they are divided into classes, each occupying a definite position and serving a definite purpose. They exercise their influence in their respective spheres and serve as agents for executing God’s will. In the physical world they remain, so to speak, behind the curtain and exercise their influence, through physical agencies working in the universe. It is only when we come to the final physical agency that the sphere of the angels begins. In the spiritual world, however, the influence of the angels is more evident. It is direct and works without any intervening agency. This is one of the reasons why Islam has included belief in angels among the fundamental articles of faith (2:286), because as matters stand, disbelief in angels would mean shutting off the whole avenue through which the light of God comes to man.

Angels are not visible to the physical eye. Yet they do sometimes appear to man in one form or another. This appearance, however, is not real but simply a sort of manifestation. This is why the appearance of the same angel at different times may assume different forms. The contact, however, is not imaginary but real, and exercises direct influence which is definitely felt and may even be tested through its results. There are several Ahadith to the effect that angels appeared to the Holy Prophet a number of times in one form or another. It must, however, be definitely understood that when we speak of an angel appearing to a human being, we do not mean his actual descending on the earth and leaving his fixed station in the heavens. We simply mean his manifestation by means of which he assumes a form which becomes visible to man. It must further be understood that an angel is not merely a force but a living being who executes the will of his Lord, wherever and in whatever manner demanded.

As for the functions of angels, the Quran enumerates a number of them, some of the more important being the following:

1. They are bearers of Divine Messages (22:76).

2. They inspire men to do righteous deeds, moving their hearts to virtue (91:9; also Tirmidhi, ch. on Tafsir).

3. They serve the Prophets and help their cause (15:30; 4:167); they also help believers (41:31, 32).

4. They bring punishment upon those who oppose the Prophets (6:159); and strike their enemies with fear and awe (3:125, 126).

5. They enforce the laws of nature and, as it were, bear the Throne of God on their shoulders (40:8).

The reason why angels have been mentioned in this verse in connection with the mission of Adam is that, as indicated above, one of the functions of the angels is to help the Messengers of God; so whenever a new Prophet is raised in the world, the angels are bidden to serve him by bringing into play the different forces of nature to help his cause. When, therefore, God decided to raise Adam as a Reformer, He informed the angels of His decision so that they should devote themselves to his service.

For a fuller discussion of the subject of angels the reader is referred to (1) Taudih and (2) A’inah by the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement and (3) Mala’ikah by Hadrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad, the Second Khalifah of the Ahmadiyya Community.

Important Words:

تکتمون (you conceal) is derived from کتم meaning, he concealed. They say کتم الشیء i.e. he concealed or suppressed the thing. The Arabs use the expression; کتم الربوة (he suppressed his breath) of a horse who, after running some distance, begins to pant, but having small nostrils, his breath remains, as it were, suppressed or concealed within him (Lane under کتم and عور). So کتمان (the act of concealing or suppressing) need not be deliberate or the result of a desire or attempt to conceal. It may merely be the result of circumstances or only the outcome of nature without an attempt or desire to that effect.

Commentary:

When the angels confessed their inability to manifest in themselves all the attributes that Adam could manifest, the latter, in obedience to the Divine will, manifested the different capabilities ingrained in him and showed to the angels the extensiveness of his natural capacities. Thus man proved the necessity of a being who might secure from God the faculty of volition or the power of will by means of which he might voluntarily take to righteousness, (or, for that matter, to sinning) and might thereby reveal to the world the glory and the greatness of God.

The words, and I know what you reveal and what you conceal, mean that God knew which divine attributes the angels manifested in themselves and which they were incapable of manifesting.

The words, what you conceal, do not mean that the angels had a desire for, or that they made an attempt at concealment; for, as explained under Important Words, the word کتمان (concealing) is also used to denote a state of affairs without there being any attempt or desire on one’s part to conceal or suppress anything. The words, what you conceal, therefore, refer to such attributes of God as the angels are unable to reflect in their own being on account of their natural inaptitude. It is a gross error to take the words, what you reveal and what you conceal, as signifying that the angels were not telling the whole truth before God.

As already pointed out under 2:31, the conversation between God and angels and Adam, as mentioned in the verse, need not necessarily be taken in a literal sense. Sometimes the word قال (he said) is used to describe the practical upshot of events without there being any actual speech or dialogue, the purpose of such narration being only to show the existing condition of things in a vivid and graphic form and nothing more. A poet says: قالت له العینان سمعاً وطاعة i.e. "Both of his eyes said, 'We will listen and obey'," whereas the eyes have no speech. Thus, the conversation embodying the story of Adam may also be nothing more than a portrayal in words.

Commentary:

The expression, I am not going to stretch out my hand against thee to kill thee, does not mean that Abel did not even desire to defend himself. These words only mean that if he were forced to stretch forth his hand towards his brother, it would not be with the intention of slaying him, but only in self-defence. The declaration was necessary, for there are cases in which both the slayer and the slain become equally guilty. The Holy Prophet is reported to have said that not unoften "both the slayer and the slain go to Hell." This hadith obviously refers to such slain persons as engage in a fight with the intention of killing their opponents, but it so happens that the latter get the better of them and kill them. In such cases, the intention of both parties being equally criminal, both are guilty and both deserve to be cast into Hell. But Abel, who desired to live righteously and die righteously, would not stain his conduct even in a moment of extreme danger and wanted to take good care that he did not overstep the limits of the right of self-defence.

Important Words:

ارید (I wish) is derived from راد i.e. he or it went to and fro; or he desired or sought (a thing). ارید means, he intended or willed or wished or desired or sought. But sometimes the word does not express an actual will or wish but simply a practical state or condition likely to develop in a certain manner. The Arabs say of a seriously sick person یرید ان یموت (lit. he wishes to die) meaning, he is about to die or his condition bespeaks of near­ness of death. The Quran says: یرید ان ینقض viz.the wall intended to fall down, i.e. it was about or ready to fall down (18:78) (Aqrab & Lane).

