With kind permission: Islamic Foundation UK
Introduction to Tafheem | Glossary | Verbs
Tafsirs: Maarif | Dawat | Ishraq | Clear
↕
- Cro Magnon Man
1. People should abide by the limitations and prohibitions laid down in this surah and elsewhere in the law of God. This brief introductory statement is followed by an enunciation of those prohibitions which people are required to observe.
2. The Arabic word an'am (cattle) denotes camels, oxen, sheep and goats, whereas the word bahimah means all grazing quadrupeds. Had God said that an'am had been made lawful for them, this permission would have included only those animals to which the term an'am is applicable. But the terms in which the injunction is conveyed are bahimat al-an'am (all grazing beasts of the flock). Hence the permission is of wider import and embraces all grazing quadrupeds of the cattle type, i.e. which do not possess canine teeth, which feed on plants rather than animals, and which resemble the cattle found in Arabia in other characteristics. This implies that the flesh of those animals which have canine teeth and are carnivorous is not permissible. This implication was elucidated by the Prophet (peace be on him) and is embodied in a tradition in which he prohibited those beasts which kill and eat other animals. Likewise, the Prophet (peace be on him) also prohibited birds with claws and those that feed on carrion. According to a tradition transmitted by Ibn 'Abbas: "The Messenger of Allah (peace be on him) prohibited all beasts with canine teeth and all birds with claws.' (Bukhari, 'Dhaba'ih', 28, 29; 'Tibb', 53; Abu Da'ud, 'At'imah', 32; Tirmidhi, 'At'imah', 9, 11; Muslim, 'Sayd', 11-16; Nasa'i, 'Sayd wa Dhaba'ih', 28, 30, 33; Ibn Majah, 'Sayd', 13; etc. - Ed.)
3. Ihram is the name of the simple apparel worn at the time of Pilgrimage. In every direction around the Ka'bah, there are certain fixed points beyond which no Pilgrim may proceed without donning this special Pilgrim's garment in place of his normal clothes. This apparel consists of two sheets of untailored cloth, one of which is wrapped around the lower part of the body while the other is thrown over the upper part. This manner of dressing is termed ihram because once a man has assumed it he must treat as prohibited a number of things which are ordinarily lawful, for example either shaving or trimming the hair, or using perfumes and other items of toiletry and the gratification of sexual desires. These restrictions also extend to both killing and hunting, and to leading anyone else to either kill or hunt an animal.
4. God is the absolute sovereign and has absolute authority to issue whatever command He might will. His creatures do not have the right to complain about any of these orders. Even though wisdom (hikmah) underlies the ordinances of God, a true believer does not obey them because he considers them either appropriate or conducive to his best interests. He obeys them simply because they are the ordinances of his Lord. He holds unlawful all that God has declared unlawful, because God has so decreed it; whatever He has declared lawful is regarded as such for no other reason than that God, the Lord of all, has allowed His servants the use of it. Hence the Qur'an establishes very firmly the principle that nothing except permission from the Lord - or lack of it - is to be taken into consideration in deciding what is lawful and what is not.
5. Whatever characteristically represents either a particular doctrine, creed,
way of thought or conduct is recognized as its symbol. For example, official
flags, uniforms of the armed forces, coins, notes and stamps are symbols used
by governments so that their subjects - in fact all those who live within their
sphere of influence - treat them with proper respect. Cathedrals, altars and
crosses are symbols of Christianity. A special bunch of hair on the head, a
special kind of bead-rosary and the temple are symbols of Hinduism. A turban,
bracelet and Kirpan (a special dagger kept by the Sikhs) are symbols of the
Sikh religion. The hammer and sickle are the symbols of Communism. The swastika
has been the symbol of Aryan racialism. The followers of these ideologies are
required to treat these symbols with respect. If a man insults any symbol associated
with a particular ideology it is regarded as an act of hostility; and if the
person concerned is himself a follower of that ideology then that insult is
considered tantamount to an abandonment of, and a revolt against it.
The expression 'sha'a'ir Allah' refers to all those rites which, in opposition
to polytheism and outright disbelief and atheism, are the characteristic symbols
of an exclusive devotion to God. Muslims are required to respect these symbols,
regardless of the people among whom they are found, provided their underlying
spirit is one of godliness and that they have not been tainted by either polytheistic
or pagan associations. Hence, whenever a Muslim encounters something in either
the creed or practice of a non-Muslim, which embodies any element of devotion
and service to the One True God, he will identify himself with it and show respect
to the symbols which represent it. For this true element in their religious
life constitutes the point of agreement between them and the Muslims. The point
of dispute is not that they serve God, but that they associate others in that
service.
It should be recalled that this directive to treat the symbols of God with due
respect was given at a time when a state of belligerency existed between the
Muslims and the polytheists of Arabia, and Makka was under the occupation of
the latter. Polytheistic tribes from all over Arabia used to visit the Ka'bah
for Pilgrimage, and the routes of many of these tribes were within the reach-of
the Muslims if they decided to attack. It was in such circumstances that the
Muslims were told that, even though those people were polytheists, they should
not be molested if they were proceeding towards the 'House of God'; that they
should not be attacked during the months of Pilgrimage; and that the animals
which they were carrying for sacrificial offering should not be touched. The
element of godliness which persisted in their otherwise distorted religious
life deserved to be respected.
6. Following a general directive that the symbols of God should be treated with proper respect a few such symbols are mentioned specifically lest war fever lead even to the desecration of religious rites and symbols. The enumeration of these particular symbols does not mean that respect is due to these alone.
7. Ihram is also one of the symbols of God and violation of any of the prohibitions which should be observed in that state is an act of sacrilege. The prohibition of hunting while in the state of ihram is mentioned in connection with the desecration of the symbols of God. When ihram is over, the prohibitions become void, and one is permitted to hunt.
8. The unbelievers had prevented the Muslims from visiting the Ka'bah. In fact, in violation of the ancient usage of Arabia they had even deprived them of their right to make Pilgrimage. As a result, the Muslims felt inclined to prevent the pagan tribes from making their pilgrimage by not letting them pass along the routes to Makka which lay close to the Islamic domains, and to attack their trading caravans during the time of Pilgrimage (Hajj). God prevented them from carrying out this plan through the revelation.
9.'Carrion' signifies the animal which has died a natural death.
10. This refers to the practice of pronouncing the name of anyone or anything other than God and dedicating the animal, as an offering, to either a holy personage, god or goddess before slaughtering. (For details see Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. I, (Surah 2, n. 171.)
11. It is lawful to eat the flesh of an animal which may have suffered from any of the above-mentioned accidents providing it was still alive until slaughtered. This verse also makes it clear that the flesh of an animal becomes lawful only by slaughtering ritually, and that no other method of killing is valid. The words dhabh and dhakah belong to the technical terminology of Islam and denote slitting the throat so that the blood is completely drained from the animal's body. The disadvantage of killing an animal by either guillotine or strangulation is that the greater part of the blood remains within the body, and at various places it sticks to the flesh and forms congealed lumps. If an animal is slaughtered by slitting the throat, on the other hand, the connection between mind and body remains intact for a short while, with the result that the blood is thoroughly drained out from all the veins and the flesh becomes fully cleansed of blood. We have just come across the injunction prohibiting the eating of blood. So only that flesh which has been purged of blood is declared lawful.
12. The word nusub signifies all the places consecrated for offerings to others than the One True God, regardless of whether they are images of wood, stone or something else.
13. The division of objects of eating and drinking into lawful and unlawful
is based on their moral rather than their medicinal properties. God has left
matters relating to the physical world to be tackled by man's own effort and
striving. It is for man himself to discover by his own efforts which items of
food and drink provide him with healthy nourishment and which are useless and
harmful. The Law (Shari'ah) does not take upon itself to guide man in such matters.
Had it undertaken such a task, perhaps one of the first things for it to do
would have been to pronounce the prohibition of arsenic oxide. But one will
notice that the Qur'an and Hadith mention neither arsenic oxide nor other things
which either singly or jointly are fatal for man. The underlying considerations
of the Law with regard to the various items of eating and drinking are their
possible effects on man's morals and on the purity of his soul. This is in addition
to the judgements that the Law makes with regard to the various means adopted
by man in his quest for food - whether they are appropriate according to Islamic
standards or not. It is impossible for man to determine what is beneficial and
what is harmful for his morals; he has not been endowed with the capacities
needed to arrive at sound conclusions on these matters, and so he frequently
stumbles into error. Hence the Law undertakes to guide him in these matters
and these matters alone. Whatever has been prohibited by Islam has been prohibited
because of its bad effects on human morals, because of its repugnance to spiritual
purity, and because of its association with false beliefs. Things which have
been declared lawful have been so declared because they are untainted by these
evils.
It may be asked why God did not specify the considerations underlying the prohibition
of various things for this would have afforded us very valuable insights. In
reply, it must be pointed out that it is impossible for us to fully grasp such
considerations. The kind of questions we face are for instance: What are the
corrupting effects of the consumption of either blood or the flesh of swine
and carrion on our morals? The extent to which this corruption affects our morals,
and the way in which certain things affect our morals is a matter that we are
incapable of investigating, for we do not possess the means of weighing and
measuring the moral properties of various things. To mention some of these bad
effects would carry little weight with the sceptic, for how could he test the
soundness of statements on such questions? Hence, God considers faith rather
than man's own judgement as the main basis for observing the standards of lawfulness
and prohibition. Whoever is fully convinced that the Qur'an is the Book of God,
that the Prophet (peace be on him) was designated by Him, and that God is All-Knowing
and All-Wise, will necessarily commit himself to observe the restrictions enjoined
by God regardless of whether he is able to grasp the wisdom underlying them
or not. Whoever lacks this basic conviction will avoid only those evils which
are fully evident to human beings, and will remain a prey to all those which
have not yet become apparent but which in fact are intrinsically harmful.
14. The things which are prohibited in this verse fall into the following
categories:
(1) Polytheistic divination, which is a form of omen-seeking whereby knowledge
either about one's future or about matters beyond human perception, is sought
from gods and goddesses. The polytheists of Makka had consecrated the idol Hubal
in the Ka'bah for this purpose. Seven arrows had been placed at its altars and
on each of them different words and sentences had been inscribed. Whenever people
were faced with the question whether a certain course was wise or not, or they
wanted to trace something lost, or sought a judgement in a murder case, or had
other similar problems, they would approach the oracle of Hubal, present him
with an offering as his fee, and pray to Hubal to issue a verdict on the question
concerned. Then the oracle would draw arrows, and the inscription on the arrow
which fell to a person's lot was deemed to represent the verdict of Hubal.
(2) Superstitious divination, which has also been prohibited, means that instead
of deciding the problems of life in a rational way one should decide them on
fanciful grounds. Or it could mean deciding matters by arbitrary interpretation
of accidental events, or to have one's future prophesied by means which have
not been reasonably established as adequate for obtaining knowledge about the
future. This includes geomancy, astrology, fortune-telling and the numerous
other methods adopted to determine omens.
(3) Games of chance are also prohibited and include all those transactions in
which what one receives depends on chance and other purely accidental factors
rather than on rational considerations such as either due payment or recompense
for services rendered. This applies, for instance, to lotteries where the holder
of an arbitrarily-drawn number receives a huge amount of money which has been
obtained from thousands of other people. It also applies to crossword puzzles
were the award of prizes does not depend on the actual correctness of the solution
(since several correct solutions are possible) but on accidental conformity
with the particular solution which is arbitrarily chosen as the only correct
one by the sponsors of the puzzle. After prohibiting each of these three categories,
the only kind of lot-drawing which Islam permits is that which one resorts to
when obliged to make a decision either in favour of one of numerous permissible
options or in favour of one out of two or more equally legitimate claimants.
For instance, two persons have an equal claim over a thing which neither of
them is prepared to relinquish, and at the same time there is no reasonable
basis for preferring one to the other. In such a case, with the consent of the
claimants, the matter may be settled by drawing lots. The Prophet (peace be
on him) himself used to resort to drawing lots when he had to make a decision
between two equal claimants, and when preferring one of them would cause distress
and grievance to the other. (For such instances see Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad,
vol. 4, p. 373; Bukhari, 'Nikah', 97 and 'Shahadat', 30; Muslim, 'Fada'il al-Sahabah',
88; Ibn Majah, 'Ahkam', 20, etc. - Ed.)
15. 'This day', here, does not signify a particular day or specific date. It refers to that period of time when these verses were revealed. In our own usage, too, expressions like 'today' or 'this day' often have the sense of the 'present time'. 'This day the unbelievers have fully despaired of your religion' refers to the fact that the Muslims' religion had developed into a full-fledged system of life, reinforced by the authority and governmental power which it had acquired. The unbelievers who had hitherto resisted its establishment now despaired of destroying Islam and of forcing the believers back to their former state of Ignorance. The believers therefore no longer needed to fear men: they should fear God alone instead. Indeed, the Muslims were repeatedly asked to fear God, for they would not be treated lightly if they failed to carry out His commands, especially as there was no longer any justifiable excuse for such failure. If they still violated the law of God, there could be no basis for supposing that they did so under constraint: it must mean that they simply had no intention of obeying Him.
16. The 'perfection of religion' mentioned in this verse refers to making
it a self-sufficient system of belief and conduct, and an order of social life
providing its own answers to the questions with which man is confronted. This
system contains all necessary guidance for man, either by expounding fundamental
principles from which detailed directives can be deduced or by spelling out
such directives explicitly so that in no circumstances would one need to look
for guidance to any extraneous source.
