1. This means that there is nothing in the Qur’an which, being intrinsically complex and enigmatic, defies understanding. Likewise, there is nothing in the Qur’an which is repugnant to truth and righteousness making it difficult for any truth-loving person to believe in it.

2. Those who declare that God had begotten offspring include Christians, Jews and the polytheists of Arabia.

3, That is, when the polytheists declare that someone is either God’s son, or that God has taken him as His son, such statements are not based on any dependable knowledge of which they might feel sure. People in fact are wont to make such arbitrary statements in a fit of exaggerated devotion. Little do they realize how outrageously misleading their doctrine is. Nor do they fully recognize what blasphemy they utter, and what fabrication they foist upon God.

4. This refers to the condition of the Prophet (peace be on him) at that time. It is evident that he was not grieved primarily because of the persecution to which he and his Companions were subjected. What really grieved him and caused him intense suffering was the realization that while he sincerely wished to salvage his people from the doctrinal error and moral corruption in which they were steeped, they, however, showed no readiness to get out of the rut in which they were in. He, therefore, felt convinced that his people would be seized by God’s scourge. For while the Prophet (peace be on him) exerted himself day and night to save his people, they virtually insisted that God’s punishment should inflict them. In a hadith, the Prophet (peace be on him) portrays this condition in the following words:

The analogy of me and of the people is this: a person who lit a fire which illuminated the area around him, but this caused moths and other insects which (are inclined to) fall into fire to fall into it. This person tried to somehow pull them away (from the fire), but they overpower him and plunge into the fire. My position is that I seek to restrain you from the fire but you plunge into it. K. al-Riqaq, ‘Bab al-Intiha’ min al-Ma‘asi’ . (See also Muslim, K. al-Fada’ il, ‘Bab Shafaqat Salla Allah ‘alayhi wa sallam ‘ala Ummatih’ . . . — Ed.)

The verse apparently states that the Prophet (peace be on him) is so intensely concerned with the welfare of his people, the Quraysh, that he might lose his life. The verse, however, also contains a message of consolation for the Prophet (peace be on him), for it also subtly tells him that he is not to blame for the failure of his people to believe and do good. It is beyond anyone’s power to turn people into believers. The Prophet (peace be on him) should, therefore, persevere in his mission: giving good tidings to those who believe, and warning those that do not of the evil consequences of disbelieving.

5. The earlier verse (i.e. verse 6) was addressed to the Prophet (peace be on him) while these two verses (i.e. verses 7-8) are addressed to the unbelievers.

After saying a word of comfort to the Prophet (peace be on him), the deniers of the truth are told — albeit without addressing them directly — that the riches and ‘pomp and grandeur of the world which fascinate them, are all transient, and are meant to test human beings. Many are misled by the opportunity to live in ease and luxury, mistakenly believing that they were created simply to enjoy the pleasures of worldly life. As a result, such people pay no heed to the counsel of sincere well-wishers. They fail to appreciate that the opportunities for enjoyment are in fact simply a means of testing how people behave. The purpose of the test is precisely to distinguish those who immerse themselves in the pleasures of life from those who remain conscious of their duty to serve their Lord and follow the right way. The day this test ends, this life of enjoyment will also be brought to a sudden close, and the earth will become merely a vast stretch of desolation.

6. In Arabic, the word kahf signifies a large cave, whereas the word ghar signifies a relatively narrow and small cave.

7. There is disagreement among scholars concerning the word al-raqim. Some Companions and Successors are reported to have expressed the view that it is the name of the place where the event took place, and that it was located between Elia, i.e. the land (i.e. ‘Aqabah) and Palestine. Some of the early commentators on the Qur’an, however, are of the opinion that al-raqim refers to the epitaph which was placed at the Cave as a monument to the People of the Cave. Mawlana Abu al-Kalam Azad has expressed his preference for the former view in his work Tarjuman al-Qur’ an. (See his Tarjuman al-Qur’ an - (New Delhi, Sahatyah Academy, 1970), vol. 4, pp. 406—7— Ed.) He considers this to be the same place as Rekem mentioned in the Bible (see Joshua 18: 27).