Commentary:

The verse does not mean, as some may be led to think, that Abel desired his brother, Cain, to be cast into Hell. What he meant by the word ارید (I wish), as explained under Important Words above, was simply that the natural and inevitable consequence of his own non-aggressive attitude would be that his brother would go to Hell. In fact, by using this expression, Abel desired to dissuade Cain from perpetration of the horrible crime of fratricide by picturing to him its awful consequences. He told his brother that, as for himself, he would rather die the death of one sinned against than raise his hand to kill him. The result of this would be that he (Cain) would take upon himself the burden of his (Abel’s) sin, (i.e.that of slaying him) as well as that of other sins of his own.

The expression may be explained in another way also. The Holy Prophet is reported to have said that on the Day of Judgement the good deeds of transgressors would be transferred to the account of the persons whom they had wronged and if transgressors had no good deeds to their account, the sins of the persons transgressed against would be transferred to them and thus wrongdoers would bear not only their own sins but also those of the persons whom they had wronged (Muslim, ch. on Birr Was-Silah).

12:102; 14:11; 35:2; 39:47.

20:133; 51:58-59.

6:164; 39:13.

Important Words:

فاطر (Maker) is derived from فطر. They say فطره i.e. he clove or split or rent it; he created it or brought it into existence; or he originated it. فطر العجین means, he made the dough into bread without leavening it. افطر means, he broke the fast. انفطر and تفطر mean, it became cleft or split or rent. الفطرة means, the natural constitution with which a child is created. فاطر when used about God, means the Originator or the Creator or the Maker (Taj).

Commentary:

The question in the first part of the verse implies that, as God alone is the Maker of the heavens and the earth and as it is He alone Who feeds all without being fed by anybody, therefore there is none worthy of being taken as protector but He. None else is worthy of being worshipped as God.

The words, Who feeds, refute the Godhead of those lifeless objects which men have taken for gods. They admittedly feed none, but God feeds all; hence these objects are not worthy of being taken as God.

The words, is not fed, negate the Godhead of those living beings who have been deified by men. They stand in need of food, but God needs no food; hence they cannot be gods.

10:16; 39:14.

Commentary:

This verse is an expression of the supreme independence of God. The Holy Prophet is made to say, "O men, it is indeed strange that you should not fear the punishment of God while I, who am a Prophet of God, fear His punishment if I disobey Him." This is an emphatic way of exhorting men to avoid disobedience of God. The expression does not imply that the Holy Prophet is likely to disobey God or even that it is possible for him to do so. It is simply meant to convince disbelievers that God is above all and none can dare disobey Him with impunity.

19:43.

Important Words:

اب (father) which is originally ابو gives the following meanings: a father; an ancestor; a paternal uncle. ابوالمرأة means, the woman’s husband. ابوالمثوی means, master or owner of the dwelling (Lane). See also 4:12.

آزر (Azar). For the discussion of the word and the relationship of Azar with Abraham see under Commentary below. The word is considered by some to be of non-Arabic origin, though in Arabic too it has a root. Thus آزر النبات means, the vegetation grew thick and strong. آزر فلانا means, he strengthened such and such a person. آزرہ means, he sympathized with and helped him (Aqrab). The name, which thus appears to be attributive, was given to Azar probably because he helped his people in establishing idol-worship. According to Mujahid, آزر was originally the name of an idol (Qadir).

Commentary:

With this verse the Quran turns to an account of Abraham, which is given here for two reasons: Firstly, because it is the idolatrous Quraish that are chiefly addressed in these verses and they revered Abraham as their progenitor and patriarch. Hence, by giving an account of Abraham, God wants to tell the Quraish that their great ancestor Abraham was also, like the Holy Prophet, opposed to idolatry, which shows that idol-worship is a later innovation. Secondly, by means of this account, God wants to impress upon idolaters the hollow and unsound foundation on which stands the belief and practice of idol-worship and the absurd ideas which give rise to idolatry.

In the present verse Abraham is represented as arguing with his اب (father) on the subject of idolatry. This اب (father) is here named Azar. Now we have to see in what relation this man stood to Abraham and what his true name was. Christian writers have criticized the Quran on the, ground that it calls Abraham’s father by the name Azar while his true name was Terah. It is true that in Gen. 11:26 Abraham’s father is named Terah. But it is equally true that in Luke 3: 34 Abraham is called the son of Thara and not Terah. The reader should note the change not only in the first consonant but also in the vowel that follows. The Talmud also gives the name of Abraham’s father as Thara. Eusebius, the great Church historian, who has been rightly styled the Father of Ecclesiastical History, gives, in spite of Gen. 11:26 and Luke: 3: 34, which could not be unknown to him, Athar as the name of Abraham’s father (Sale). This clearly shows that even among the Jews there existed no unanimity as to the name of Abraham’s father. The fact that Eusebius, followed neither Gen. 11:26, nor Luke 3: 34 shows that he had strong reasons to differ from these two well-known sources. The correct form thus appears to be Athar, which later became changed into Thara or Terah. Now the form adopted by Eusebius is almost, if not exactly, the same as given by the Quran. If there is any difference, it is only that of pronunciation; otherwise both forms, i.e. Azar and Athar, are identical. Christians have, therefore, no reason to quarrel with the Quran for calling Abraham’s father by the name Azar. It may also be noted that Abraham’s father is also called Zarah in the Talmud (Sale) and Zarah is approximately the same as Azar. All this goes to prove not only that the Quran is not wrong on calling the father of Abraham by the name Azar, but also that the Quranic version is much more reliable than that of the Bible.

The next question we have to consider is that of the relationship in which Azar stood to Abraham. In the Quran, he has been called Abraham’s اب (ab), a word applied, as shown under Important Words, not only to father but also to uncle, grandfather, etc. who stand in the position of a father. From the Quran it appears that Azar, though called the (ab) of Abraham, was not really his father. In 9:114 we are told that Abraham had made a promise to Azar, his اب (ab), to pray to God for his forgiveness, but when he came to know that he was an enemy of God, he abstained from praying for him and was actually forbidden to do so (see also 26:87 where again Azar is spoken as the اب of Abraham). Elsewhere, however, the Quran itself records a prayer of Abraham which he offered in the last days of his life, after he had built the Ka‘bah in company with his son, Ishmael. In this prayer, Abraham prays for his father and is not forbidden to pray for him; but here Abraham does not use for him the word اب but والد (14:42). Now, as has already been stated, the word ابmay be applied to a person other than the real father, but the word والد (walid) which means "the begetter" is applied to none but the actual father. This clearly shows that Azar who has been called the اب (ab) of Abraham was a different person from the والد (walid) of Abraham. He was probably his uncle.