The bounty referred to in the statement: 'I have bestowed upon you My bounty
in full measure', is the bounty of true guidance.
The statement: 'I have been pleased to assign for you Islam as your religion'
means that, since the Muslims had proved by their conduct and their striving
that they were honest and sincere about the commitment they had made to God
in embracing Islam - the commitment to serve and obey Him - He had accepted
their sincerity and created conditions in which they were no longer yoked in
bondage to anyone but Him. Thus the Muslims were not prevented from living in
submission to God out of extraneous constraints just as there were no constraints
preventing them from subscribing to true beliefs. Having recounted these favours,
God does not point out what should be the proper response to those favours.
But the implication is obvious: the only appropriate response on the part of
the believers must be unstinting observance of the law of God out of gratitude
to Him.
According to authentic traditions this verse was revealed in 10 A.H. on the
occasion of the Prophet's Farewell Pilgrimage. The context however, seems to
indicate that it was revealed soon after the conclusion of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah
(i.e. in 6 A.H.). All parts of the discourse in which this verse occurs are
so tightly interwoven and so closely inter-connected that it hardly seems conceivable
that it should have been inserted here several years later. My own estimate
- and true knowledge of this lies with God alone - is that this verse was originally
revealed in its present context (i.e. commenting upon the conditions prevailing
at the time of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah). It is conceivable that the true significance
of the verse was not then fully appreciated. But later on, when Islam prevailed
over the whole of Arabia and the power of Islam reached a high point, God once
again revealed this sentence to His Messenger and ordered him to proclaim it.
17. See Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. I, (Surah 2, n. 172).
18. There is a certain subtlety in how the query is answered. Religious-
minded people often fall into a prohibitionist mentality by tending to regard
as unlawful everything not expressly declared as lawful. This makes them excessively
fastidious and over-suspicious, and inclined to ask for a complete list of all
that is lawful and permitted. The Qur'an's response to this question seems to
be aimed, in the first place, at the reform of this mentality. The questioners
want a list of what is lawful so they can treat everything else as prohibited,
but the Qur'an provides them with a list of what is prohibited and then leaves
them with the guiding principle that all 'clean things' are lawful. This means
a complete reversal of the old religious outlook according to which everything
that has not been declared lawful is considered prohibited. This was a great
reform, and it liberated human life from many unnecessary constraints. Henceforth,
except for a few prohibitions, the lawful domain embraced virtually everything.
The lawfulness of things has been tied, however, to the stipulation of their
being clean so that no one can argue for the lawfulness of things which are
unclean. The question which arises at this point is: How are we to determine
which things are clean? The answer is that everything is clean apart from those
things which can be reckoned unclean either according to any of the principles
embodied in the Law or which are repellent to man's innate sense of good taste
or which civilized human beings have generally found offensive to their natural
feelings of cleanliness and decency.
19.The expression 'hunting animals' signifies hounds, cheetahs, hawks and
all those beasts and birds which men use in hunting. It is a characteristic
of animals which have been trained to hunt that they hold the prey for their
masters rather than devour it. It is for this reason that while the catch of
these trained animals is lawful, that of others is prohibited.
There is some disagreement among the jurists as to the hunting animals whose
catch is lawful. Some jurists are of the opinion that if the hunting animal,
whether bird or beast, eats any part of the game, it becomes prohibited since
the act of eating signifies that the animal hunted for its own sake rather than
for the sake of its master. This is the doctrine of Shafi'i. Other jurists hold
that the prey is not rendered unlawful even if the hunting animal has eaten
part of the game; even if it has devoured one-third of the animal, the consumption
of the remaining two-thirds is lawful, irrespective of whether the hunting animal
is a bird or a beast. This is the view of Malik. A third group of jurists is
of the opinion that if the hunting animal which has eaten part of the game is
a beast it becomes prohibited, but not so if the hunting animal is a bird. The
reason for this distinction is that hunting beasts can be trained to hold the
game for their master whereas experience shows that hunting birds are not fully
capable of receiving such instruction. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah and
his disciples. 'Ali, however, is of the opinion that it is unlawful to eat the
catch of hunting birds because they cannot be trained to refrain from eating
the game and to hold it merely for the sake of their master. (See the commentaries
of Ibn Kathir, Jassas, Ibn al-'Arabi and Qurtubi on this verse. See also Ibn
Rushd, Bidayat al-Mujtahid, vol. 2, pp. 440 ff. -Ed.)
20.They should pronounce the name of God at the time of dispatching animals to the hunt. It is mentioned in a tradition that 'Adi b. Hatim asked the Prophet (peace be on him) whether he could use hounds for hunting. The Prophet (peace be on him) replied: 'If you have pronounced the name of God while dispatching your trained hound, eat what he has caught for, you. And if it has eaten from the game, then do not eat for I fear that the hound had caught the game for itself.' Then he inquired what should be done if one had pronounced the name of God while dispatching one's own hound, but later found another hound close to the prey. The Prophet (peace be on him) replied: 'Do not eat that, for you have pronounced the name of God on your own hound, but not on the other one.' (For relevant traditions see Bukhari, 'Dhaba'ih', 4, 10; Ibn Majah, 'Sayd', 3; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, p. 231 and vol. 4, p. 195 - Ed.) The verse under discussion makes it clear that it is necessary to pronounce the name of God while dispatching a hound to the hunt. If a man later finds the prey alive he should slaughter it. But if he does not find it alive it will still be lawful to eat it since the name of God has already been pronounced. The same rule applies with regard to shooting arrows in hunting.
21. The food of the People of the Book includes the animals slaughtered by
them. The rule that 'our food is lawful to them and theirs lawful to us' signifies
that there need be no barriers between us and the People of the Book regarding
food. We may eat with them and they with us. But this general proclamation of
permission is preceded by a reiteration of the statement: 'All good things have
been made lawful to you.' This indicates that if the People of the Book either
do not observe those principles of cleanliness and purity which are considered
obligatory by the Law or if their food includes prohibited items, then one should
abstain from eating them. If, for instance, they either slaughter an animal
without pronouncing the name of God or if they slaughter it in the name of anyone
else but God it is not lawful for us to eat that animal. Likewise, if intoxicating
drinks, the flesh of swine, and any other prohibited thing is found on their
dining table we may not justify our partaking of such items on the ground that
the persons concerned are People of the Book.
The same applies to those non-Muslims who are not People of the Book, except
for one difference - that whereas the animals slaughtered by the People of the
Book are lawful provided they have pronounced the name of God at the time of
slaughtering them, we are not permitted to eat the animals killed by non-Muslims
who are not People of the Book.
22.This expression signifies the Jews and the Christians. Of non-Muslim women,
Muslims may marry only Christians and Jews, and of them only those who have
been characterized as muhsanat (i.e. 'well-protected women').
There are differences among jurists as to the detailed application of this rule.
The view of Ibn 'Abbas is that the expression 'People of the Book' here signifies
only those People of the Book who are subjects of the Domain of Islam (Dar al-Islam).
It is also unlawful to marry Jewish and Christian women who are either living
in the Domain of War (Dar al-Harb) or in the Domain of Disbelief (Dar al-Kufr).
The Hanafi jurists hold a slightly different opinion. Although they disapprove
of marrying such women, it is not considered unlawful. Sa'id b. al-Musayyib
and Hasan al-Basri are of the opinion that the verse warrants general application
and hence there is no need to differentiate between those who are ahl al-Dhimmah
(the non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic State) and those who are not.
There is also disagreement among the jurists about the connotation of the term
muhsanat. 'Umar considered this word to signify only those women who are chaste
and possess good moral character, and hence ahl al-Kitab women who are of loose
character are excluded from this permission. This is also the opinion of Hasan
al-Basri, Sha'bi and Ibrahim al-Nakha'i and of the Hanafi jurists. But Shafi'i
considers this expression to have been used as an antonym of 'slave women',
and hence it signifies all those ahl al-Kitab women who are not slaves. (Cf.
the commentaries of Ibn Kathir, Ibn al-'Arabi and Qurtubi - Ed.)
23.The declaration that marriage to ahl al-Kitab women is permitted is immediately followed by this warning which, in effect, means that those who avail themselves of this permission ought to be mindful of their faith and morals. They are urged to beware of infatuation with disbelieving women lest they also become enamoured of the ideas and beliefs which they cherish, thereby allowing their faith to dissipate. They are warned against adopting social patterns and modes of conduct inconsistent with the true requirements of their faith.
24. The explanation of this injunction by the Prophet (peace be on him) indicates that washing of the face includes rinsing one's mouth and inhaling water into the nostrils. Unless this is done the washing of the face is not considered complete. Likewise, since the ears are part of the head, 'wiping the head' includes wiping one's hands over the external and internal parts of the ears as well. Moreover, before starting to wash the other parts one should first wash one's hands so that the instruments of washing are themselves clean.
25. Janabah (the state of major ritual impurity) - whether caused by the sexual act or merely by seminal discharge - renders it unlawful to perform the ritual Prayer and to touch the Qur'an for further details see (Surah 4, nn. 67-9 )above.
26. For explanation see (Surah 4, nn. 69-70 )above.
27. Just as purity of the soul is a blessing, so is cleanliness of the body. God's favour to man can be completed only when he has received comprehensive direction in respect of both spiritual purity and physical cleanliness.
28. The 'favour' mentioned here denotes illuminating the Straight Way, and entrusting to the believers the task of guidance and leadership of the whole world.
29. See (Surah 4, nn. 164-5 )above.
30. This alludes to the incident reported by Ibn 'Abbas when a group of Jews
invited the Prophet (peace be on him) and a number of his close Companions to
dinner. They had in fact hatched a plot to pounce upon the guests and thus undermine
the very foundation of Islam. But by the grace of God the Prophet (peace be
on him) came to know of the plot at the eleventh hour and did not go. Since
the following section is addressed to the Children of Israel, this incident
is alluded to here in order to mark the transition to a new subject.
The discourse which begins here has two purposes. The first is to warn the Muslims
against following the ways of their predecessors, the People of the Book. The
Muslims are told, therefore, that the Israelites and the followers of Jesus
had made a covenant with God in the past, in the manner that the Muslims had
recently done so. The Muslims should, therefore, take heed lest they also break
their covenant and fall a prey to error and misguidance as their predecessors
had done.
The second is to sensitize the Jews and Christians to the errors they have committed
and invite them to the true religion.
31. The word naqib in Arabic denotes supervisor and censor. There were twelve tribes among the Israelites and each tribe was required to appoint one of its members as a naqib, to look after their affairs and try to prevent them from becoming victims of irreligiousness and moral corruption. Although the Book of Numbers in the Bible does mention these twelve men, it does not seem to convey the sense of their being religious and moral mentors, as the term naqib employed by the Qur'an does. The Bible simply mentions them as the chiefs and dignitaries of their tribes.
32. The assurance of God's support is made conditional upon their continuous response to the call of God and for support of His Prophets.
33. This expression signifies spending one's wealth for the sake of God. Since God has promised to return to man every penny that he spends in His way along with His reward, which will be several-fold, the Qur'an characterizes this spending as a loan to God. This spending is considered a loan provided it is a 'good loan', that is, provided the money spent in the cause of God has been acquired by legitimate means and has been spent in accordance with the laws of God and with sincerity and earnestness.
34. To efface someone's evil deeds signifies two things. First, that if a man decides to follow the Straight Path and strives to follow God's directives in both thought and action his soul will be purged of many evils and his way of life will gradually become free of corruption. Second, if, in spite of this reform, weaknesses still persist in a man's life he is assured that God will not punish him and will have his failing erased from his record. For God is not too exacting over trivial errors, providing a man has sincerely accepted the basic guidance and reformed his character.
35. That is, they once found the 'right way' and then allowed it to be lost
and thus put themselves on the road to perdition. We have translated the Qur'anic
expression 'sawa' al-sabil' as the 'right way' for the sake of brevity. A better
rendering could be, 'the highroad of balance and moderation', but even this
would fail to bring out the meaning fully.
In order to grasp the full significance of what is being said here one should
bear in mind that in himself man constitutes a microcosm of society. He has
innumerable powers and potentialities, myriad desires, feelings and inclinations,
and a host of divergent urges. Social life consists of a huge network of complex
relationships, and with the growth of civilization and culture the complexity
of these relationships increases. There is also a rich fund of resources in
the world and there are countless possibilities for their utilization; as a
result, man is confronted with a plethora of choices and problems.
The fact that man has inherent limitations means that he is incapable of viewing
in one sweep and in a balanced way the entire span of existence. Hence, man
is in no position to prescribe for his kind a judicious way of life - a way
of life wherein justice is done to all his powers and capacities; in which a
wholesome balance is maintained between all his inherent potentialities; in
which all his urges are given their due; in which his two-fold need for inner
satisfaction and external self-realization is fully met; in which various aspects
of human life are taken into proper consideration, giving birth to an integrated
scheme with a built-in capacity to harmonize the multifarious strains and stresses
of social life; in which material resources are fully exploited in the best
interests of both the individual and society and within the framework of equity,
justice and righteousness. When man takes upon himself the task of prescribing
the guidelines for his life and becomes his own law-maker, his mind tends to
become preoccupied with one specific aspect of human life, with one of the numerous
demands of his nature, with one of the myriad problems calling for solution.