Azad also identifies this with the ancient Nabataean city of Petra. He has failed, however, to take into account the fact that Rekem was mentioned in the Bible among the cities inherited by the Benjeminites. According to the Book of Joshua, this was located to the west of the River Jordan and the Sea of Lot.

Obviously, it would be out of the question for Petra to be located there. For the ruins of Petra were discovered in an area which was separated from the territory under the occupation of the Benjeminites by the territory of Judah and Edomia. It is for this reason that modern archaeologists are strongly disinclined to regard Petra and al-Raqim as the same place. (See art. ‘Petra’ in’ Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1946 edition, vol. 17, p. 658; also art. ‘Petra’ in the 15th edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 9, p. 339 — Ed.) In our view, al-raqim signifies epitaph, or the inscription on the epitaph, rather than the name of any particular place.

8. The unbelievers are being asked whether they consider it impossible to believe that God — Who out of His power could bring the earth and the heaven into existence — would be unable to cause a group of people to remain asleep for three hundred years and then restore them to their former state — youthful and healthy — as if they had never been subjected to such a long spell of slumber? If the unbelievers were to keep in mind God’s power to create such objects as the sun, the moon and the earth, they would never have considered that act at all difficult for God.

9. The earliest evidence of this story is found in the Sermons of the Christian priest James of Sarug, a work which is in Syriac. He was born a few years after the death of the People of the Cave in 452 C.E. and he compiled his Sermons around 474 C.E.

This Syriac account reached the commentators of the Qur’an and this explains why Ibn Jarir al-Tabari reproduced it in his Commentary under different chains of transmission. The same account reached Europe and was subsequently translated and summarized in Greek and Latin. Edward Gibbon provided a summarized version of the story based on these sources under the title ‘The Seven Sleepers’ in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. (See Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, second edition, in six volumes, London, Murray, 1846, vol. 3, pp. 220-2.) Gibbon’s account is so closely similar to the reports found in the works of Muslim commentators of the Qur’an that both seem to have drawn on the same source. For example, the king who persecuted the People of the Cave, forcing them to retire to the cave, is called Dagyanus, or Daqyanus (see al-Tabari’s comments on this surah) or Daqyaus in Muslim sources. According to Gibbon, his name was Decius and he ruled over the Roman Empire from 249 C.E. to 251 C.E. His reign was notorious for the persecution of the followers of Jesus Christ (peace be on him). The city where the incident took place is called Afsus, or Afsaus in Muslim sources, while Gibbon names it as Ephesus, which was the largest town and a famous Roman port on the western coast of Asia Minor. The ruins of this town can be found at a distance of some twenty to twenty-five miles from the present-day Turkish town and seaport of Izmir (Smyrna). (See Map 2.) Moreover, the Emperor during whose reign the People of the Cave woke up is referred to as Tidhusis in Muslim sources (see, for instance, al-Tabari’s comments on the surah in his Tafsir - Ed.) while, according to Gibbon, the event took place during the reign of Theodosius II who ruled over Rome from 408 to 450 C.E., after the Roman Empire’s adoption of Christianity as its official religion.

The two accounts resemble each other so closely that the person sent to the town to bring food is called Yamlikha by Muslims and Yamblichus by Gibbon. The story, in all its details, is common to both sources. In its bare outline, the story mentions that while the disciples of Jesus Christ (peace be on him) were persecuted during the rule of Decius, the Seven Youths of Ephesus retired to “the cave and finally woke up in the thirty-eighth year of the Emperor Theodosius, i.e. in 445 or 446 C.E., at a time when the entire Roman Empire had already embraced Christianity. According to this account, they remained in the Cave for about 196 years. Some Orientalists have, however, cast doubt on the Qur’anic version on the ground that the Qur’an specifies the period of their stay to be 309 years. (For our view on this subject, however, see n. 25 below.)