Some passages of the Bible also support this conclusion. We are told that Abraham married Sarah, the daughter of Terah (Gen. 20:12). This shows that Terah was not his real father, for in that case he could not marry Terah’s daughter, his own sister. It appears that his father being dead, he was brought up by his uncle, Azar or Athar, who gave him his daughter Sarah in marriage. As Azar brought up Abraham and was in the position of a father to him, the latter came to be ascribed to him as a son, and this led to the error of Azar or Athar being taken as the real father of Abraham. Again, from the Talmud it appears that Azar prosecuted Abraham and presented him before the king for the offence of breaking idols. If Azar had been the real father of Abraham, he would not have followed such a course against his own son.

11:26-27; 23:24.

Important Words:

نوح (Noah) a very ancient Prophet who, as the Bible tells us, lived nine generations after Adam and eleven generations before Abraham. (Gen, 5:3-32; Luke 3:34-38). His native land was Mesopotamia. He is believed to be the progenitor of the greater part of mankind. The word نوح (Noah) may, in Arabic, be considered to have been derived from ناح which means, he bewailed or mourned. They say ناحت علی زوجھا i.e. the woman bewailed or mourned over her dead husband. ناحت الحمامة نوحا means, the pigeon cooed in a plaintive manner. The Prophet Noah is particularly known for the Flood that overtook his people as the result of his bewailings and lamentations before God for the persecution he had to suffer at the hands of his wicked people, most of whom perished in the Flood. His three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, are generally believed to be the ancestors of the three principal races of mankind. See also 11:26.

Commentary:

After having briefly described the great moral and spiritual reformation that the appearance of a Prophet brings about among a people, and the evil consequences to which opposition to him leads, the present verse proceeds to give illustrations of some of the nations of antiquity, beginning with the people of Noah, to show that those, who oppose God’s Prophets, meet with nothing but destruction. Most of the different races now living on this earth are believed to be descended from Noah. His descendants seem to have spread in all directions, as may be seen from the story of the Deluge which is known to the people of Europe, Asia, Africa and even America.

The words, We sent Noah to his people, show that the Deluge overtook only the people to whom Noah was sent. It was not a universal phenomenon, but the descendants of Noah may have carried the tale to distant lands.

The words یوم عظیم literally meaning "a great day", have been used to signify a day of heavy punishment which was too dreadful to be forgotten.

6:44; 16:64; 27:25; 29:49.

14:23; 59:17.

Important Words:

جار (protector) is derived from جار which means, he declined or deviated. جاورہ means, he became his neighbour, or he lived in his neighbourhood. جاورہ also means, he bound himself to him by a covenant to protect him. جار means, a neighbour; a person whom one protects; one who seeks protection; also a protector (Lane).

نکص (he turned). نکص عن الامر means, he receded or retired or drew back from the thing or the affair; or he recoiled or shrank from it in fear. نکص علی عقبیه means, he turned back from a thing to which he had applied himself (Lane).

Commentary:

For the meaning of the word "Satan", see 2:15. The word here means, one who misleads or gives evil advice. The person referred to in the verse is reported to be Suraqah bin Malik bin Ju‘sham who incited the Meccans against the Muslims but who afterwards embraced Islam.

The Meccan army was still at Mecca when some of the Quraishite leaders gave expression to the fear that Banu Bakr, a branch of Banu Kananah, who were hostile to the Quraish, might surprise Mecca during their absence or attack the Meccan army from the rear. Their fears were allayed by Suraqah, a chief of Banu Kananah, who assured them that his tribesmen would do them no harm (Jarir, x. 13).

The words, I see what you see not, signify that when Suraqah saw the grim determination of the Muslims, fear took hold of him; for on seeing them he was convinced that the Muslims would win or die. This was exactly what ‘Utbah and ‘Umair also saw and felt when they told the Meccans that the Muslims looked like so many "seekers of death" (Tabari). Suraqah uttered the words, I fear Allah, not because he really feared God at that time but because he wished to find an excuse to flee from the battlefield.

See 10:8.

17:74.

6:51; 7:204; 46:10.

Important Words:

تلقاء (accord) is derived from لقی. They say لقیه i.e. he came face to face with him; he found or met him. توجه تلقاء النار means, he went in the direction of the fire, or towards the fire. جلس تلقاء فلان means, he sat facing him or opposite to him. فعله من تلقاء نفسه means, he did it himself; he did it of his own accord, i.e. without being led to it by someone else or without being forced to do it (Aqrab).

Commentary:

Signs (آیات) are of two kinds: (1) simple signs, and (2) clear or manifest signs. To the first class belong all things, even the smallest atom of the universe, because every one of these things points to the existence of a Creator, though it is our own faculty of reasoning that draws the inference that every created thing must have a Creator. But the signs shown at the hands of Prophets speak for themselves. They are shown to establish the truth of things hidden from our eyes, viz. the existence of God, the Day of Resurrection, the truth of the Prophets, and the nature of Divine attributes. As these signs serve as evidence for matters that concern belief, they have been spoken of as آیات بینات (clear signs), while the Signs from nature are spoken of simply as آیات (signs). All pestilences, for example, are آیات while a pestilence predicted by a Prophet of God to prove the truth of his claim is آیة بینة i.e. a clear and manifest sign, for such a pestilence serves its purpose much more clearly and definitely than a general one.