His mental involvement is liable to be so intense that he adopts - consciously
or otherwise - an unjust attitude towards all the other aspects, requirements
and problems of human life. Consequently, when such opinions are imposed, the
balance which ought to prevail in man's life is disrupted and he begins to swing
either towards one extreme or the other. Gradually, this deviation assumes intolerable
proportions. A reaction sets in, and justice is demanded for the neglected aspects
of human life. Still, human life remains deprived of justice. The reason for
this failure is that man's reaction to imbalance is itself devoid of balance.
The new dispensation in turn persists in excessive preoccupation with either
one specific aspect, problem or requirement of human life at the expense of
all the others. Thus human life is denied judicious and balanced progress. Man
continues to stumble hither and thither; from one form of self-destruction to
another. All courses of life charted by man himself are winding and crooked.
They move in the wrong direction, reach the wrong end and then turn back in
another wrong direction.
Among these numerous ways - all false - there is just one way that lies exactly
in the middle. This way alone does full justice to all of man's various potentialities
and urges, to all his instincts and predispositions, to all the multifarious
claims of both the body and the spirit; in short, to all aspects of his life.
In this way there is no crookedness; it is the one course of life in which nothing
is given either too much consideration or too little, and nothing suffers inequity
and injustice. Man's very nature thirsts for such a way, and the succession
of revolts against false ways of life is merely a manifestation of his constant
quest for this right and straight way. Left to himself, man is incapable of
charting this way. It is God alone Who can direct him to it; and indeed the
Prophets were sent for this very purpose.
The Qur'an designates this way as sawa al-sabil ('the right way') in the present
verse and elsewhere as al-sirat al-mustaqim ('the straight way'). (See Towards
Understanding the Qur'an, vol. I, (Surah 1, verse 5, and n. 8.) This is the road
which goes amidst the countless winding and crooked paths of life; the road
which leads man, disregarding all the curved and crooked paths, straight on
to his success, right from this world to the Hereafter. Whoever goes along it
enjoys rectitude in this world and success and felicity in the Next, but whoever
loses this road is bound to become a victim of false beliefs and false ways
of conduct and thus comes to have a wrong orientation in life. This will lead
him to Hell, where all bent and crooked paths end. The following illustrates
man's dilemma.
In modern times some philosophers have been so impressed by this constant swinging
in human life, from one extreme to another, as to have mistakenly argued that
the dialectical process is the natural course of human life. They conclude,
therefore, that the only way for human life to progress is that a thesis should
first swing it in one direction, and then an antithesis swing it in the opposite
direction, after which there will emerge a synthesis which constitutes the course
of human progress. These curved lines from one extreme to the other do not indicate
the correct course of human progress. Rather they represent the tragic stumblings
which again and again obstruct the true progress of human life. Every extreme
thesis sets life on a certain course and continues to pull it in that direction
for some time. When human life is thus thrown off its 'right course' the result
is that certain realities of life - which had not received their due - rise
up in revolt, and this revolt often assumes the form of an antithesis. This
revolt begins to pull life in the opposite direction. As the 'right way' is
approached the conflicting ideas - the thesis and antithesis - begin to effect
some kind of mutual compromise, leading to the emergence of a synthesis. This
synthesis comprises many elements conducive to the good of mankind. But since
societies which do not submit to the guidance of the Prophets are deprived both
of the signposts that might indicate the 'right way' and of faith to help steady
man's feet thereon this synthesis does not permit human life to maintain the
golden mean. Its momentum is so powerful that it once more pushes life to the
opposite extreme. At this point, certain realities are once again denied their
due, with the result that another antithesis emerges in reaction to the iniquities
of the earlier ideology. Had the light of the Qur'an been available to these
short-sighted philosophers, and had they been able to perceive the 'right way'
envisaged by the Qur'an, they would have realized that this was the true course
of human progress.
36. Some are of the opinion that the word Nasara (meaning Christians) is
derived from Nasirah (Nazareth), the birth-place of the Messiah. In fact this
word is not derived from Nasirah (Nazareth) but from the word nusrah, and the
basis of this derivation is the question posed by the Messiah to his disciples:
'Who are my supporters (ansari) in the way of God?' In response to this they
had said: 'We are the supporters (ansar) (in the way) of God.' Christian authors
have been misled by the resemblance between the words Nasirah and Nasara into
believing that the name of the sect founded in the early history of Christianity,
and contemptuously characterized as either Nazarenes or Ebonites served as the
basis of the Qur'anic designation of the Christians. But here the Qur'ijo categorically
states that they had declared that they were 'Nasara' and it is obvious that
the Christians never called themselves 'Nazarenes'.
In this connection it should be recalled that Jesus never called his followers
'Christians' for he had not come to found a new religion named after him. His
mission was to revive the religion of Moses and of all the Prophets who preceded
him as well as of the one who was to appear after him. Hence, he neither formed
any cult divorced from the Israelites and the followers of the Mosaic Law nor
designated his followers by any distinctive name. Likewise, his early followers
neither considered themselves to be separate from the Israelite community nor
developed into an independent group nor adopted any distinctive symbol and name.
They worshipped in the temple of Jerusalem along with other Jews and considered
themselves to be followers of the Mosaic Law (see Acts 3:1-10; 21: 14-15,21).
Later on the process of alienation began to operate on both sides. On the one
hand, Paul, one of the followers of Jesus, declared independence from the Mosaic
Law holding that faith in Christ was all that one needed for salvation. On the
other hand, the Jewish rabbis declared the followers of Christ to be heretics
and excommunicated them. Despite this, for some time the new sect had no distinct
appellation of its own. The followers of Christ variously described themselves
as 'disciples', as 'brethren', as 'those who believed', and as 'saints' (see
Acts 2: 44; 4: 32; 9: 26; 11: 29; 13: 52; 15: 1; 23: 1 and Romans 15: 25 and
Colossians 1: 2). The Jews sometimes designated them as 'Galileans' and as 'the
sect of Nazarenes' (see Acts 24: 5; Luke 13: 2). These nicknames, which were
originally contrived in,.ojder to ridicule them, referred to Nazareth, the home
town of Jesus in the district of Galilee. These names, however, did not gain
sufficient popularity to become the permanent names of the followers of Christ.
They were called 'Christians' for the first time by the people of Antioch in
43 A.D. or 44 A.D. when Paul and Barnabas went there and began to preach their
religion (Acts 11: 26). This appellation was flung at them by the opponents
of the followers of Christ precisely in order to tease them by using an appellation
which was unacceptable to them. But when their enemies began to call them consistently
by this name their leaders reacted by saying that if they were called Christians
because of their allegiance to Christ they had no reason to be ashamed of it
(1 Peter 4: 16). It was thus that the followers of Christ also gradually began
to call themselves by the same name which had originally been conferred upon
them sarcastically. In the course of time the Christians ceased to realize that
theirs had originally been a derogatory appellation chosen for them by outsiders
rather than by themselves.
The Qur'an, therefore, does not refer to the followers of Christ as Christians.
It reminds them rather that they belong to those who responded to the query
of Jesus: 'Who are my supporters (ansari) in the way of God?' by saying that
they were his ansar (supporters) in God's cause. See
(Surah al-Saff 61: 14 - Ed.) It is an irony of fate that far from feeling grateful at being referred
to by a dignified appellation Christian missionaries take offence at the fact
that the Qur'an designates them as Nasara rather than as 'Christians'.
37. God discloses some of the dishonest and treacherous dealings of theirs where He deems it necessary in order to strengthen the cause of the true religion, and ignores the disclosure of those which are not truly indispensable.
38. The word 'safety' here denotes safety from false perception and outlook, safety from misdeeds and their consequences. Whoever seeks guidance from the Book of God and from the example of the Messenger (peace be on him) can find out how to keep himself safe from errors at each of life's crossroads.
39. The original mistake committed by the Christians in declaring Jesus to be a combination of human and divine essences turned Jesus into a mystery for them, and the more the Christian scholars tried to solve this mystery by resorting to conjecture and rhetorical extravagance the more involved the whole matter became. Those who were more impressed by the humanity of Jesus stressed his being the son of God and considered him to be one of the three gods. Those who were more impressed by the divinity of Jesus considered him to be none other than God, stressing that he was the human incarnation of God, and worshipped him as God. Those who tried to strike a middle path spent all their efforts hammering out subtle verbal formulations of the Trinity that would allow people to consider the Messiah to be God and man at one and the same time, to affirm that God and the Messiah are independent and simultaneously constitute an inseparable whole see (Surah 4, nn. 212, 213, 215) above.
40. This statement hints at the childishness of those who have been misled into believing that the Messiah himself is God either because of his miraculous birth or because of his flawless moral character or because of the miracles which he performed. The Messiah is merely a sign of the innumerable wonders of God's creation; a sign which somehow dazzled the eyes of those superficial people. Had their perception been wider they would have been able to see that there are even more inspiring examples of His creation and infinite power. If anything their attitude was indicative of the intellectual puerility of those who were so overawed by the excellence of a creature as to mistake him for the Creator. Those whose intelligence penetrates through the excellence of creatures, who look upon them merely as signs of the magnificent power of God, and who are led by such observations to a reinforcement of faith in the Creator are truly wise.
41. In the present context this sentence is extremely eloquent and subtle. It signifies that the same God who had sent warners and bearers of glad tidings to men in the past has now sent Muhammad (peace be on him) with the same task. At the same time it also means that they {should not treat the message of this warner and bearer of glad tidings lightly. They should bear in mind that if they disregard the injunctions of God, He can chastise them as He wills, for He is All-Powerful and All-Mighty.
42. This refers to the glory the Israelites enjoyed before the time of Moses. There had appeared among them such great Prophets as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. Moreover, from the time of Joseph they were able to achieve very considerable power and authority in Egypt. For a considerable period they were the greatest rulers of the civilized world, reigning supreme in Egypt and the surrounding territories. People are generally inclined to regard the time of Moses as the starting point for the rise of the Israelites. The Qur'an, however, states categorically that the truly glorious period of their history had passed long before Moses, and that Moses himself drew the attention of his people to that period as their time of glory.
43. This signifies Palestine which had been the homeland of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. After their exodus from Egypt, God ordered the Israelites to go forth to Egypt and conquer it.
44. This statement of Moses refers to the second year after they had come out of Egypt when he and his people lived in tents in the wilderness of Paran. This desert lies in the Sinai peninsula adjacent to the northern borders of Arabia and the southern borders of Palestine.
45. This could have two meanings: either that two of those who feared the high-handed people of the Promised Land made that statement or that two of those who feared God did so. (However, most Qur'anic commentators subscribe to the latter meaning - Ed.)
46. The details of this incident are found in the Bible in Numbers, Deuteronomy
and Joshua. The essence of the story is that Moses sent twelve heads of Israel
to spy out Palestine. They returned after forty days and said: 'We came to the
land to which you sent us; it flows with milk and honey. Yet the people who
dwell in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large; and
besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there . . . and all the people that
we saw in it are men of great stature. And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons
of Anak, who come from the Nephilim); and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers,
and so we seemed to them.' Then all the congregation cried out: 'Would that
we had died in the land of Egypt; or would that we had died in this wilderness;
why does the Lord bring us into this land, to fall by the sword? Our wives and
our little ones will become a prey; would it not be better for us to go back
to Egypt?' At this they were censured for cowardice by two of the twelve heads
who had spied out Palestine, Joshua and Caleb. Caleb suggested that they should
go and seize Palestine. Then both of them said: 'If the Lord delights in us,
He will bring us into this land and give it to us, a land which flows with milk
and honey. Only do not rebel against the Lord; and do not fear the people of
the land ... for the Lord is with us; do not fear them' (Numbers 14: 1-9). But
the congregation responded to this by crying out that both ought to be stoned.
This so provoked the wrath of God that He commanded that their bodies would
fall dead in the wilderness and that of all their numbers numbered from twenty
years old and upward, who had murmured against Him, none would come into the
promised land except Caleb and Joshua; that only after an entire generation
had passed away and a new generation had sprung up would they be enabled to
conquer Palestine. Because of this divine decree, it took the people of Israel
thirty-eight years to reach Transjordan from Paran. During this period all those
who had left Egypt in their youth had perished. After the conquest of Transjordan
Moses died (Ibid., 14: 10 ff.).
WANDERINGS OF THE ISRAELITES IN THE SINAI PENINSULA
The Prophet Moses (peace be on him) led the Israelites out of Egypt and brought
them to Mount Sinai by way of Marah, Elim and Rephaim in the Sinai Peninsula.
Here he stayed for a little over a year and received most of the Commandments
of the Torah. Then he was commanded to lead the Israelites towards Palestine
and conquer it, for that land was to be given to them as an inheritance. So,
he led them through Taberah and Nazareth and came to the desert of Paran from
where he despatched a deputation of prominent Israelites to spy out Palestine.
The deputation returned after forty days and made their report at Kadesh. Except
for the encouraging picture presented by Joshua and Caleb, the report made by
the other members was so disappointing that the Israelites cried out in disgust
and refused to march on to Palestine. Thereupon God decreed that they would
wander for forty years in the wilderness and none of their older generation
except Joshua and Caleb would see Palestine. Thus, the Israelites wandered homeless
in the wilderness of Paran, Shur and Zin, fighting and struggling against the
Amalekites, the Amorites, the Edomites, the Midianites and the Moabites. When
the forty years was about to end, the Prophet Aaron (peace be on him) died in
Mount Hor, near the border of Edom. At about this time the Prophet Moses (peace
be on him) entered Moab at the head of the Israelites, conquered the whole area
and reached Heshbon and Shittim. After him Joshua, his first successor, crossed
the River Jordan from the east and captured Jericho, the first Palestinian city
to fall to the Israelites. Later on the whole of Palestine was conquered by
them within a short period.