The Syriac and Qur’anic versions of the story differ in certain respects. Gibbon had the temerity to dub the Prophet (peace be on him) as ‘ignorant’ on account of these differences. (See Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 220, n. 45 — Ed.) This is bold indeed of Gibbon who himself recognizes the Syriac work to have been composed by someone in “Syria some thirty or forty years after the event. It is evident that oral traditions, usually undergo changes in the process of transmission from one land to another, Gibbon’s judgement would have made some sense had the Syriac account been fully authentic and reliable. But we know that is not the case. Hence the insistent contention that if the Qur’anic account varies to any extent from the Syriac account the Qur’an must be wrong can only behove those whose religious bigotry has totally overwhelmed them. (See also Appendix 1.)

10. When these youths became sincere men of faith, God enhanced their guidance and enabled them to faithfully adhere to the truth. This also gave them the strength to prefer courting all kinds of dangers as opposed to timidly surrendering before the forces of falsehood.

11. At the time when these devout youths had to flee from the towns and take shelter in the mountains, the town of Ephesus was a major center of idolatry and magic in Asia Minor. The splendid temple to the goddess Diana, which then adorned the town, was famous the world over. (For the goddess Diana, q.v., Encyclopedia Britannica — Ed.) It attracted devotees from far-flung places who took part in rites of worship there. The sorcerers, soothsayers, and amulet-writers of Ephesus were well-known; theirs was a flourishing business all over Syria, Palestine and Egypt. The Jews, who attributed their skill in this field to the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him), also had an important share in this business. (See art. ‘Ephesus’ in Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature.)

The plight of righteous people in this atmosphere an atmosphere charged’ with polytheism and superstition was summed up in the following remark about the People of the Cave: ‘For if they should come upon us, they will stone us to death or force us to revert to their faith’ (al-Kahf 18: 20).

12. In the course of this narration, mention of the youths’ collective decision to take refuge in a cave in this mountainous region such that they might avoid being subjected to lapidation or compelled apostasy has been omitted.

13. The mouth of their cave faced north, thus preventing sunlight from entering it no matter what the season. The result being that the cave remained dark and it was impossible for any passer-by to observe the inmates of the cave from outside.

14. Even if someone were to carefully peep into the cave, he would have noticed that the seven people every now and again changed their positions.

This would have made any observer believe that they were simply taking a rest rather than sleeping.

15. The presence of a handful of people in a dark cave in a mountainous area, guarded by a dog, presented such an awesome spectacle that those who observed them would have run for their lives, presumably assuming them to be robbers. This was one of the main reasons why the truth about these people remained a mystery for so long. No one simply had the courage to enter the cave and find out the truth of the matter.

16. The manner in which these youths were roused from their Jong slumber was no less wondrous than the manner in which they were made to sleep, beyond the reach of the whole world.

17. When one of those youths went to the city to buy food, a world of change had already taken place. Pagan Rome had long since been Christianized. Perceptible changes were evident in the language, culture, civilization and dress of the people; in sum, almost everything had changed.’ Similarly, this young man from the cave, who in fact belonged to a period about two centuries earlier, also struck everybody as an oddity since his overall demeanour, his dress, and his language were all antiquated. So, when he presented a coin dating from the time of Decius, the shopkeeper was simply baffled and looked at him with dazed eyes. According to the Syriac traditions, the shopkeeper thought that his customer had obtained the coin by laying his hands on some hidden ancient treasure. The shopkeeper, therefore, drew the attention of people around him to this strange man, and eventually the youth was brought before the authorities. In the course of investigations, it was discovered that the youth was one of the followers of Jesus Christ who had fled some two centuries ago for fear of his faith. This news instantly spread among the Christians of the city. A huge crowd of people, accompanied by government officials, therefore, soon went to the cave. On realizing that they had been awakened from a sleep which had lasted for two hundred years, the People of the Cave greeted their Fellow-Christians, and then lay down to rest and breathed their last.

18. According to Syriac traditions, a fierce controversy was then raging on the issue of the Resurrection and the Hereafter. True, most people had embraced Christianity under the influence of the Roman Empire, and as Christians one of their articles of faith was belief in the Hereafter.