The words, those who look not for the meeting with Us say, Bring a Quran other than this or change it, show that when the leaders of disbelief saw that the hearts of their followers were becoming gradually inclined towards the truth and they were beginning to accept the new faith, they became anxious and, in order to incite their followers against the Prophet, assumed the garb of peacemakers. As men naturally love peace, the leaders of disbelief exploit this natural human desire and suggest a compromise, viz. that the Prophet should introduce no new teaching but should only assume the leadership of the people which would maintain the homogeneity of the community and save it from discord or dissension. If, however, this proposal should not meet with the Prophet’s acceptance, he should at least omit from his teachings such portions as offend against the cherished ideas of the people. When making these proposals, the ringleaders know full well that the Prophet would never accede to these unreasonable demands, which cut at the very root of his divine mission, and that in this way the people would come to think that he was too narrow-minded to give up even some of his ideas for the sake of national unity and concord. Thus they think they would succeed in making the people ignore the important fact that truth and the acceptance of a Divine Call were much more precious than mere patched-up unity and that the decline of nations was always due to the denial of divine truth. In reply to these demands of his opponents the Holy Prophet is commanded to say in this verse that he could not change a teaching which was revealed by God and which was the only means of their regeneration, for such change, instead of proving useful, was sure to prove ruinous.

The expression "of my own accord" occurring in the words, It is not for me to change it of my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me, contains a subtle hint that Divine teachings are always in accordance with the condition of the people for whom they are sent, and hence nobody can change them of his own accord. If the Holy Prophet should himself change the teachings revealed to him, it would lead to the ruin of the people because Divine teachings, being in fitness of prevailing circumstances, can alone bring about a real spiritual and moral reformation among people and any change in these teachings would certainly be not to their good. The words, Bring a Quran other than this or change it, may also refer to the prophecies of punishment and destruction contained in the Quran. Disbelievers naturally did not like these prophecies and wanted them to be changed. The verse tells them that they could have these warnings changed only if they changed their own condition, because if a change takes place in them, the nature of the warnings would automatically change.

The words, I only follow what is revealed to me, may also mean, "In respect of the Quran I follow nothing but what is revealed to me" i.e. not only are all the words of the Quran divine but its divisions into verses and Surahs as well as the arrangement thereof are also divine. Incidentally this also does away with the objection raised by certain critics of Islam that the opening verse of each Surah, viz. بسم الله was not of Divine origin but was placed there by the Prophet himself.

Some Christian writers pretend to see this verse as an effort by the Holy Prophet to justify the alleged abrogation of certain verses of the Quran. By the words, It is not for me to change it of my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me, the Holy Prophet is supposed by these writers to have disclaimed all responsibility for abrogation in the Quran. But this assumption is absurd. Far from justifying abrogation, the verse shows that not a single verse of the Quran has ever been abrogated. When disbelievers demanded that the Holy Prophet should make some alteration in the Quran, they did not mean that they would accept it after the demanded changes had been made. Their object in making such a demand was that, if the Holy Prophet agreed to make any change in the Quran, in compliance with their demand, they would at once say that it was not the word of God but his own composition which he altered at will to meet their wishes. But if he refused to accede to their demand, they would get a ready tool to incite the masses against him, condemning him as one who had no regard for national peace and harmony. Christian writers seem to forget the fact that if, as alleged by them, certain verses of the Quran had already been replaced by others, disbelievers had no need to resort to the above device, but could justify their objection on the basis of the abrogation that had already taken place in the Quran and could seize on it as evidence of the Quran not being the word of God. Thus the verse under comment incidentally furnishes evidence that there has been no abrogation in the Quran.

The words, the punishment of an awful day, signify a national disaster. The words mean that the teachings which are revealed by God are for the good of the people themselves and it is on acting upon them that all progress depends. So, if any change is made in these teachings, it is sure to prove detrimental to the best interests of the entire people.

Commentary:

If, as some commentators say, Jacob had really become blind and his blindness had been removed by the casting of Joseph’s shirt at his face, he should have attributed the restoration of his sight to Joseph’s shirt and would have declared it as a miracle. But he refers to no such unusual happening but only to the divine knowledge about Joseph’s being alive, which he had long before imparted to his sons. Thus what the verse really means is that when Joseph’s shirt was laid before Jacob, the conviction that Joseph was alive which, being based on revelation, was previously only a matter of faith, now became converted into factual knowledge. This is the meaning of the words, he became enlightened.

In fact, the knowledge of God’s Prophets is of two kinds: (a) spiritual knowledge which they get direct from God by means of revelation; (b) material or secular knowledge which they acquire through their physical senses and other material means. When spiritual knowledge becomes supplemented and supported by the testimony of physical senses, it becomes complete in every sense and no vestige of doubt or ambiguity remains. As long as knowledge gained through spiritual means remains a matter of faith and does not go beyond conviction, it is capable of various interpretations: but when it is reinforced and corroborated by physical facts, it becomes a certainty beyond the possibility of doubt or dispute.

7:60; 71:4.

Commentary:

"A grievous punishment" is different from "the punishment of a grievous day." The latter expression implies greater intensity. Certain punishments are very grievous, but there are certain "days" the remembrance of which continues to cause great pain even after the lapse of hundreds of years. The actual "punishment" causes pain only to those on whom it falls, but remembrance of the "days" of a terrible punishment frightens even those who come after. Thus, by using the expression, the punishment of a grievous day, the Quran points to the fact that the threatened punishment was to be such as would be long remembered and would strike terror into the hearts of coming generations. This expression aptly describes the grievous nature of the punishment which overtook the people of Noah, for the great Deluge is remembered even to the present day as a terrible catastrophe the very thought of which inspires fear.

6:51.

Commentary:

In the first part of this verse Noah answers the objections of his opponents about himself in another form. He says that they taunt him for being a mere human being like themselves. But his claim is not inconsistent with his being a human being. He is only a Prophet, and it was not necessary for a Prophet to be different in kind from those to whom he was sent. On the contrary, it is necessary that he should be one of them and similar to them. If he had ascribed divinity to himself and had said that God had delegated His authority to him, then indeed they could have asked how a human being like them could discharge Divine functions. But he has made no such claim. His only claim is that God had chosen him as an instrument for conveying to men the knowledge which He wishes to disclose to them.