Ailah (present-day Aqaba) on this map is the place where probably the well-known
incident of the Sabbath-breakers, as mentioned in (Surah al-Baqarah 2: 65) and
(Surah al-A'raf 7: 166), took place.
Later on during the caliphate (sic) of Joshua the Israelites became capable
of conquering Palestine.
In view of the fact that the followers of all the Prophets are Muslims, the
author has used a peculiarly Islamic term - caliphate, rather than kingship,
etc. - to signify the predominantly religious (or shall we say, Islamic) quality
of his rule and to distinguish it from systems of government not animated by
the religious spirit - Ed.
47. The purpose of referring to this event becomes clear if we reflect upon the context. It seems to be to bring home to the Israelites that the punishment to which they would be subjected if they adopted a rebellious attitude towards Muhammad (peace be on him) would be even more severe than the .one to which they had been subjected in the time of Moses.
48. God's refusal to accept the sacrifice of one of the two brothers was not due to any wrong the other brother might have committed but to his own lack of piety. Hence, rather than attempt to kill his brother he should be concerned with cultivating piety.
49. This does not mean, that his brother assured him that when the latter
stepped forward to kill him he would keep his hands tied and stretch out his
own neck to be cut down rather than defend himself. What this statement amounts
to is an assurance on the part of the first brother that, even though the other
was intent on killing him, he himself had no such intention. In other words,
he assured his brother that even though the latter was busy planning his murder
he would not take the initiative in killing him despite his knowledge of the
latter's intent.
Righteousness does not demand at all that when a man is subjected to wrongful
aggression he should surrender to the aggressor rather than defend himself.
Righteousness, however, demands that a man should not take the initiative and
try to kill someone even though he knows him to be bent on killing him. He should
rather wait for the act of aggression to be initiated by the other person. And
this is exactly what was intended by the statement of the righteous son of Adam.
50. The righteous son of Adam told his brother that rather than both of them becoming sinners by trying to kill each other, he would prefer to see the entire sin fall on the lot of the one who was intent on the murder - the sin of the aggressor's attempt to murder, as well as the sin of any injury that might be inflicted on him in self-defence.
51. In this way God made this errant son of Adam realize his ignorance and folly. Once his attention turned to self-appraisal, his regret was not confined to realizing that in his effort to hide his brother's corpse he proved to be even less efficient than the raven. He also began to feel how foolish he was to have killed his own brother. The later part of the sentence indicates this remorse.
52.The purpose of mentioning this particular incident is to reproach the Jews subtly for the plot they had hatched to assassinate the Prophet (peace be on him) and some of his illustrious Companions see (n. 30) above. The resemblance between the two incidents is evident. God honoured some of the illiterate people of Arabia and disregarded the ancient People of the Book because the former were pious while the latter were not. But rather than reflect upon the causes of their rejection by God, and do something to overcome the failings which had led to that rejection, the Israelites were seized by the same fit of arrogant ignorance and folly which had once seized the criminal son of Adam, and resolved to kill those whose good deeds had been accepted by God. It was obvious that such acts would contribute nothing towards their acceptance by God. They would rather earn them an even greater degree of God's disapproval.
53.Since the same qualities which had been displayed by the wrong doing son
of Adam were manifest in the Children of Israel, God strongly urged them not
to kill human beings and couched His command in forceful terms. It is a pity
that the precious words which embody God's ordinance are to be found nowhere
in the Bible today. The Talmud, however, does mention this subject in the following
words:
To him who kills a single individual of Israel, it shall be reckoned as if he
had slain the whole race and he who preserves a single individual of Israel,
it shall be reckoned in the Book of God as if he had preserved the whole world.
The Talmud also mentions that in trials for murder, the Israelite judges used
to address the witnesses as follows:
Whoever kills one person, merits punishment as if he had slain all the men in
the world.
54. This means that the survival of human life depends on everyone respecting other human beings and in contributing actively to the survival and protection of others. Whosoever kills unrighteously is thus not merely guilty of doing wrong to one single person, but proves by his act that his heart is devoid of respect for human life and of sympathy for the human species as such. Such a person, therefore, is an enemy of all mankind. This is so because he happens to be possessed of a quality which, were it to become common to all men, would lead to the destruction of the entire human race. The person who helps to preserve the life of even one person, on the other hand, is the protector of the whole of humanity, for he possesses a quality which is indispensable to the survival of mankind.
55. The 'land' signifies either the country or territory wherein the responsibility of establishing law and order has been undertaken by an Islamic state. The expression 'to wage war against Allah and His Messenger' denotes war against the righteous order established by the Islamic state. It is God's purpose, and it is for this very purpose that God sent His Messengers, that a righteous order of life be established on earth; an order that would provide peace and security to everything found on earth; an order under whose benign shadow humanity would be able to attain its perfection; an order under which the resources of the earth would be exploited in a manner conducive to man's progress and prosperity rather than to his ruin and destruction. If anyone tried to disrupt such an order, whether on a limited scale by committing murder and destruction and robbery and brigandry or on a large scale by attempting to overthrow that order and establish some unrighteous order instead, he would in fact be guilty of waging war against God and His Messenger. All this is not unlike the situation where someone tries to overthrow the established government in a country. Such a person will be convicted of 'waging war against the state' even though his actual action may have been directed against an ordinary policeman in some remote part of the country, and irrespective of how remote the sovereign himself is from him.
56. These penalties are mentioned here in brief merely to serve as guidelines to either judges or rulers so they may punish each criminal in accordance with the nature of his crime. The real purpose is to indicate that for any of those who live in the Islamic realm to attempt to overthrow the Islamic order is the worst kind of crime, for which any of the highly severe punishments may be imposed.
57. If they give up subversion and abandon their endeavour to disrupt or overthrow the righteous order, and their subsequent conduct shows that they have indeed become peace-loving, law-abiding citizens of good character, they need not be subjected to the punishments mentioned here even if any of their former crimes against the state should come to light. If their crime involves violation of the rights of other men they may not be absolved from their guilt. If, for instance, they have either killed a person, seized someone's property or committed any other crime against human life or property they will be tried according to the criminal law of Islam. They will not, however, be accused of either rebellion and high treason or of waging war against God and His Messenger.
58. People are urged to solicit all means which might bring them close to God and enable them to please Him.
59. The English imperative 'strive hard' does not do full justice to the
actual word used in the Qur'an: jahidu. The verbal form mujahadah signifies
and carries the nuance of doing something in defiance of, or in opposition to
someone. The true sense of the Qur'anic injunction 'strive hard' in the way
of Allah is that the Muslims ought to use all their strength and engage in vigorous
struggle against those forces which either forcefully prevent them from living
in obedience to God or force them to live in obedience to others than God. It
is this struggle which is likely to lead man to his true success and bring him
to a close relationship with God.
This verse directs the believer to engage in a ceaseless, multifrontal struggle.
On one side is the accursed Satan with his horde. Then comes the animal spirit
of man, with its defiant and refractory desires. Then there are many men who
have turned away from God, but with whom one is linked by social, cultural and
economic ties. Then there are false religious, cultural and social systems which
rest on rebellion against God and which force man to worship falsehood rather
than Truth. These rebellious forces use different means to achieve their end,
but those ends are always the same - to make men serve them rather than God.
But man's true progress and his attainment of close communion with God depends
entirely on his total obedience to God, on his serving God unreservedly in the
inner as well as in the external aspects of his life. He cannot achieve this
objective without engaging in simultaneous combat with all the forces which
are defiant and rebellious towards God, carrying on an unceasing struggle against
them and trampling down all obstructions to his advancement along God's path.
60. The injunction is to cut off one not both hands. There is consensus among
jurists that in the event of the first theft the right hand should be cut off.
This punishment has been laid down for theft alone. The Prophet (peace be on
him) declared: "There is no cutting off of a hand for he who embezzles.' (Abu
Da'ud, 'Hudud', 14; Tirmidhi, 'Hudud', 18; Ibn Majah, 'Hudud', 36; Nasa'i, 'Qat'
al-Sariq', 13 - Ed.) This shows that the punishment prescribed for theft does
not cover acts involving embezzlement and other dishonest practices. It is applicable
only to acts involving the seizure, by stealth, of someone else's property.
The Prophet (peace be on him) also instructed that the punishment of cutting
off a hand should not be applied in cases where the value of the article stolen
is less than that of a shield. In the time of the Prophet (peace be on him)
according to a tradition from Ibn 'Abbas, this was ten dirhams; according to
a tradition from Ibn 'Umar, it was three dirhams; according to a tradition from
Anas b. Malik, it was five dirhams; and according to another tradition from
'A'ishah, it was a quarter of a dinar. Owing to this discrepancy, there is disagreement
among jurists regarding the minimum value of the goods stolen which merits the
punishment of cutting off a hand. This value, according to Abu Hanifah, is ten
dirhams whereas according to Malik, Shafi'i and Ahmad b. Hanbal, it is one quarter
of a dinar (three dirhams). (For traditions on objects and amounts of things
on which the hand of the thief is to be cut off, see Bukhari, 'Hudud', 13; Muslim,
'Hudud', 1-7; Abu Da'ud, 'Hudud', 12, 13; Tirmidhi, 'Hudud', 16; Nasa'i, 'Qat'
al-Sariq', 5, 8-10 - Ed.)
Moreover, there are several things the theft of which would not necessitate
cutting off a hand. The Prophet (peace be on him) directed, for instance, that
no hand should be cut off if the stolen article was food. According to a tradition
from 'A'ishah: '(The hand of) the thief was not cut off during the time of the
Messenger of Allah for the theft of trivial things.' (Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad,
vol. 3, p. 464; Darimi, 'Hudud', 4, 7 - Ed.) Furthermore, 'Ali and 'Uthman gave
the judgement - and none of the Companions disagreed with it - that a person's
hand should not be cut off for stealing birds. 'Umar and 'Ali did not cut off
the hands of those who had stolen from the public treasury, and on this question
no disagreement on the part of any Companion has been reported. On these grounds
the founders of the schools of Islamic Law exempted certain things from the
application of this penal injunction.
According to Abu Hanifah a man's hand should not be cut off for stealing vegetables,
fruit, meat, cooked food, grain which is not stored in a barn, and instruments
of music and play. Likewise, he is of the opinion that a hand should not be
cut off for either stealing animals grazing in the forest or for stealing from
the public treasury. The founders of the other schools of Islamic Law have also
exempted the stealing of certain things from the punishment of cutting off a
hand. But this exemption does not mean that the guilty parties should receive
no punishment at all. (See the commentaries of Ibn Kathir, Ibn al-'Arabi, Qurtubi
and Jassas on this verse. See also Ibn Rushd, Bidayat al-Mujtahid, vol. 2, pp.
441 ff. - Ed.)
61. Forgiveness on the part of Allah does not mean that the hand of the thief should not be cut off. It means rather that one who repents and becomes righteous by purging his soul of the sin of stealing will be spared the wrath of God, Who will remove the stain of that sin from him. But if after his hand has been cut off the person concerned does not purge himself of evil intent and continues to nurture the same impure feelings which led to his stealing and thus to the cutting off of his hand, it is evident that even though his hand has been severed from his body, stealing remains ingrained in his soul. The result will be that he will continue to merit God's wrath as he did before his hand was cut off. The Qur'an therefore directs the thief to seek pardon from God and to try to reform himself. For the hand of that thief was cut off for the sake of the judicious administration of human society and the cutting off of a hand did not automatically purify the soul of the person on whom the punishment was carried out. Purity of soul can be achieved only by repentance and turning oneself to God. Traditions mention that after the hand of a thief had been cut off in compliance with the Prophet's order, he was summoned by the Prophet (peace be on him) himself who said to him: 'Say: "I seek pardon from God, and to Him do I turn in repentance.'" The thief uttered these words as directed by the Prophet (peace be on him) who then prayed for the thief, saying: 'O God, accept his repentance.' (Abu Da'ud, 'Hudud', 8 - Ed.)
62. This verse refers to those who devoted all their capacities and efforts to ensure that the status quo ante of Jahiliyah remained intact, and that the reformative mission of Islam should fail to set right the corruption that had come down to them from the past. Disregarding all moral scruples, these people used the vilest methods against the Prophet (peace be on him). They deliberately suppressed the truth and resorted to lying, deceit, treachery and low cunning in order to frustrate the mission of the Prophet (peace be on him) who was engaged in a tireless struggle actuated by absolute selflessness and benevolence, and who sought the welfare of all human beings, including that of his opponents. All this naturally hurt the Prophet (peace be on him). A sincere person must feel heartbroken when he sees men of low moral character, driven by ignorance, blind selfishness and bigotry, resort to vile methods in opposition to his mission, which is actuated by charity and goodwill towards all men. Hence the purpose of God's directive here is not to ask the Prophet (peace be on him) to abstain from this natural feeling of grief but rather that he should not allow such feelings to undermine his morale and that he should persevere in his task. As for the opponents of the Prophet (peace be on him), in view of their low morals, their mean conduct was not at all contrary to expectations.