Nevertheless, Roman polytheism and idolatry and Greek philosophy still had a strong hold on the population. The result was that many people either denied or were skeptical about the Hereafter. What specially reinforced this attitude about the Hereafter was the influence of the Jews. A large Jewish population was evident in Ephesus, and of these the Sadducees openly denied the Hereafter. The Sadducees put forward arguments drawn from the Torah in their contention against the Hereafter, and Christian scholars were unable to produce any powerful and persuasive arguments to refute them. In Matthew, Mark and Luke we find references to the debate between the Sadducees and Jesus (peace be on him) on the question of the Hereafter. For some reason, Jesus’ contention recorded in these three Gospels is so weak that this weakness is even acknowledged by Christian scholars. (See Matthew 22: 23-33; Mark 12: 18-27 and Luke 20: 27-40.) Consequently, this strengthened the position of the deniers of the Hereafter, so much so that even those who strongly believed in the Hereafter began to entertain doubts about it. It was precisely at this moment that the People of the Cave were aroused from their long sleep, an incident which provided incontrovertible proof of life after death.

19. The context indicates that this statement was made by a group of righteous Christians. They were of the opinion that the People of the Cave should be left to lie in the positions in which they were found and that the mouth of the cave should be sealed off by erecting a wall against the side of the cave. In other words, it was not right to go about investigating about them for their Lord knew best who they were, what their status was, and what treatment should rightly be meted out to them.

20. This refers to the rulers of the Roman Empire and the clergy of the Christian Church. They were so powerful that true Christians, who held on to the true, original doctrines of Jesus Christ, made little impression on them. By the middle of the fifth century, the Christians in general, and the Roman Catholic Church in particular, fell prey to polytheism, saint-worship and grave-worship. Shrines of saints became objects of worship and statues of Jesus, Mary and the apostles adorned the churches.

In 431 C.E., just a few years before the People of the Cave were roused from their sleep, a Synod was held in Ephesus. This Council proclaimed as official doctrine of the Christian Church that Jesus was God and Mary was the Mother of God. Keeping this historical context in mind, it seems evident that the people mentioned in the present verse as ‘those who prevailed over their affairs’ are those who, as opposed to the true followers of Christ, had become the leaders of the Christian masses and thus held the reins of religious and political affairs. It is these people who sought to promote polytheism, and it is they who decided that the burial site of the People of the Cave should be turned into a: shrine.

21. Some Muslim scholars have taken this verse to mean the opposite of what it truly means. They argue the legitimacy of erecting mausoleums, monuments and mosques on the tombs of saints. The Qur’an, however, considers this a bad practice and erroneous. What the Qur’an rather suggests here is that the cave should have served as a token to strengthen belief in Resurrection and the Hereafter; that these are realities which are bound to come to pass. It is ironic that this statement was seized upon by some people as a God-sent opportunity for engaging in polytheism, as a pretext for adding to the list of saints who could be worshipped. This is quite evident from the context in which the above verse occurs. In fact, even if the context were disregarded, how can one use the statement to justify building mosques at the tombs of saints for this would be in flagrant opposition to many sayings of the Prophet (peace be on him)? Several of his sayings explicitly prohibit such a practice:

God cursed the women who visit graves, and those who construct mosques at graves, and illuminate them. (See Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, p. 229; al-TirmiDhu, Sunan, Abwab al-Salah, ‘Bab (ma ja’ fi) Karahiyah ‘an yuttakhadh ‘ald al-Qabr Masjidan’; al-Nasa’i, Sunan, K. al-Jana’ iz, ‘Bab al-Taghliz fi Ittikhadh al-Sarj ‘ala al-Qubir’, Ibn Majah, Sunan, K. al-Jana’ iz, ‘Bab ma ja’ fi al-Nahy ‘an Ziyarat al-Nisa’ al-Qubir’ — Ed.)

Lo! Those who preceded you made the graves of their Prophets into places of worship, but I forbid you from it. (Muslim, K. al-Masajid wa Mawadi‘ al-Salah, ‘Bab al-Nahy ‘an Bina’ al-Masajid ‘ala al-Qubur wa Ittikhadh al-Suwar fi-ha ....’ — Ed.)