The words, Allah will not bestow any good upon them, contain a further answer to the objections of Noah’s enemies about his followers. Noah says that they taunted his followers with being mean and lowly, but who could say what was going to happen in future or how God intended to bestow on these very poor people the blessings of Heaven and the earth. He further reinforces his argument by saying that truly mean is that person whose heart is corrupt, but the condition of the heart or the mind is known to God alone. They judged his followers by their outward condition while God, Who knew the real condition of their hearts, knew that they were not mean but the noblest of men. This is the significance of the words, Allah knows best whatever is in their minds.

Important Words:

عمل (man of conduct) generally signifies work, deed or action; a motion of the whole or of a portion of the body or even of the mind; the utterance of a saying. The word عمل (lit. deed) may also mean ذوعمل i.e. the doer of a deed, which construction is permissible in the Arabic language when an intensified sense is intended (Lane & Muhit).

Commentary:

In a brief sentence, viz. he is surely not of thy family, God disclosed a great truth to Noah.

What He meant was that when He promised to save his family, He did not mean all members of the family, but only such of them as were righteous and believed in him, because, truly speaking, only those persons were members of his family who had established a true relationship with God through him.

The Quranic words انه عمل غیر صالح rendered here as, he is indeed a man of unrighteous conduct, are capable of two interpretations. First, they may refer to the prayer of Noah. In that case, the clause would mean that this act of his, i.e. his prayer for his son, was غیر صالح i.e. out of place, the word صالح meaning "suitable, meet or proper." By using these words with regard to Noah’s prayer, God meant to point out that as He had already pronounced His judgement and the hour of punishment had actually arrived, so the time for prayer had passed.

Secondly, the clause may refer to Noah’s son. In that case, the word عمل (lit. deed) would be taken as meaning ذوعمل(the doer of a deed). This usage of the word is quite in harmony with Arabic idiom, according to which the infinitive is sometimes used in place of the active participle to impart emphasis. An Arab poet describing the restlessness of a she-camel who had lost her young ones says:انما ھی اقبال و ادبار i.e. "She is so restless that she has become the very act of moving forward and backward," meaning the embodiment thereof. According to this meaning of the word عمل the clause would mean that the reason why his son was not considered as belonging to his family was that he was a man of unrighteous conduct.

The words, ask not of Me, may mean either asking for a favour in prayer or simply inquiring. Taking the words in the former sense, the verse would mean that one should not pray for a matter of whose benefit one is not certain, for in such a case a man cannot know whether what he is praying for will prove a blessing or a curse. In such cases one should pray to God only generally to grant what is good in His sight. There are, however, certain matters about the goodness of which there can be no doubt, e.g. the pleasure of God or the welfare of the life to come. For such matters one can pray without qualification. The prayer of Noah for his son belonged to the former category. He did not know how his son would behave if he were saved. It was possible, nay it was most probable, that if he had been saved, the cause of religion would have materially suffered through him.

If the word "ask" be taken in the sense of "inquire," the verse would mean that Noah was not to inquire about a matter which was beyond his power to comprehend or the disclosure of which was not considered proper. The words مالیس لك به علم do not, in this case, mean "that of which thou hast no knowledge," for man always inquires about matters which he does not know. The words would therefore mean "that which thou canst not know," either because they are beyond thy comprehension or because they cannot be disclosed to thee.

God’s reply to Noah given in the words, he is indeed a man of unrighteous conduct, shows that Noah was not aware of the misdeeds of his son, and the reason why Noah was advised to abstain from asking questions about his son was that such questions were calculated to expose the latter’s misdeeds, which was inconsistent with the God’s attribute of mercy as well as with His attribute of covering up or screening the faults of His creatures. Extraordinary are the ways of God! On the one hand He decreed that Noah’s son should be drowned, and on the other His mercy drew a veil over his misdeeds.

The clause, I advise thee lest thou become one of the ignorant, refers to Noah’s prayer to God to save his son, who was a member of his family and was apparently included among those whom God had promised to save, and means: "You, being the bearer of the Word of God, must in future ponder over every aspect of the Divine revelation received by you and should not act unknowingly." In other words, the seeming indefiniteness of the prophecy was cited to serve the purpose of a warning to Noah, who was asked to learn a lesson from it and to remember that prophecies bear more than one meaning and that their true significance becomes known only when they are actually fulfilled.

It may be asked why, whereas Noah refers to a "promise" of God (see the preceding verse), actually there is no mention of a Divine promise here. In this connection it may be noted that the words ارکبوھا بسم الله i.e. Embark therein in the name of Allah…(v. 42) did imply a Divine promise, because sometimes a commandment is tantamount to an undertaking. When God directed Noah to make his people enter the Ark, the direction implied a promise by God to save those who entered it. Similarly, the words, except those against whom the word has already gone forth (v. 41), also point to a promise having been made by God. If the above-quoted words contained only a command-ment and implied no promise, the names of excepted persons should have been revealed to Noah so that these could have been refused entrance. The fact that the names of the excepted persons were not disclosed shows that all those who went into the Ark were meant to be saved.

7:24.

Commentary:

This verse shows the exalted spiritual position to which the Prophets of God attain. When Noah heard the Divineremonstration, he not only withdrew his words, but solicited God’s help against repeating such a mistake. In contrast to this, how pitiable is the condition of those who, though enjoying no spiritual status, yet boast and brag and make big claims and do not profit by the example of God’s chosen servants.

The words, unless Thou forgive me, throw interesting light on the significance of the term استغفار (asking for forgiveness) when used about a Prophet of God. The verse mentions the استغفار of Noah. Now as the preceding verses clearly show Noah had committed no sin against the Law but only an error of judgement, which is human, yet in spite of this he is here reported to have offered استغفار. This proves that the offering of استغفار is not the proof of one’s sinfulness in all cases. It may be offered for protection against the consequences of human weaknesses or against errors of judgement.