63. This has two meanings. First, that since such people are slaves to their desires they cannot have the least interest in the Truth, falsehood alone gratifies them. It is with falsehood alone that they like to fill their ears, for nothing else quenches the thirst of their souls. Second, it is the same love of falsehood which motivates them when they come and spend some time in the company of the Prophet (peace be on him) and the Muslims. They want to distort whatever they see or hear, to taint the facts with their fabrications, and then circulate them among those who have had no contact with the Prophet (peace be on him) and the Muslims in order to scandalize them.
64. This also has two meanings. First, that they socialized with the Prophet (peace be on him) and the Muslims in order to pry into their affairs and communicate them to the enemy. Second, that they went about collecting information to try to slander them. Their objective was to create misgivings about the Prophet (peace be on him) and the Muslims among those who were unacquainted with them.
65. They deliberately tamper with those injunctions of the Torah that do not accord with their desires, and by altering the meanings of the words occurring in the text they deduce laws that suit their interests.
66. This refers to the Jews who went about telling the ignorant masses that they should follow the teachings of the Prophet (peace be on him) only if they conformed to the teachings of the Jews.
67.God's will to put someone to the test means that God confronts one in whom He sees the growth of evil with the opportunities of doing just that, so that he experiences the struggle between good and evil. If the person is not yet fully inclined towards evil, his moral health improves and his latent potentialities for resisting evil are revived. But if he has become excessively inclined towards evil, and goodness has been totally crushed from within his being, then every such test is bound to entangle him still more tightly in evil. The well-wisher is now powerless to rescue him. It might be added that not only individuals but also nations are put to this kind of test.
68. God did not will that their hearts be purified for they themselves did not want them to be purified. It is not God's way to deprive of purity those who love it and strive for it; but God does not wish to purify those who do not seek their own purification.
69. Here pointed reference is made to judges and jurisconsults who accept false evidence and invent reports in order to issue verdicts contrary to justice and in favour of either those who bribe them or with whom their illegitimate interests lie.
70. Until then the Jews had not become full-fledged subjects of the Islamic
state. Their relations with that state were based on agreements according to
which the Jews were to enjoy internal autonomy, and their disputes were to be
decided by their own judges and in accordance with their own laws. They were
not legally bound to place their disputes either before the Prophet (peace be
on him) for adjudication or before the judges appointed by him. But in cases
where it appeared against their interests to have their disputes judged according
to their own religious law they approached the Prophet (peace be on him) in
the hope that the Prophet might have a different ruling.
The particular case referred to here was that of a woman belonging to a respectable
family, who was found to be involved in an unlawful sexual relationship with
a man. The punishment for this in the Torah was that both be stoned to death
(see Deuteronomy 22: 23-4). But the Jews did not want to enforce this punishment.
Hence they deliberated among themselves and decided to put the case before the
Prophet (peace be on him), with the reservation that his judgement be accepted
only if it was other than stoning. The Prophet (peace be on him) decided that
the punishment should, in fact, be stoning. When the Jews declined to accept
the judgement, the Prophet (peace be on him) asked their rabbis what punishment
had been prescribed for such a case in their religion. They replied that it
was to strike the culprit with lashes, to blacken the face and to make the person
concerned ride on a donkey. The Prophet (peace be on him) asked them under oath
if the Torah had indeed prescribed that as punishment for adultery committed
by married men and women. They repeated the same false reply. However, one of
them called Ibn Sawriya who, according to the Jews themselves, was the greatest
living scholar of the Torah at that time, kept silent. The Prophet (peace be
on him) asked him to state on oath in the name of God, Who had emancipated them
from Pharaoh and had given them the Law, whether the punishment for adultery
provided for in the Torah was what they had mentioned. He replied: 'Had you
not put me under such a heavy oath, I would not have volunteered the correct
information. The fact is that the prescribed punishment for adultery is indeed
stoning, but when adultery became common among us our rulers adopted the rule
that when respectable people committed adultery they were left unpunished, whereas
when ordinary people were convicted they were punished by stoning. Later on
when this caused resentment among the common people we altered the law of the
Torah and adopted the rule that adulterers and adulteresses would be lashed,
their faces would be blackened, and they would be made to ride on donkeys, seated
in a backward-looking position.' This left the Jews with nothing to say and
the adulterer and adulteress were, in accordance with the order of the Prophet
(peace be on him), stoned to death. (Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, vol. 3, pp. 574-5 -
Ed.)
71. In this verse, God unmasks completely the dishonesty of these people. It shows how these so-called religious people who had cast the spell of their religious piety and knowledge of the Scriptures over the whole of Arabia had set aside a categorical injunction of the book which they themselves recognized to be the Book of God, and which they professed to believe in. They had referred that judicial case to the Prophet (peace be on him) for his decision even though they vehemently denied his prophethood. This made it quite clear that there was nothing to which they subscribed sincerely. Their true religion consisted merely of worshipping their interests and desires. They were ready to turn their backs upon the very book which they recognized as the Book of God merely because some of its injunctions were unpalatable to them, and in such cases they did not mind approaching one whom they regarded as an imposter (may God be our refuge from such a blasphemy) in the hope that they might be able to obtain a judgement to their liking.
72.Here the verse tells the Jews that all the Prophets were muslims (submitters to God) whereas the Jews had deviated from islam (submission to God), and true to their chauvinistic sectarianism, were content with remaining merely 'Jews'.
73.Rabbani = religious scholars, theologians. Ahbar = religious jurists.
74. Cf. Exodus 21: 23-5.
75. Whoever forgoes his right of retaliation does a good deed which will atone for many of his sins. The same is confirmed by a tradition of the Prophet (peace be on him) in which he said: 'Whoever receives an injury on his body, then pardons (the inflictor of the injury), his sins are atoned for to the measure of his pardoning.' (Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 5, pp. 316, 329 - Ed.)
76.The Messiah did not expound a new religion. That very religion which had been the religion of all the Prophets was also his religion, and it is towards that religion that he called people. He believed in the true teachings of the Torah which were extant in his time, and the Gospels (Injil) confirm this (see, for example, Matthew 5: 17-18). The Qur'an repeatedly stresses the fundamental fact that none of the Prophets of God, no matter in which part of the world they appeared, denied the Prophets who had preceded them. On the contrary, each Prophet confirmed the message of his predecessors and sought to promote the mission which was the sacred legacy of them all. God did not reveal any of the Books in order to repudiate the previous ones; each confirmed and supported the preceding ones.
77. Here three judgements are issued against those who do not judge in accordance
with the Law revealed by God. The first is that they are kafir (unbelievers);
the second, that they are zalim (wrong-doers); and the third, that they are
fasiq (transgressors). This clearly means that one who, in disregard of God's
commandments and of the Laws revealed by Him, pronounces judgements according
to man-made laws (whether made by himself or by others) is guilty of three major
offences. First, his act amounts to rejecting the commandment of God, and this
rejection is equivalent to kufr (infidelity, unbelief). Second, his act is contrary
to justice, for only the laws made by God are in complete accord with the dictates
of justice. Any judgement in contravention of God's injunctions amounts, therefore,
to committing injustice (zulm). Third, when he enforces either his own or anyone
else's law in disregard of the Laws of his Lord he steps out of the fold of
subjection and obedience, and this constitutes fisq (transgression).
Kufr, zulm and fisq are essential elements in deviation from God's commandments.
One finds them wherever there is deviation from the commandment of God. There
is variation in the degree of deviation and hence in the degree of these three
offences. Whoever passes judgement on something in opposition to an injunction
of God, believing that injunction to be false, and holds either his own or anyone
else's judgement to be sound, is an unbeliever (kafir), wrong-doer (zalim) and
transgressor (fasiq). A man who is convinced that the injunctions of God are
right but makes judgements contrary to them in practice is not an unbeliever
in the sense that he ceases to remain a member of the Islamic community, but
he is guilty of adulterating his faith by blending it with kufr, zulm and fisq.
In the same manner, those who deviate from the injunctions of God in all matters
are unbelievers, wrong-doers and transgressors. For those who are obedient in
some respects and disobedient in others, the blending of faith and submission
to God with the opposite attributes of unbelief, wrong-doing and transgression
in their lives will be exactly in proportion to the mixture of their obedience
to and their deviation from God's commands.
Some commentators have attempted to restrict the application of these verses
to the People of the Book alone. The verses, however, hardly lend themselves
to such a restrictive interpretation. The best answer to such a restrictive
interpretation has been given by the Companion Hudhayfah. When someone told
him that these verses related merely to the Israelites, meaning that the unbelievers,
wrong-doers and transgressors were only the Jews who passed judgement contrary
to the injunctions revealed by God, Hudhayfah remarked: 'What good brothers
these Israelites are to you! Whatever is bitter goes to them; whatever is sweet
comes to you. Nay, by God, you will follow their way, your steps following theirs.'
78. This points to a fact of major significance. It could also have been said that the Qur'an confirms all those parts of the earlier divine books which are still extant in their true and original form. But the sense has been conveyed by employing the word 'the Book' rather than 'the previous Books'. This expression reveals that the Qur'an and all those Books sent down by God at various times and in different languages in reality constitute one and the same Book. Their Author is one and the same; their aim and purpose are the same; their teaching is the same; and the knowledge which they seek to impart to mankind is the same. The difference between these Books lies in their modes of expression, and this was necessarily so since they were addressed to different audiences. It is, therefore, not merely that these divine books support rather than contradict each other but that they are actually different editions of one and the same book - 'the Book'.
79. In Arabic, haymana, yuhayminu, hayamanah signify 'to protect, to witness, to keep trust, to back and to support'. The expression 'haymana al-rajul al-shay' means that the man protected and guarded the thing. Likewise, 'haymana al-ta'ir 'alafirdkhih' means that the bird took its young ones under the protection of its wings. Once 'Umar said to the people: 'Inni da'in fa hayminu' ('I am praying; support me by saying amen'). To say that the Qur'an is muhaymin of al-kitab means that it preserves all the true teachings of the earlier divine books; that it has secured them from loss. The Qur'an also confirms those Books in that the contents of the Qur'an testify to the truth of those parts which are indeed from God. The Qur'an is, further, a witness over those Books in the sense that, with its help, the elements which embody true revelations from God can be distinguished from the accretions which have corrupted them. Whatever in these Books accords with the Qur'an is from God, and whatever is not in conformity with it is from human beings.
80. This is a parenthetical phrase, the purpose of which is to elucidate a question which is likely to arise in the mind of the reader who has read the above section and might feel uneasy. The question is: Why do the religious laws propounded by the various Prophets differ in matters of detail even though the Prophets and their Books preach one and the same religion (din) and even confirm and support each other? Why is it that in regard to the prescribed forms of worship, the regulations concerning what is permitted and what is prohibited, and the detailed legal regulations governing the social and collective life, there is some disagreement among the various laws propounded by the different Prophets and the divine Books?
81. This constitutes a detailed answer to the above question (see n. 80).
It consists of the following points:
(1) It is a mistake to think that variations in religious laws result from a
difference of source. It is God Himself Who altered the legal prescriptions
to suit different nations at different times and in different circumstances.
(2) It was indeed possible, by divising one legal code for all human beings,
for all men to have been made into one nation (ummah). But one of the many benevolent
considerations keeping the religious laws of various Prophets different from
one another was that God wanted this difference to become a means of testing
people. Those who understand true religion, who have grasped its spirit and
essence, and who are aware of the true importance of the different legal prescriptions,
always recognize the Truth and accept it whatever its form. They have no hesitation
in accepting the new ordinances of God in place of the old ones, in contrast
to those who are not conversant with the spirit of true religion and who seem
to identify it with a specific body of legal minutiae. Such people have overlaid
God-given principles with their own legal deductions, and have sub sequently
fossilized this entire amalgam, seeking to preserve it in its entirety. They
have grown so attached to it that, in order to preserve it, they spurn every
directive which subsequently comes to them from God. In order to distinguish
the people of the first category from those of the second God made the legal
prescriptions of the various Prophets vary.
(3) The real purpose of all the divine religious laws is the attainment of goodness
and righteousness. This purpose can be achieved only when a man obeys whatever
commandment he receives from God at a particular time. The proper mode of conduct
for people who keep their eyes fixed on this true purpose is to strive for God's
good pleasure rather than quarrel about differences in the legal prescriptions
of the various Prophets.
(4) The differences which have arisen because of the unjustified rigidity, prejudice,
obduracy and erroneous attitudes of the human mind can be finally settled neither
in the debating hall nor on the battlefield. The final judgement will be made
by God Himself. Then the reality of everything will be fully uncovered, and
it will be clear how much truth and falsehood underlay the squabbles which whole
lives were wasted over.
82. Following this parenthetical clause, the previous subject is resumed.
83. The word jahiliyah (literally 'ignorance') is used as an antonym to Islam. Islam is the way of 'ilm (true knowledge), since it is God Himself Who has shown this way, and His knowledge embraces everything. In contrast is the way that diverges from Islam - the path of Ignorance (jahiliyah). The pre-Islamic period in Arabia is designated as jahiliyah because this was the era when human beings derived their norms from either superstitious beliefs, conjectures and imagination or from their desires. Whenever such an attitude is adopted, it is bound to be designated as Ignorance. The appellation 'jahiliyah' will apply to every aspect of life which is developed in disregard of the knowledge made available by God, based only on man's partial knowledge blended with imagination, superstitious fancies, conjectures and desires.
