104. There now follows an elucidation of the 'ignorance' which those people-insistently clung to, and which they were not prepared to forsake. They are also told about that major 'wrong' which, if not abandoned, will bar their way to salvation.
105. They themselves acknowledged that the earth belongs to God, and that
it is He Who causes the vegetation to grow. They also affirmed that God is the
creator of the animals which were yoked to their service. They believed, however,
that the grace of God for them was the outcome of the blessing and benediction
of the angels, jinn, heavenly stars, spirits of their pious ancestors and so
on, who cared for their well-being and were their patrons. They therefore used
to make a two-fold division of their harvest and livestock offerings. One part
was devoted to God in recognition of their gratitude to Him for having granted
them farms and animals, while the rest was devoted to the household gods of
either their family or tribes in order to ensure their continuing grace and
benediction.
First, God censures them for this iniquity and asks them - since all those animals
were created and had been granted to them by God alone - what justification
there is for making offerings to others. Is it not sheer ingratitude to ascribe
the acts of benevolence and grace of the true Benefactor to the intercession
of others, and to associate them with God in thanksgiving? Second, they are
censured indirectly for assigning quite an arbitrary share in their offerings
to God, as if they themselves were the law-maker who could ascribe shares to
God and others as they wished. To God alone belong all the bounties He has given
man, and only His Law should therefore determine what part of those bounties
should be offered to Him in thanksgiving and how the remaining should be spent.
Hence even if they spend something in the way of Allah, for the poor and the
deprived, but according to their own will, that does not deserve to be accepted
by Him.
106. This is subtle sarcasm at the trickery to which the polytheists resorted
while dividing the offerings between God and the partners whom they had set
up with Him. By one device and another they increased the share of the false
deities, which only showed that their heart lay with those sham partners of
God rather than with Him.
It is instructive to recall those tricks. If, while they were apportioning God's
share of cereals and fruits, anything belonging to His share fell out of its
place, it used to be added to the portion earmarked for the share of God's partners.
On the contrary, if any part of the, partners' share fell out or got mixed up
with the portion earmarked for God, they were most careful to return it to where
it belonged. Whenever they were criticized for this, they had a number of interesting
apologies to offer. They said, for instance, that being the Creator, God is
Self-Sufficient and hence He does not care if His portion is in some way reduced.
As for the 'partners', they were not after all self-sufficient and would therefore
take them to task for the slightest diminution in their share.
In order to grasp what lay at the root of these superstitions, it is essential
to know that the portion which these ignorant people earmarked for God was devoted
to helping the indigent, the poor, travellers, orphans and so on. On the other
hand, the portion earmarked for offerings to the partners' actually went either
directly to the coffers of the priestly class or was offered at the shrines
and thus ultimately reached the priests and caretakers of those shrines. Over
the course of centuries these selfish religious leaders had impressed upon those
simple-minded people that there was no harm in God's share being reduced, but
that of God's dear ones, far from being diminished, should be increased.
107. The word 'partners' is now used in a different sense. In this verse
the word 'partners' denotes those human beings and devils who had legitimized
infanticide and even represented it as a commendable act.
The reason for calling such people 'partners' is that just as God alone deserves
to be worshipped, so He alone has the right to make laws for His creatures and
to determine the limits of what is lawful and what is unlawful. Also, just as
consecrating acts of devotion to anyone other than God amounts to setting up
partners with Him, so to follow man-made laws in the belief that human beings
have the right to be their own law-makers amounts to acknowledging others as
partners of God. Both these acts amount to setting up partners with Him, irrespective
of whether or not man applies the word 'God' to those before whom he makes ritual
offerings, or to those whose laws he considers to be essentially right and binding
for men.
It is pertinent to recall that three forms of infanticide were practised among
the Arabs, and the Qur'an alludes to each:
(1) Girls were put to death either to forestall the intrusion of a son-in-law,
to prevent them from falling into the hands of enemies in the event of an outbreak
of tribal feuding or to stop them from becoming a source of disgrace for any
other reason.
(2) Both male and female children were killed if parents thought they would
not be able to support them and that they would thus become an unendurable burden.
(3) Children of both sexes were placed as sacrificial offerings on the altars
of the deities in order to gratify them.
108. The use of the word 'ruin' in this verse is significant. It denotes, in the first place, the moral ruination of a people. A man whose callousness and cruelty reach the point where he begins to kill his offspring with his own hands not only becomes bereft of the essence of humanity, but has sunk even lower than the animals. Moreover, this signifies the ruin of a people and of the human race. This is because infanticide necessarily leads to loss of population which is detrimental to the interests of mankind and also of each nation, since it prevents those who could have carried the legacy of a nation from either being born or puts an end to their lives after ,they are born. This rule also signifies the ultimate ruin, i.e. in the Hereafter. For indeed anyone who treats innocent children with such high-handedness, who cold-bloodedly slaughters the essence of his humanity, who acts so sordidly towards the human species as such, and even towards his own people, deserves severe punishment from God.
109. In the Jahiliyah, the Age of Ignorance, the Arabs both identified themselves with Abraham and Ishmael and were quite convinced that they were indeed followers of Abraham and Ishmael. They therefore considered their religion to be one that had been prescribed by God. The fact, however, was that over the course of centuries a number of innovations had overgrown the religion preached by Abraham and Ishmael. These innovations, which had been introduced by their religious leaders, the tribal chiefs and the elders of noted families, had become hallowed with the passage of time, and were considered an integral part of their original religion. No authentic traces of this original religion, however, existed in the Arab traditions, nor in written sources nor in historical records as such. Hence, when innovations made their inroads into their religious life, they failed to perceive both the innovations and the innovators. This rendered the entire religious tradition of the Arabs unauthentic in the sight of the people of Arabia themselves. They could not assert with conviction which elements were part of the original God-given religion, and which were mere innovations.
110. Had God not so willed, they could never have kept to their false ways. But God willed that everybody should be allowed to pursue his own choice. Hence, if people do not believe in spite of the Prophet's admonition, and persist in their false ways, they must be allowed to do as they please. One need not hound such people and pester them into accepting the Truth.
111. There was a practice among the people of Arabia whereby they used to consecrate certain animals and farms to certain shrines, and at offerings at certain altars. These consecrated offerings could not be used by everybody. An elaborate code laid down what kind of offering could be used by what kind of people. God not only judges such practices to be polytheistic, but also censures them as man-made innovations. God was the master of all that they had consecrated as offerings to the deities. He had neither encumbered human beings with the need to make any of those offerings and consecrations nor imposed those restrictions on what they might consume. These were the wilful inventions of headstrong and rebellious people who attributed to themselves the authority to make laws as they pleased.
112. Traditions indicate that there were certain ritual offerings, and that on certain occasions animals were consecrated for sacrifice at which it was deemed unlawful to pronounce the name of God. It was also prohibited to ride such animals during the Pilgrimage, since at that time the pilgrim pronounced the name of God when he recited the formula: Labbayk Allahumma Labbayk. Every care was taken not to pronounce the name of God at the time of milking, mounting, slaughtering and eating of such animals.
113. Even though those rules had not been laid down by God, people followed them under the false impression that they had been prescribed by Him. They could not adduce any injunction from God in support of such a belief, and all that they could claim was that it was an integral part of their ancestors' way of life.
114. One of the provisions of this self-contrived religious code of the Arabs was that the flesh of the young, born of the animals consecrated as offerings to the deities, might be eaten by males but not by females. Persons of both sexes were allowed to eat its flesh if it had died either a natural death or was dead at birth.