Important Words:

اعترك (have visited thee) is derived from the root عرو. They say عراہ (as also اعتراہ), i.e. he came to him; or he repaired to him, seeking his aid or bounty. عراہ الامر means, the affair or event came upon him or befell him. اعتراہ said of a malady or of a diabolical possession, etc. means, it befell or betided him; or it attacked him; or it was incidental to him. اعتراہ also means, he or it rendered him possessed or insane or unsound in intellect or in some limb (Lane).

Commentary:

The words, I am clear of that which you associate as partners with God, constitute a strong reply to the allegation of disbelievers that their gods had caused Hud’s mind to become deranged. He says to them in reply that if they think that any of their gods has afflicted his mental powers, then let them know that he roundly condemned all their false gods and evil practices, and so let their deities do their worst against him.

The expression, I call Allah to witness, means, "You have refused to listen to reason. So now I pray to God that He may distinguish the truth from falsehood by mighty Signs from heaven."

7:86; 29:37.

26:182, 183.

Important Words:

محیط (destructive) is derived from حاط. They say حاط به i.e. he guarded, kept, protected or took care of him or it; he defended him or he paid frequent attention to him or it. احاط به means, he or it surrounded, encompassed or enclosed it or him. They say احیط فلان i.e. such a one was destroyed, or his destruction drew near. The Quranic words ان ربك احاط بالناسmean, verily thy Lord hath men in His grasp or power, or He hath destroyed them or is about to destroy them. محیطmeans, surrounding, encompassing or enclosing. The words, عذاب یوم محیط mean, the punishment of a day which shall beset people on every side so that there will be no way of escape from it; or the punishment of a destructive day (Lane).

مدین (Midian) was a son of Abraham from his third wife, Keturah (Gen. 25:1, 2). His descendants were all called Midian, in accordance with ancient usage. Or it may be that originally they were called "Banu Midian" (children of Midian) but these words later became abbreviated into Midian. The metropolis of these people was also called Midian, which itself may be an abbreviation of some such name as Duri Midian (the houses of Midian). This town was situated on the Gulf of ‘Akabah, on the Arabian coast, at a distance of some six or seven miles from the sea. This is why in some ancient books of geography it is mentioned as a sea port, while in others it is shown as an inland town. The trade caravans going from Arabia to Egypt passed through it. There are still several small townships known as Midian, but the original town no longer exists. The descendants of Midian lived in the north of the Hijaz and it is they who built this town. It was hither that Moses fled for refuge when Pharaoh and his nobles sought to kill him and it was in the neighbourhood of Midian that he stayed with the Israelites after crossing the Red Sea. The fact that the word مدین(Midian) possesses a close resemblance to مدینه (Medina), the town of the Holy Prophet, constitutes one of the many similarities Moses had with the Holy Prophet. See also 7:86.

شعیب (Shu‘aib). See 7:86.

Commentary:

Some commentators think that Shu‘aib was the father-in-law of Moses and that Moses had gone to live with him after he had killed an Israelite. The Bible, however, gives the name of the father-in-law of Moses as Jethro (Exod. 3:1). Now Jethro and Shu‘aib cannot be the same person, nor was Shu‘aib the father-in-law of Moses. The following facts support this view:

(1) Shu‘aib has been mentioned in the Quran at several places and so has the father-in-law of Moses, but nowhere in the Quran is there the slightest hint that Shu‘aib and the father-in-law of Moses were the same person nor has the father-in-law of Moses anywhere been referred to as a Prophet of God.

(2) The Quran clearly states that Moses was raised as a Prophet after the destruction of the people of Midian (7:104), which definitely shows that they were not contemporaries.

(3) The Quran also states that Shu‘aib appeared not long after Lot, so he could not be a contemporary of Moses (v. 90 below).

(4) If Shu‘aib had been the contemporary and father-in-law of Moses, he would not have failed to refer to the destruction of Pharaoh and his people, which had taken place only recently, when he had referred to the destruction of the peoples of Noah, Hud and Salih (v. 90), but he did not do so.

The following important facts about the people of Shu‘aib also emerge from this and other verses of the Quran: (a) that, like the Holy Prophet, it was chiefly at the hands of the people of his town that Shu‘aib met with opposition (7:89); (b) that his people not only practised idolatry, but were also fraudulent in their dealings with one another; (c) that they were a well-to-do and prosperous people; (d) that they had adopted the calling of the road and were given to plundering and dacoity (7:86 & 11:86 below). As these people lived on the trade route to Egypt, they used to plunder the caravans which passed by that way. This inference receives further support from the fact that near Midian there was a wood which was peopled by the descendants of Dedan, a nephew of Midian, being the child of another son of Abraham from Keturah (Gen. 25:3). These people are referred to in the Quran as اصحاب الایکة i.e. the People of the Wood (15:79 & 26:177) and Shu‘aib preached to them as he preached to the people of Midian (26:178-192). From 15:80 it appears that this wood or jungle lay on a trade route, so it served as a good hiding place for the people of Midian to plunder travellers.

The words, the punishment of a destructive day, signify that the punishment of that day will be thoroughly destructive. The words may also mean that the day will not end until the whole people are annihilated. See the meaning of the word محیط (destructive) above.

Commentary:

The expression معه (with him) does not necessarily mean that the two youths were sent to prison with Joseph at the same time. It only means that they were kept in the same prison with him.

The dreams of the butler and the baker are given in detail in Genesis (chap. 40), but their substance is the same as given in the Quran. The fact that they asked Joseph the interpretation of their dreams shows that he was held in very high esteem in the prison for his piety; for it is only from highly spiritual and pious persons that men ask the interpretation of their dreams. His two fellow-prisoners pay a further tribute to Joseph’s piety in the words, we see thee to be of the righteous.

Important Words:

عجاف (withered) of which the singular is اعجف is derived from عجف i.e. it (a beast) became lean, meagre and emaciated. اعجف means, lean, meagre or emaciated, having lost fatness or plumpness. وجه اعجف means, a face that has little flesh (Lane).