84. The outcome of the conflict in Arabia between Islam and unbelief (kufr) had not crystallized. Although Islam had become a formidable force owing to the daring, courage and sacrifices of its followers, the forces opposed to it were also tremendously powerful. To an objective observer it must have seemed that either party had an equal chance of success, and so the hypocrites, apparently an integral part of the Muslim body politic, sought to maintain good relations with the Jews and the. Christians as well. They expected refuge and protection from the Jews in case Islam was defeated. Moreover, the Jews and Christians held the greatest economic power in Arabia insofar as the banking system and the greenest and most fertile regions of Arabia were in their possession. For these reasons the hypocrites were keen to maintain good relations with them: they thought that to regard the conflict between Islam and unbelief as crucially important, and to sever their relations with all those currently in conflict with Islam, would be too great a risk both politically and economically.
85. They were looking for a conclusive victory, or at least something not far short of it, to inspire confidence that the conflict would end in favour of Islam.
86. However much they might profess to follow Islam - by performing Prayers, by observing Fasts, by paying Zakah, by taking part in wars in the cause of God - all was reduced to naught because they had not devoted themselves to the service of the One True God. In pursuit of their worldly ambitions they had split their souls into two, distributing half to God and half to those in rebellion against Him.
87. To be 'humble towards believers' signifies that a person should never
use his strength against the believers. His native intelligence, shrewdness,
ability, influence, wealth, physical prowess should not be used for the purpose
of either suppressing, persecuting or causing harm to the Muslims. Among themselves,
the Muslims should always find him gentle, merciful, sympathetic and mild tempered.
To be 'firm towards unbelievers', on the contrary, means that by virtue of the
intensity of his faith, the sincerity of his conviction, his strict adherence
to his principles, his strength of character and his insight and perspicacity
born of faith, a man should be firm as a rock in his dealings with the opponents
of Islam, so that they find it impossible to dislodge him. There should be no
doubt in their minds that the believer would rather lay down his life than compromise
his position by yielding to external pressures.
88.In following the religion of God, in implementing His injunctions, in judging things to be either right or wrong according to the criteria of the faith, the believer will be afraid of nothing. He will be impervious to opposition, reproach, denunciation, name-calling and scorn. Even when public opinion happens to be hostile, and his efforts to follow Islam single him out for the scorn of the whole world, the man of faith will still follow the way which he recognizes in his heart to be true.
89. When they hear the call to Prayer the unbelievers make fun of it by mimicry, pervert its words to ridicule it, and utter disparaging and taunting remarks about it.
90. These are merely acts of stupidity on the part of unbelievers. Had they not been ignorant and foolish they would not have stooped to such base tactics, despite their significant differences with the Muslims on religious questions. After all, can any reasonable person be happy to see the people who call to the worship of God be ridiculed and mocked?
91. This alludes to the Jews whose history shows that they were subjected, over and over again, to the wrath and scourge of God. When they desecrated the law of the Sabbath the faces of many of them were distorted, and subsequently their degeneration reached such a low point that they took to worshipping Satan quite openly. The purpose of saying all this is to draw attention to their criminal boldness while they had sunk to the lowest level of evil, transgression and moral decadence, they vigorously opposed all those who, thanks to their faith, lived a truly pious and righteous life.
92. To say that someone's hands are tied, in Arabic usage, is to say that he is niggardly, that something prevents him from being generous and bountiful. Thus the Jewish observation does not mean that God's Hand is literally tied but that He is niggardly and miserly. For centuries the Jews had lived in humiliation and misery. Their past greatness had become legend, seemingly too remote ever to be restored, and so they would blasphemously lament that God had become a miser and that as the door to His treasury was now permanently locked, that He had nothing to offer them except suffering and calamity. This attitude, however, is not confined to the Jews. When confronted with trials and tribulations foolish people of other nations, too, are prone to utter such blasphemies rather than turn to God with humble prayer and supplication.
93. They accused God of the miserliness from which they themselves had suffered and had become notorious for.
94. If they entertained the hope that by such insolent and taunting expressions they might evoke God's munificence, and that His bounties would begin to shower upon them, they were dreaming of the impossible. Indeed, such insolence was bound to have the opposite effect - to alienate them further from God's bounty, to cast them even further from His mercy.
95. Instead of learning any lessons from the Book of God, instead of recognizing their own mistakes and wrongs and then trying to make amends for them, instead of probing their miserable situation and then turning to reform, they reacted by launching a violent campaign of opposition to truth and righteousness. Rather than take to the right way as a result of being reminded of the forgotten lesson of righteousness, they attempted to suppress the voice which sought to remind them and others of such things.
96 In the Old Testament, Leviticus (chapter 26) and Deuteronomy (chapter 28) record a sermon of Moses in which he impresses upon Israel, in great detail, the bounties and blessings of God with which they would be endowed if they obeyed His commandments, and the afflictions, scourges and devastations that would descend upon them if they disobeyed Him and rejected the Book of God. That sermon of Moses is the best explanation of this verse of the Qur'an.
97. By 'establishing the Torah and the Gospel' is meant observing them honestly
and making them the law of life.
It should be noted here that the Scriptures which comprise the Bible consist
of two kinds of writings. One was composed by the Jewish and Christian authors
themselves. The second consists of those portions which have been recorded as
either the injunctions of God or as the utterances of Moses, Jesus and other
Prophets. Such portions are those in which it has been categorically stated
that God said so and so, or that a particular Prophet said so and so. If we
were to exclude the portions belonging to the first category and carefully study
those belonging to the second we would notice that their teachings are not perceptibly
different from those of the Qur'an. It is true that the second category has
not altogether escaped the tamperings of translators, scribes and exegetes,
and the errors of oral transmitters. Nevertheless, one cannot help feeling that
the teachings embodied in the second category call man to the same pure monotheism
as the Qur'an, that they propound those very beliefs propounded by the Qur'an
and that they direct man to the same way of life as that to which the Qur'an
seeks to direct him. Hence, had the Jews and the Christians adhered to the teaching
attributed in their Scriptures to God and the Prophets they would certainly
have become a truth-loving and truth-oriented group of people and would have
been able to see in the Qur'an that very light which illuminates the earlier
divine Scriptures. There would then have been no question of their abandoning
their religion in order to follow the Prophet (peace be on him). To follow him
would have caused neither break nor discontinuity; they would simply have gone
one stage further along the same road.
98. Instead of reflecting on this seriously and dispassionately, they were seized by a fit of intransigence which intensified their opposition.
99. See Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. I, (Surah 2, verse 62, and n 80).
100. In these few words the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Christ is repudiated. The nature of the Messiah is clear from the indications given here; he was merely a human being. He was one born from the womb of a woman, who had a known genealogy, who possessed a physical body, who was subject to all the limitations of a human being and who had all the attributes characteristic of human beings. He slept, ate, felt the discomfort of heat and cold and was so human that he was even put to the test by Satan. How could any reasonable person believe that such a being was either God or a partner or associate of God in His godhead? But the Christians continue to insist on the divinity of the Messiah, whose life has been portrayed in their own Scriptures as that of a human. The fact of the matter is that they do not believe at all in the historical Messiah. They have woven a Messiah out of their imagination and have deified that imaginary being.
101. This refers to those misguided nations from whom the Christians derived
their false beliefs and ways, particularly to the Hellenistic philosophers under
the spell of whose ideas the Christians had veered from the straight way they
had originally followed. The beliefs of the early followers of the Messiah were
mainly in conformity with the reality they had witnessed, and conformed to the
teachings they had received from their guide and mentor. But they later resorted
to an exaggerated veneration of Jesus, and interpreted their own beliefs in
the light of the philosophical doctrines and superstitious ideas of the neighbouring
nations. Thus they invented an altogether new religion not even remotely related
to the original teachings of the Messiah. In this connection the observations
of a Christian theologian, the Reverend Charles Anderson Scott are significant.
In a lengthy article entitled 'Jesus' Christ', published in the fourteenth edition
of Encyclopaedia Britannica, he writes:
. . . there is nothing in these three Gospels to suggest that their writers
thought of Jesus as other than human, a human being specially endowed with the
Spirit of God and standing in an unbroken relation to God which justified His
being spoken of as the 'Son of God'. Even Matthew refers to Him as the carpenter's
son and records that after Peter had acknowleged Him as Messiah he 'took Him
aside and began to rebuke Him' (Matthew, xvi. 22). And in Luke the two disciples
on the way to Emmaus can still speak of Him as 'a prophet mighty in deed and
word before God and all the people' (Luke, xxiv. 19). It is very singular that
in spite of the fact that before Mark was composed 'the Lord' had become the
description of Jesus common among Christians, He is never so described in the
second Gospel (nor yet in the first, though the word is freely used to refer
to God). All three relate the Passion of Jesus with a fullness and emphasis
of its great significance; but except the 'ransom' passage (Mark, x. 45) and
certain words at the Last Supper there is no indication of the meaning which
was afterwards attached to it. It is not even suggested that the death of Jesus
had any relation to sin or forgiveness.
A little further on he writes:
That He ranked Himself as a prophet appears from a few passages such as 'It
cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem'. He frequently referred to
Himself as the Son of Man; but while this must be maintained in face of influential
opinions to the contrary, the result for our purpose is less important than
we might expect, for the possible meanings of the phrase are as numerous as
the sources from which it may possibly have been derived. They range from simple
'man' through 'man in his human weakness' and the representative 'Man' to the
supernatural man from heaven foreshadowed in Daniel. If we had to postulate
one source and one meaning for the phrase as used by Jesus of Himself, it would
probably be found in Psalm Ixxx., where the poignant appeal to God for the redemption
of Israel runs out on the hope of a 'son of man whom thou madest strong for
thyself. The same author adds:
Certain words of Peter spoken at the time of Pentecost, 'A man approved of God',
described Jesus as He was known and regarded by His contemporaries. He was 'found
in fashion as a man', that is, in all particulars which presented themselves
to outward observation He Appeared and behaved as one of the human race. He
'was made man'. The Gospels leave no room for doubt as to the completeness with
which these statements are to be accepted. From them we learn that Jesus passed
through the natural stages of development, physical and mental, that He hungered,
thirsted, was weary and slept, that He could be surprised and require information,
that He suffered pain and died. He not only made no claim to omniscience, He
distinctly waived it. This is not to deny that He had insight such as no other
ever had, into human nature, into the hearts of men and the purposes and methods
of God. But there is no reason to suppose that He thought of the earth as other
than the centre of the solar system, of any other than David as the author of
the Psalms, or did not share the belief of His age that demons were the cause
of disease. Indeed, any claim to omniscience would be not only inconsistent
with the whole impression created by the Gospels, it could not be reconciled
with the cardinal experiences of the Temptation, of Gethsemane and of Calvary.
Unless such experiences were to be utterly unreal, Jesus must have entered into
them and passed through them under the ordinary limitations of human knowledge,
subject only to such modifications of human knowledge as might be due to prophetic
insight or the sure vision of God.
There is still less reason to predicate omnipotence of Jesus. There is no indication
that He ever acted independently of God, or as an independent God. Rather does
He acknowledge dependence upon God, by His habit of prayer and in such words
as 'this kind goeth not forth save by prayer'. He even repudiates the ascription
to Himself of goodness in the absolute sense in which it belongs to God alone.
It is a remarkable testimony to the truly historical character of these Gospels
that though they were not finally set down until the Christian Church had begun
to look up to the risen Christ as to a Divine Being, the records on the one
hand preserve all the evidence of His true humanity and on the other nowhere
suggest that He thought of Himself as God.
The same author also observes that:
He proclaimed that at and through the Resurrection Jesus had been publicly installed
as Son of God with power; and if the phrase has not wholly lost its official
Messianic connotation, it certainly includes a reference to the personal Sonship,
which Paul elsewhere makes clear by speaking of Him as God's 'own Son' . . .
It may not be possible to decide whether it was the primitive community or Paul
himself who first put full religious content into the title 'Lord' as used of
Christ. Probably it was the former. But the Apostle undoubtedly adopted the
title in its full meaning, and did much to make that meaning clear by transferring
to 'the Lord Jesus Christ' many of the ideas and phrases which in the Old Testament
had been specifically assigned to the Lord Jehovah. God 'gave unto Him that
name that is above every name - the name of "Lord"'. At the same time by equating
Christ with the Wisdom of God and with the Glory of God, as well as ascribing
to Him Sonship in an absolute sense, Paul claimed for Jesus Christ a relation
to God which was inherent and unique, ethical and personal, eternal. While,
however, Paul in many ways and in many aspects, equated Christ with God, he
definitely stopped short of speaking of him as 'God'.
In another article in Encyclopaedia Britannica (xiv edition), under the title
'Christianity', the Reverend George William Knox writes as follows about the
fundamental beliefs of the Church:
Its moulds of thought are those of Greek philosophy, and into these were run
the Jewish teachings. We have thus a peculiar combination - the religious doctrines
of the Bible, as culminating in the person of Jesus, run through the forms of
an alien philosophy.
The Doctrine of the Trinity. The Jewish sources furnished the terms Father,
Son and Spirit. Jesus seldom employed the last term and Paul's use of it is
not altogether clear. Already in Jewish literature it had been all but personified
(Cf. the Wisdom of Solomon). Thus the material is Jewish, though already doubtless
modified by Greek influence: but the problem is Greek; it is not primarily ethical
nor even religious, but it is metaphysical. What is the ontological relationship
between these three factors? The answer of the Church is given in the Nicene
formula, which is characteristically Greek, . . .
Also significant in this connection are the following passages of another article
in Encyclopaedia Britannica (xiv edition), entitled 'Church History': The recognition
of Christ as the incarnation of the Logos was practically universal before the
close of the 3rd century, but His deity was still widely denied, and the Arian
controversy which distracted the Church of the 4th century concerned the latter
question. At the Council of Nicaea in 325 the deity of Christ received official
sanction and was given formulation in the original Nicene Creed. Controversy
continued for some time, but finally the Nicene decision was recognised both
in East and West as the only orthodox faith. The deity of the Son was believed
to carry with it that of the Spirit, who was associated with Father and Son
in the baptismal formula and in the current symbols, and so the victory of the
Nicene Christology meant the recognition of the doctrine of Trinity as part
of the orthodox faith. The assertion of the deity of the Son incarnate in Christ
raised another problem which constituted the subject of dispute in the Christological
controversies of the 4th and following centuries. What is the relation of the
divine and human natures in Christ? At the Council of Chalcedon in 451 it was
declared that in the person of Christ are united two complete natures, divine
and human, which retain after the union all their properties unchanged. This
was supplemented at the 3rd Council of Constantinople in 680 by the statement
that each of the natures contains a will, so that Christ possesses two wills.
The Western Church accepted the decisions of Nicaea, Chalcedon and Constantinople,
and so the doctrines of the Trinity and of the two natures in Christ were handed
down as orthodox dogma in West as well as East.
Meanwhile in the Western Church the subject of sin and grace, and the relation
of divine and human activity in salvation, received special attention; and finally,
at the 2nd Council of Orange in 529, after both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism
had been epudiated, a moderate form of Augustinianism was adopted, involving
the theory that every man as a result of the Fall is in such a condition that
he can take no steps in the direction of salvation until he has been renewed
by the divine grace given in baptism, and that he cannot continue in the good
thus begun except by the constant assistance of that grace, which is mediated
only by the Catholic Church.
It is evident from these statements of Christian scholars that it was exaggerated
love and veneration of Christ which led the early Christians astray. This exaggeration
and the use of expressions such as 'Lord' and 'Son of God' led to Jesus being
invested with divine attributes and to the peculiar Christian notion of redemption,
even though these could not be accommodated into the body of the teachings of
Christ. When the Christians came to be infected with philosophical doctrines,
they did not abandon the original error into which they had fallen, but tried
to accommodate the errors of their predecessors through apologetics and rational
explanations. Thus, instead of returning to the true teachings of Christ, they
used logic and philosophy to fabricate one false doctrine after another. It
is to this error that the Qur'an calls the Christians' attention in these verses.
102. The corruption of any nation begins with that of a few individuals. If the collective conscience of that nation is alive, the pressure of public opinion keeps those persons in check and prevents the nation as a whole from becoming corrupted. But if instead of censuring such individuals, the nation leaves them free to behave corruptly, the corruption originally confined to a few continues to spread till it engulfs the whole nation. It was this which ultimately caused the degeneration of Israel. (For the curse against Israel in the words of David and Jesus see Psalms 10, 50 and Matthew 23.)
103. It seems natural that those who believe in God and the Prophets and the Scriptures, compared with the polytheists, would naturally be more sympathetic to those who at least share with them belief in God, in prophethood and in .revelation (whatever their disagreements on other religious issues). It was ironic, therefore, that the Jews should openly support the polytheists in the struggle between polytheism and monotheism, and that their sympathies in the conflict between those who rejected prophethood and those who believed in it should lie expressly with the former. Despite all this, they brazenly claimed to be true believers in God, in the Prophets and in the Scriptures.
104. This verse embodies two directives. The first is that man should not
attribute to himself the authority to proclaim things either lawful or unlawful
according to his own wishes. Only that which God has held to be lawful is lawful,
and only that which God has declared unlawful is unlawful. If men were to declare
certain things either lawful or unlawful on their own authority, they would
not be following the law of God but their own laws. The second directive is
that they should not adopt the course of world-renunciation and abstention from
worldly pleasures as the Christian monks, Hindu mendicants, Buddhist bhikshus
and illuminist mystics did. Religious-minded and virtuous people have always
tended to consider their physical and carnal desires an impediment to spiritual
growth. They have considered suffering, deprivation from worldly pleasures and
abstention from the means of worldly sustenance to be acts of goodness and indispensable
for achieving proximity to God. Even some of the Companions leaned in this direction.
The Prophet (peace be on him) once came to know that some Companions had resolved
that they would fast without interruption, that instead of spending the night
on their beds they would remain awake praying, that they would consume neither
meat nor fat, and would have no (sexual) relations with women. The Prophet (peace
be on him) addressed the people on this subject and said: 'I have not been commanded
to do so. Even your own self has rights against you. So, fast on certain days
and refrain from fasting on others. Stay awake praying at night and also sleep.
Look at me; 1 sleep as well as stay awake (praying); sometimes I fast and sometimes
I don't. I consume meat as well as fat. Whosoever dislikes my way does not belong
to me.' He then added: 'What has happened to people that they have prohibited
for themselves women, good food, perfumes, sleep and the pleasures of the world,
whereas I have not taught you to become monks and priests. In my religion there
is neither abstention from women nor from meat, neither seclusion nor withdrawal.
For the purposes of self-control my religion has fasting. As for monasticism,
all its benefits can be derived from jihad (struggle in the way of God). Serve
God and associate none with Him. Perform Hajj and 'Umrah, establish Prayers,
dispense Zakah and observe the fasts of Ramadan. Those who were destroyed before
you were destroyed because they were severe with themselves, and when they became
severe with themselves God became severe with them as well. It is the remnants
of such people who you see in the oratories and hermitages of monks.' (Ibn Kathir,
vol. 2, pp. 626 and 628-9 - Ed.)
There are traditions to the effect that the Prophet (peace be on him) once came
to know that one of his Companions was always so preoccupied with worship and
devotion that he did not approach his wife for long periods. The Prophet (peace
be on him) called for him and directed him to go to his wife. On being told
that he was fasting, the Prophet (peace be on him) asked him to break the fast
and proceed to his wife. During the reign of 'Umar a lady once lodged the complaint
that her husband fasted all day and prayed all night and had no relations with
her. 'Umar appointed the famous Successor (Tabi'i), Ka'b b. Thawr al-Azdi to
look into the matter. He issued the judgement that the husband had the right
to spend three nights in Prayer if he so wished, but every fourth night was
the right of his wife. (Fiqh al-Sunnah, vol. 2, p. 164 - Ed.)
105. 'Do not exceed the bounds of right' has a broad signification. To hold the things which are lawful to be unlawful, and to shun the things declared by God to be clean as if they were unclean, is in itself an act of wrongful excess. It should be remembered, at the same time, that extravagant indulgence even in clean things is an act of wrongful excess. Likewise, to overstep the limits of the permissible is also an act of wrongful excess. God disapproves of all three kinds of excess.
106. Since some people had taken an oath prohibiting for themselves the things which He had permitted, God laid down this injunction regarding oaths made inadvertently. The injunction makes it unnecessary to feel bound by the terms of inadvertent oaths, and for which one will not be reproached by God. And if a person had deliberately made an oath which entails sin he should not abide by his oath and should expiate it (see Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. I, (Surah 2,nn. 243-4); for expiation see (Surah 4, n. 125) above.
107. To be mindful of one's oaths has several meanings. First, one should make proper use of oaths and should not employ them either frivolously or sinfully. Second, when a person takes an oath, he should take care not to forget it lest he be led to break it. Third, when a man deliberately takes an oath regarding something sound in itself he should pay the penalty if he happens to violate it.
108.For 'altars' and divination by arrows see (nn.12 )and
14 )above. For games
of chance see (n. 14) above.
While divination by arrow-shooting essentially constitutes a game of chance
there is nevertheless a certain difference between the two, since divination
by arrow-shooting, in addition to being a game of chance, is also tainted with
polytheistic beliefs and superstitions. As for games of chance, this expression
is applied to those games and acts in which accidental factors are considered
the criteria for acquisition, fortune-making and the division of goods and property.
109. In this verse four things are categorically prohibited:
(1) intoxicants;
(2) games of chance;
(3) places consecrated for the worship of anyone else besides God, and altars
for either sacrifices or offerings in the name of others than God; and
(4) polytheistic divination by arrow-shooting.
The last three items have already been explained. (See Towards Understanding
the Qur'an, vol. I,( Surah 2: 219, n. 235 )and
(Surah 5: 3, n. 14 above). Two injunctions
had already been revealed concerning the prohibition of intoxicants See
(Surahs 2: 219 )and( 4: 43). Before the revelation of the last injunction, the Prophet
(peace be on him) had warned the people that intoxicants were highly displeasing
to God. Hinting at the possibility of their being prohibited, he advised people
to dispose of intoxicants if they had any. A little later on the present verse
was revealed and the Prophet (peace be on him) then proclaimed that those who
had intoxicants should neither consume nor sell them, but rather destroy them.
Intoxicating liquors were poured into the streets of Madina. When asked if such
liquor might be offered to the Jews as a gift the Prophet (peace be on him)
replied in the negative and said: 'He Who has prohibited it has also required
it not to be given away as a gift.' Some people inquired whether it was permitted
to make vinegar out of such liquor. The Prophet (peace be on him) told them
not to do so, but to throw it away instead. Another person asked insistently
whether or not an intoxicant could be used as medicine. The Prophet (peace be
on him) replied that far from being a remedy for any malady it was in itself
a malady. Others sought permission to consume intoxicating liquor on the plea
that they lived in a very cold region and had to work very hard, and that the
people of that region habitually drank intoxicants to combat exhaustion and
cold. The Prophet (peace be on him) inquired if the drink concerned did cause
intoxication. On being told that it did, he said that they should abstain from
it. They pointed out that the people of their region would not accept this,
to which the Prophet (peace be on him) replied that they should fight them.
It is reported by 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Umar that the Prophet (peace be on him) said:
'God has cursed khamr (wine) and him who drinks it, him who provides it to others
and him who buys or sells it, him who squeezes (the grapes) into wine and him
who causes others to squeeze grapes (in order to make wine), him who carries
it and him to whom it is carried.' (See Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 2, p.
97; vol. 1, p. 316; Abu Da'ud, 'Ashribah', 2 - Ed.)
According to another tradition the Prophet (peace be on him) instructed not
to eat at the table where intoxicating drinks were being taken. In the beginning
the Prophet (peace be on him) even forbade the use of vessels in which intoxicating
drinks had either been made or served. Later on, when the prohibition of drinks
was completely observed the Prophet (peace be on him) withdrew the interdiction
regarding the use of these vessels. (See Abu Da'ud, 'At'imah', 18; Tirmidhi,
'Adab', 43; Darimi, 'Ashribah', 15; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, p. 20;
vol. 3, p. 339 - Ed.) Though the word khamr in Arabic means literally 'the drink
made from grapes', it was also used figuratively for intoxicating liquors made
from wheat, barley, raisins, dates and honey. The Prophet (peace be on him)
applied the prohibition of wine to all intoxicants. In this regard we find categorical
statements from the Prophet (peace be on him) embodied in traditions: 'Every
intoxicant is khamr, and every intoxicant is prohibited.'
'Every drink which causes intoxication is prohibited.' 'I forbid everything
which intoxicates.' In a Friday sermon 'Umar defined khamr in the following
manner: 'Whatever takes hold of the mind is khamr.' (See Bukhari, 'Wudu", 71;
'Maghazi', 60, 'Ashribah', 4,10, 'Adab', 8, 'Ahkam', 22; Muslim, 'Ashribah',
67-9; Abu Da'ud, 'Ashribah', 5, 71; Ibn Majah, 'Ashribah', 9, 13, 14; Darimi,
'Ashribah', 8, 9; Muwatta', 'Dahaya', 8; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, pp.
274, 289, 350; vol. 2, pp. 16, 158, 171, 185, 429, 501; vol. 3, pp. 63, 66,
112, 119, 361; vol. 4, pp. 41, 416; vol. 6, pp. 36, 71, 72, 97, 131, 190 and
226 - Ed.)
The Prophet (peace be on him) also enunciated the following principle: 'If anything
causes intoxication when used in large quantity, even a small quantity of it
is prohibited.' 'If a large quantity of something causes intoxication, to drink
even a palmful of it is prohibited.' (See Abu Da'ud, 'Ashribah', 5; Ibn Majah,
'Ashribah', 10; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 2, pp. 167, 179 and vol. 3, p.
343 - Ed.)
In the time of the Prophet (peace be on him) no specific punishment had been
laid down for drinking. A person caught drunk would be struck with shoes, fists,
and whips made of twisted cloth and palm sticks. The maximum number of lashes
to which any culprit was subjected was forty. In the time of Abu Bakr the punishment
continued to be forty lashes. In the time of 'Umar the punishment initially
remained at forty lashes also, but when he saw people persist in drinking he
fixed the punishment at eighty lashes after consulting the Companions. This
was considered the prescribed legal punishment for drinking by Malik and Abu
Hanifah, and even by Shafi'i according to one tradition. But Ahmad b. Hanbal,
and, according to a variant tradition, Shafi'i, considered the punishment to
consist of forty lashes, and 'Ali is reported to have preferred this opinion.
According to Islamic Law, it is the bounden duty of an Islamic government to
enforce this prohibition. In the time of 'Umar the shop of a member of the Thaqif
tribe, by the name of Ruwayshid, was burnt down because he carried on the sale
of liquor. On another occasion a whole hamlet was set on fire because it had
become a center of illegal traffic in liquor.