تعبرون (you can interpret a dream) is derived from عبر. They say عبر السبیل (‘abara) i.e. he travelled or passed along the way as though he cut it. عبر النھر (‘abbara) means he conveyed him across the river. عبر الرؤیا means, he interpreted or explained the dream and told its final sequel or result. They say عبر عما فی نفسه i.e. he declared or explained what was in his mind. They say عبرت عن فلان i.e. I spoke for such a one. The Quranic expression ان کنتم للرؤیا تعبرون means, if you be the interpreters of the dream, or if you can interpret a dream (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

It appears from this verse that the King was so fully convinced that his vision was real and true that he not only asked the learned men of his court to interpret it but also wished them to tell him what he should do to escape its evil effects, if any. The vision seemed to be so vivid that the King was deeply affected by it and his fright became the means of Joseph’s deliverance from the prison.

Commentary:

The words, so now grieve not at what they have been doing, may mean either that Joseph assured Benjamin that he was his selfsame brother who was supposed to be dead or that he desired to comfort him that henceforth he would be safe from the machinations of his brothers.

22:27.

2:127; 28:58.

Commentary:

In the previous verse, Abraham commenced his prayer by saying "My Lord" but in this verse, he has substituted "Our Lord" for "My Lord" i.e. in the present verse he has used the plural pronoun in place of the singular. The reason for this change is that in the latter case Abraham speaks of an act in which the will of Hagar and Ishmael was joined to his own. Although it was he himself who had made his wife and son settle in "an uncultivable valley," yet his wife and son had also shared in the sacrifice, for they had cheerfully cooperated with him and willingly signified their readiness to live in the wilderness in obedience to God’s command. As three persons were concerned in the matter and they had all willingly submitted to the will of God, the plural pronoun has been used in the present verse.

The verse, by implication, refers to a vision of Abraham in which he saw that he was slaughtering his son, Ishmael (37:103). As the sacrifice of human beings was much in vogue at that time, Abraham set about literally to fulfil it. But the dream really meant that he was to settle his son in a barren valley; for to leave a young lad at a place where there was no water, no vegetation and no sign of life was virtually tantamount to immolating him. However, when the literal interpretation of his dream by Abraham had actually caused him to lay Ishmael down and place the knife at his throat, Abraham was prohibited by God from doing so and thus the practice of offering human beings as sacrifice forever became banned to the followers of God.

By using the words, that they may observe Prayer, Abraham seeks to attract God’s mercy by mentioning the noble object for which he had caused his offspring to dwell near the Sacred House. God accepted the prayer, for He sees the motives of man and He never allows a work done with good intention to go unrewarded.

After mentioning that he had caused his offspring to dwell in that barren valley so that they might establish the worship of God at the Sacred Mosque and thus fulfil the purpose for which it had been built, Abraham prays that "men’s hearts might be inclined towards them", so that their preaching to them might prove effective and they might also join with them in worshipping God at the Holy Shrine and thus the purpose for which he had made his offspring dwell in that "bleak and barren valley" might be accomplished.

This prayer of Abraham found its complete fulfilment in the advent of the Holy Prophet; for before him it was only the Arabs who visited Mecca to offer their oblations but, after his advent, people from all over the world began to flock to the Holy House of God. The prayer also implied that the Ka‘bah would one day become the centre of the worship of the One True God.

Nor did Abraham neglect the physical welfare of his offspring. He prayed that his descendants living in and around Mecca might have plenty of fruits. This prayer was made at a time when not a blade of grass was seen for many miles about that place. Still the prophecy met with fulfilment in a wonderful manner, for the choicest fruits come to Mecca in plenty and at all seasons. Spiritually, the hearts of nations have become extraordinarily drawn towards the House of God at Mecca, where pilgrims flock from all parts of the world. The latter part of the prophecy is waiting to be fulfilled on a yet grander scale, when Islam will have spread and dominated all over the world.

22:50; 29:51; 51:51, 52; 67:27.

Commentary:

The Holy Prophet is here bidden to announce openly and publicly the impending destruction of the Meccans and leave no ambiguity about it.

Commentary:

It is worthy of note here that the Divine attribute الرحمن (Gracious), has been repeatedly used in this Surah. This Surah deals with all the basic dogmas of Christianity and it is this attribute of God which cuts at the root of these false doctrines and demolishes them. If God is Gracious, then He can forgive the sins of His servants and if He can forgive their sins, then there is no need for anybody to give his blood in order to save mankind. As is apparent from the previous verse it was a mere vision that Mary had seen, and it generally happens that when a person sees a thing in a vision which he does not like in his waking state, he does not like it when he sees it in a vision. When Mary saw the angel standing before her in the form of a man she, being a virtuous young woman, was naturally frightened and perplexed as she would have been frightened and perplexed if she had seen him in her state of wakefulness and it is therefore quite natural that she sought Divine protection from him.

Commentary:

The linking of عذاب (punishment) with the Divine attribute الرحمن (the Gracious) in this and other verses of this Surahappears to be somewhat incongruent and inconsistent. Punishment seems more appropriately related to God’s other attributes such as الجبار (the Subduer), القھار (the Most Supreme), ذو انتقام (the Avenger) etc. In fact, every punishment is the result of the defiance or disobedience of a particular Divine attribute. Sometimes a person is punished because he defies the Divine attribute الغفار (the Great Forgiver), at another time punishment comes upon him because he disobeys the Divine attribute الکریم (Most Generous) and so on. In this verse, in fact in the whole Surah, شرک i.e. idolatry, has been repeatedly denounced and condemned in the strongest and most scathing terms and the Divine attribute الرحمن i.e. the Gracious, has also been mentioned again and again because شرک (idolatry) in every shape and form is the direct result of denial of رحمانیةi.e. Divine grace. The two great idolatrous peoples—the Hindus and the Christians, have hopelessly fallen victim to the most degraded form of idolatry because they both deny رحمانیة i.e. Divine grace—the former by believing in the indestructibility and eternity of matter and soul and the latter by subscribing to the foolish doctrine that salvation is impossible without Atonement. So the mentioning together of the Divine attribute الرحمن (the Gracious) and Divine punishment shows that it is not رحمانیة i.e. Divine grace, which is the cause of Divine punishment, rather it is its denial and rejection.