110. When a person is in the state of pilgrim sanctity (ihram) it is prohibited for him both to hunt and to assist in hunting animals. Indeed, even if an animal has been hunted for him by someone else he may not eat it. However, if someone hunts an animal for himself and makes a gift of it to such a person, there is no harm in his eating it. There is an exception to this injunction and that is with regard to harmful animals. Snakes, scorpions, mad dogs and other such animals which cause injury to man may be killed even by one in the state of ihram. (See Bukhari, 'Talaq', 24; 'Sayd', 2; Abu Da'ud, 'Manasik', 40, 41; Tirmidhi, 'Hajj', 27; 'Sayd', 26 - Ed.)
111. It would also be 'two men of equity' (Surah al-Ma'idah 5: 95) to judge as to the number of persons one should feed or the number of days one should fast by way of expiation for killing a certain animal.
112. Since one often runs out of provisions during a voyage and is left with no alternative but to catch sea creatures, fishing in the sea has been made lawful.
113. In Arabia, the Ka'bah was not merely a sacred place of worship. Thanks to its central position and its sanctity, it nurtured the economic and cultural life of the whole peninsula. Since the entire populace was drawn towards the Ka'bah for the performance of Hajj and 'Umrah, their coming together brought about a measure of unity in the life of the Arabs which was otherwise rent with disunity. This enabled the people of various regions and tribes to establish social and cultural ties among themselves. Moreover, the security which reigned in the vicinity of the Ka'bah provided an impetus to creative literary activity, with the result that in the fairs held in the sacred territory, poets placed their poetic compositions before the audience, trying to excel one another. This led to the growth and flowering of their language and literature. Thanks, again, to the peace and security which reigned in the sacred territory, it became a major centre of trade and commerce. Moreover, since certain months of the year were regarded as sacred months in which there could be no bloodshed, the Arabs enjoyed peace and security for about a quarter of the year. It was during this period that caravans moved in freedom and with ease from one end of the peninsula to the other. The custom of consecrating animals for sacrifice, marked off from others by the collars around their necks, also facilitated the movement of caravans, for whenever the Arabs saw those animals with their collars signifying consecration for sacrifice, they-bent their heads in reverence and no predatory tribe had the courage to molest them.
114. Were they to consider even the social and economic aspects of the life of their people, the existing arrangements would provide them with clear testimony to the fact that God has deep and thorough knowledge of the interests and requirements of His creatures, and that He can ensure immensely beneficial effects on many sectors of human life by just one single commandment. During the several centuries of anarchy and disorder which preceded the advent of the Prophet (peace be on him), the Arabs were themselves unaware of their own interests and seemed bent upon self-destruction. God, however, was aware of their needs and requirements and by merely investing the Ka'bah with a central position in Arabia He ensured their national survival. Even if they disregarded innumerable other facts and reflected on this alone they would become convinced that the injunctions revealed by God were conducive to their well-being, and that underlying them were a great many benefits and advantages for them which they themselves could neither have grasped nor achieved by their own contriving.
115. This verse enunciates a standard of evaluation and judgement quite distinct from the standards employed by superficial people. For the latter, for instance, a hundred dollars are worth more than five dollars, since a hundred is more than five. But, according to this verse, if those hundred dollars have been earned in a manner entailing the disobedience of God the entire amount becomes unclean. If, on the contrary, a man earns five dollars while obeying God then this amount is clean; and anything which is unclean, whatever its quantity, cannot be worth that which is clean. A drop of perfume is more valuable than a heap of filth; a palmful of clean water is much more valuable than a huge cauldron brimming with urine. A truly wise person should therefore necessarily be content with whatever he acquires by clean, permissible means, however small and humble its quantity may be. He should not reach out for what is prohibited, however large in quantity and glittering in appearance.
116. People used to ask the Prophet (peace be on him) many questions which
were of no practical relevance to either religious or day-to-day affairs. Once,
for instance, a person asked the Prophet (peace be on him) in the presence of
a crowd: 'Who is my real father?' Likewise, many people used to ask unnecessary
questions about legal matters. By these uncalled for inquiries they sought knowledge
of matters which had for good reasons, been deliberately left undetermined by
the Law-giver. In the Qur'an, for example. Pilgrimage had been declared obligatory.
A person who became aware of this came to the Prophet (peace be on him) and
inquired: 'Has it been made obligatory to perform it every year?' To this the
Prophet (peace be on him) made no reply. When he inquired for the second time
the Prophet (peace be on him) again stayed silent. On being asked for the third
time, he said: 'Pity on you! Had I uttered "Yes" in reply to your question,
it would have become obligatory to perform it every year. And then you would
not have been able to observe it and would have been guilty of disobedience.'
(See Bukhari, 'Riqaq', 22; 'Zakah', 53; I'tisam', 3; 'Adab', 6; Muslim, 'Aqdiyah',
10, 11, 13, 14; Darimi, 'Riqaq', 38; Muwatta', 'Kalam', 20; Ahmad b. Hanbal,
Musnad, vol. 2, pp. 327, 360, 367; vol. 4, pp. 246, 249, 250, 251, 255 - Ed.)
The Prophet (peace be on him) discouraged people from being over-inquisitive
and unnecessarily curious about every question. We find in the Hadith the following
saying from the Prophet (peace be on him): 'The worst criminal among the Muslims
is the one who inquired about something which had not been made unlawful, and
then it was declared so, because of his inquiry.' (Bukhari, I'tisam', 3; Muslim,
Fada'il', 132, 133; Abu Da'ud, 'Sunnah', 6 - Ed.) According to another tradition
the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'God has imposed upon you certain obligations,
do not neglect them; He has imposed certain prohibitions, do not violate them;
He has imposed certain limits, do not even approach them; and He has remained
silent about certain matters - and has not done so out of forgetfulness - do
not pursue them.' (See Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. I,
(Surah 2, n. 110 - Ed.)
In both these traditions an important fact has been called to our attention.
In matters where the Law-giver has chosen to lay down certain injunctions only
broadly, without any elaborate details, or quantitative specifications, He has
done so not because of neglect or forgetfulness. Such seeming omissions are
deliberate, and the reason thereof is that He does not desire to place limitations
upon people, but prefers to allow them latitude and ease in following His commandments.
Now there are some people who make unnecessary inquiries, cause elaborately
prescribed, inflexibly determined and restrictive regulations to be added to
the Law. Some others, in cases where such details are in no way deducible from
the text, resort to analogical reasoning, thereby turning a broad general rule
into an elaborate law full of restrictive details, and an unspecified into a
specified rule. Both sorts of people put Muslims in great danger. For, in the
area of belief, the more detailed the doctrines to which people are required
to subscribe, the more problematic it becomes to do so. Likewise, in legal matters,
the greater the restriction, the greater the likelihood of violation.
117. Some people first indulged in hair-splitting arguments about their laws and dogma, and thereby wove a great web of credal elaborations and legal minutiae. Then they became enmeshed in this same web and thus became guilty of dogmatic errors and the violation of their own religious laws. The people referred to here are the Jews, and the Muslims who followed in their footsteps and left no stone unturned, despite the warnings contained in the Qur'an and in the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him).
118. Just as, in the Indian subcontinent, cows, oxen and goats are set free
after being consecrated either to God or to some idol or shrine or to some saintly
person, and just as people consider it prohibited either to put them to work,
to slaughter them or to derive any other kind of benefit from them, so the Arabs
of the Jahiliyah period also let loose certain animals after consecrating them.
Such animals were variously named.
Bahirah was the name of a female camel which had already borne five young, the
last of which was a male. The practice was to slit the ear of such a camel and
then let her loose. Thereafter no one could ride her, use her milk, slaughter
her or shear her hair. She was entitled to graze and drink water wherever she
liked.
Sa'ibah was the name of either a male or female camel which had been let loose
after consecration as a mark of gratitude in fulfilment of a vow taken for either
the recovery from some ailment or delivery from some danger. In the same way
the female camel which had borne ten times, and each time a female, was also
let loose.
Wasilah. If the first kid born to a goat was a male, it was slaughtered in the
name of the deities; but if it was a female, it was kept by the owners for themselves.
If twins were born and one of them was a male and the other a female goat, the
male was not slaughtered but rather let loose in the name of the deities. This
male goat was called wasilah.
Ham. If the young of camels in the second degree of descent had become worthy
of riding they were let loose. Likewise, if ten offspring had been borne by
a female camel she was also let loose, and called ham.
119. What is stressed here is that rather than occupying himself unduly with
examining faults in the belief and conduct of others, a man should pay greater
attention to a critical examination of his own conduct. His primary concern
should be with his own faith and conduct. If a man is himself obedient to God,
observes his duties to Him and to His creatures including his duty to promote
what is good and forbid what is evil, and lives according to the dictates of
righteousness and honesty, he has fulfilled his obligation and if others persist
either in false beliefs or in moral corruption their errors cannot harm him.
This verse in no way means that a man should care only for his own salvation
and should remain unconcerned with the reform of others. Abu Bakr removed this
misconception in one of his sermons when he remarked: 'You recite this verse
but interpret it erroneously. I have heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be
on him) say that when people see corruption but do not try to change it; and
when they see a wrong-doer commit wrong but do not prevent him from doing so,
it is not unlikely that God's chastisement will seize them all. By God, it is
incumbent upon you that you bid what is good and forbid what is evil or else
God will grant domination upon you to those who are the worst among you. They
will greatly chastise you and then when your righteous ones pray to God, their
prayers will not be answered.'
120. That is, pious, straightforward and trustworthy Muslims.
That is, non-Muslims - Ed.
121. This shows that the testimony of non-Muslim witnesses in cases involving Muslims is appropriate only when no Muslim is available as a witness.
122. This refers to the Day of Judgement.
123. The reference here is to the response of the world to the call of the Prophets.
124. This reply indicates that the Prophets would say that their knowledge was confined to that limited, outward response which they had encountered during their lifetimes. The true reaction to their call at various places and in different forms would only be known completely to God Himself.
125. The initial question would be addressed to all Prophets as such. Then each of them would be called upon to bear witness separately, as stated in several places in the Qur'an. In this connection the question that will be addressed to Jesus is specifically mentioned here.
126. That is, with God's command Jesus brought people to life from the state of death.
127. Jesus is being told that the faith of the disciples in him was also the result of God's grace and succour, for he, himself, did not have the power to produce even one man of faith in that land of disbelief. It is also made clear that the true religion of the disciples of Jesus was Islam.
128. Since the disciples have been mentioned here, the continuity of the
subject is interrupted momentarily in order to introduce another incident connected
with the disciples. This clearly shows that those who had been directly instructed
by Jesus considered him merely a human being and a slave of God; they had no
conception of their master either being God or a partner of God or the son of
God. Jesus had, rather, presented himself to them as a slave of God with no
claims to divine authority.
One might feel inclined here to raise the question: What is the occasion for
this parenthetical interjection in a conversation that is to take place on the
Day of Judgement? This parenthesis, in my opinion, is not in fact part of such
a conversation, but rather forms part of a discussion in this world regarding
a conversation that will take place on the Day of Judgement. The conversation
that will take place on the Day of Judgement is mentioned here precisely in
order that the Christians may derive a lesson from it and direct themselves
to the right way. Hence, the mention of this incident regarding the disciples
- even though it seems to interrupt the continuity of narration - is in no sense
out of place.That is, are Muslims - Ed.
129. The Qur'an is silent on the question of whether this meal was sent down in response to this prayer. There is also no other authoritative basis to help us arrive at a clear conclusion. It is possible that the repast was actually sent down. It is also possible that the disciples withdrew their prayer after hearing the stern warning in response to it.
130. The Christians were not content merely with deifying Jesus and the Holy Spirit. They even turned Mary, the mother of Jesus, into a full-fledged object of worship. The Bible does not contain even the remotest suggestion that Mary was in any way either divine or superhuman. During the first three centuries after the Messiah, such a concept was totally alien to Christian thinking. Towards the end of the third century of the Christian era, however, some theologians of Alexandria employed, for the first time, the expression 'Mother of God' in connection with Mary. Subsequently, belief in Mary's divinity and the practice of Mariolatry began to spread among Christians. Even then, however, the Church was not prepared to accord official approval to this belief and denounced the Mariolaters as heretics. It was not until the Council of Ephesus in 431 that the Church officially used the expression 'Mother of God' for Mary. The result was that Mariolatry began to spread fast within the Church itself, so much so that, by the time of the revelation of the Qur'an, Mary had become so important a deity that she obscured even the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Statues of Mary adorned the cathedrals. She became the object of rites and worship. People addressed their prayers to her. She was regarded as the one who responded to people's supplications, who heeded people's grievances and complaints, who relieved them in distress, who provided support and succour to the helpless. For a devout Christian there could be no greater source of comfort and inner strength than the belief that he enjoyed the support and patronage of the 'Mother of God'. In the preamble of his code, Justinian had declared Mary to be the defender and supporter of his empire, and his general, Marses, sought Mary's guidance on the battlefield. Heraclius, a contemporary of the Prophet (peace be on him), had a picture of Mary on his standard and he was confident that by her grace the standard would never be lowered. Several centuries later the Protestants argued strongly against Mariolatry during the movement which led to the Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church has, nevertheless, managed so far to cling to Mariolatry in one form or another.