شیطان (Satan), as stated above, may signify man’s evil inclinations and propensities, his bad friends and associates and evil spirits that cast their shadows upon him and lead him deeper and deeper into sin and transgression.

27:8; 28:30.

Important Words:

آنست (I perceived) is derived from انس (anisa). They say انس به i.e. he became familiar with him. آنسه (anasa-hu) means, he perceived it; he saw him or it and looked at him or it; he heard it, namely a sound; he felt it; he was sensible of it; he knew it; he had certain knowledge of it; he was acquainted with آنست منه الرشد means, I knew him to be characterised by maturity of intelligence and rectitude of actions and good management of affairs (Lane & Aqrab).

قبس (brand). They say قبس منه ناراً he took fire from him. قبس النار means, he lighted or kindled the fire. قبس means fire, or live coal; a brand or a firebrand; a piece of fire which one takes upon the end of a stick (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

Opinions differ as to what it was that Moses actually saw. In fact it was a vision that he had seen. The language of metaphor which has been used in this account of Moses also lends support to the view that he had only seen a vision and that he himself was conscious of the fact that he had seen no fire of wood or coal. If he had actually seen a material fire of wood, Moses would have used the words "I perceive the fire" and not the words "I perceive a fire", as he did.

Visions, however, are of two kinds: (a) those that concern only an individual. In such visions the Divine manifestation which is called ولایت (manifestation shown to God’s beloved other than the Prophets) in the spiritual terminology remains confined to the concerned individual. (b) Visions in which جلوهٔ نبوت (manifestation shown to the Prophets) is shown, the Divine manifestation extends also to the Prophet’s people.

By the words, "perhaps I may bring you a brand therefrom or find guidance at the fire", Moses meant to say that if it were جلوۂ نبوت that he had seen, then he would be given a new Shari‘ah for his people but if it were only جلوۂ ولایت he would receive some guidance for his own spiritual advancement.

It may be of interest to note that fire is of three kinds; (a) that which has light and also burns; (b) that which has no light but it burns; and (c) that which has light but does not burn. The fire which Moses had seen seemed to belong to the last category.

The word "tarry" implies that Moses wanted privacy for communion with God, therefore he asked his family to remain behind.

According to the Quran the incident to which reference has been made in this verse took place after Moses had completed his ten years of service with Shu‘aib in Midian and was actually on his way to Egypt with his wife and not as the Bible says that it occurred before he left for Egypt and was staying with Shu‘aib and that when one day he led the flock of Jethro, his father-in-law, to the back side of the desert and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb, "the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush" (Exod. 3:1-3). Consideration of all the relevant facts of geography contradicts this Biblical account as the Lord appeared to Moses on mount Horeb which is in the desert of Sinai hundreds of miles away from Midian; and Moses after having had this experience could not possibly have gone back to Jethro, with the flock to apprise him of it the same evening as the Biblical account implies. Thus the Quranic account, is more in accordance with reason and facts of geography than the Biblical account. According to it the incident occurred after Moses had left Midian for good.

20:81; 28:31; 79:17.

Commentary:

As stated above it was a vision that Moses had seen and "shoes", in the language of visions signifies worldly relations such as wife, children, friends etc. نعلیک (thy two shoes) signifies, thy relations with thy family and those with thy people and community. Thus the verse purports to say that at the time of close communion with God Moses was commanded to banish from his mind all thoughts of wife and children and of other worldly connections. Taken literally the verse would mean that as Moses was in a sacred place he was bidden to take off his shoes.

The word Tuwa meaning twice blessed (Lane), the significance of the verse may be that Moses in that state of communion with God stood in a valley doubly blessed, one end of which, as it were, reached to God and the other end to mankind.

Commentary:

It is significant that whereas claimants to the Godhead will only be punished in the hereafter for their false claims, those pretenders and mountebanks who falsely lay claim to prophethood are punished in this very world. They meet with death and destruction and their whole organizations come to nought in this very life (69:46-48). This difference in treatment of these two kinds of pretenders is due to the fact that the absurdity of a claim to the Godhead is self-evident because no sane person would ever accept a claimant to godhead as God and therefore such a claimant need not be punished here. But a false claimant to prophethood, if allowed to go scot-free, may succeed in deceiving many innocent people into accepting his false claim; therefore he ultimately meets with defeat, discomfiture and destruction in this very life and is not allowed to live long and his mission is not permitted to prosper.

20:46; 28:35.

Commentary:

The construction of the verse does not seem to lend countenance to the conclusion generally considered derivable from it, viz. that Shu‘aib or Jethro agreed to marry one of his daughters to Moses in lieu of eight or ten years of service. The fact of the matter appears to be that Shu‘aib having grown very old needed an honest man to look after his flocks and Moses having been found as possessing the required qualifications was taken in service by him at the instance of one of his daughters. Eight or ten years were agreed upon as the tenure of service. Shu‘aib, however, being a holy man either himself realized or was informed by God that a great future lay before Moses. He, therefore, offered to marry one of his daughters to him and, desiring that his son-in-law should live with him for some time and benefit by his noble company, laid it down as one of the conditions of marriage that Moses should stay with him for eight or ten years. Thus it is not correct to say that Shu‘aib offered to marry his daughter to Moses in lieu of the latter serving him for eight or ten years. Whatever remuneration Moses might have received from Shu‘aib had nothing to do with the marriage proposal.

The flight of Moses from Egypt and his stay in Midian for ten years bears a striking resemblance to the residence of the Holy Prophet for ten years in Medina after his Hijrah from Mecca. Moses must have, in a large measure, benefited himself spiritually by his God-fearing and righteous father-in-law’s company just as his upbringing in the house of Pharaoh had equipped him with temporal knowledge. But the noble Prophet of Islam was indebted to no human being for the great treasures of spiritual and temporal knowledge possessed by him. He had received them direct from God.

The expression من عندک means, 'It would be an additional favour from you.'