God cursed the Jews and the Christians who took the graves of their Prophets as places of worship. (Al-Bukhari, K. al-Jana’iz, ‘Bab ma Yukrah min Ittikhddh ‘ala al-Qubur .. .’; Muslim, K. al-Masajid wa Mawadi‘ al-Salah; al-Nahy ‘an Bina’ al-Masdjid ‘ala al-Qubur wa ittikhadh al-Suwar fi ha... ; al-Nasa’i, K. al-Masajid, ‘Bab al-Nahy ‘an ittikhadh al-Qubur Masajid’; Anmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 1, p.218-Ed.)

Such were the people that if a pious person among them died, they constructed a temple at his grave and painted in it those portraits they will be reckoned the worst creatures on the Last Day. (See al-Nasa’i, Sunan, al-Masdajid, ‘Bab al-Nahy ‘an Ittikhadh al-Qubir Masdjid; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 6, p. 51; al-Bukhari, K. al-Jana’ iz, ‘Bab Bina’ al-Masdjid ‘ald al-Qabr; Muslim, K. al-Masdjid wa Mawadi ‘al-Salah, ‘Bab al-Nahy ‘an Bina’ al-Masdjid ‘ald-Qubar ...’-Ed.)

In view of these clear sayings from the Prophet (peace be on him) how can any God-fearing person use the above Qur’anic statement — a statement which simply mentions an erroneous act by Christian priests and Roman rulers — as an argument in support of such a practice?

It seems pertinent to mention here that in 1834 Reverend T. Arundell published his observations in Discoveries in Asia Minor. According to him, he found traces of the tomb ruins of Mary and the seven youths, i.e. the People of the Cave, on a hillock adjoining the ancient city of Ephesus.

22. This shows that at the time of the revelation of the Qur’an, approximately three hundred years after the incident, a number of stories were in circulation among the Christians about the People of the Cave. It also shows that no authentic version of the incident was available in all its details. This is understandable since the event took place long before the invention of the printing press where after it would have been possible for books containing accurate information about the event to have gained general circulation. As for the time which concerns us, the main sources of information about the incident were oral ones. With the passage of time, many details inevitably became mixed up with authentic verbal reports, with the result that accounts about the incident became legendary. We note, however, that the Qur’an does not contradict the third statement mentioned here which says that the People of the Cave numbered seven. Hence, there are some grounds for believing that their actual number was indeed seven.

23. The purpose of the statement is to emphasize the fact that the number of the People of the Cave is not a matter of much consequence. What is really important is the lesson to be drawn from their story. The story teaches that men of faith ought never to deviate from truth, nor submit to falsehood. It also teaches that men of faith ought to place their trust entirely in God rather than in worldly resources. It also teaches that even if circumstances do not seem propitious for the truth to prosper, men of faith should still proceed in the cause of the truth, placing their trust entirely in God.

The story also dispels a serious misconception. At times people are led to the false belief that the apparent complex of causal relationships, which they call the laws of nature, are absolutely inalterable. What we call laws of nature are in fact the usual ways in which God lets things happen. He is not, however, bound by any such laws and has the power to set aside or alter these so-called ‘laws’ and to do whatever He wills, in flagrant contravention of the usual ways in which things happen. It is not at all difficult for God to cause someone to remain asleep for two hundred years and then rouse him from it and make him feel as if he had slept for just a few hours. It is also quite easy for Him to ensure that these two hundred years are not allowed to have any effect on that person’s age, appearance, and health. All in all, then it is quite evident that it is easily within God’s power to resurrect all the human beings who have ever lived on earth, all at once, as has been foretold by the Prophets and the Scriptures.

The actual historical facts relating to the People of the Cave also provide a very useful lesson. They show how foolish people in all ages have been in failing to derive the right lesson from God’s signs which have been sent to serve as a means of guidance for them; in fact, they have often’ ’been further misguided by these signs. The miracle of the People of the Cave should have further strengthened people’s faith in the Hereafter. It is a pity that this very event led people to proceed in completely the opposite direction; the net result being that they contrived yet more saints whom they could worship.

These are the main lessons and points which one ought to draw from the story of the People of the Cave. But instead of taking note of these, people often get embroiled in trivial and far-fetched questions. They ask, for example, what was the total number of the People of the Cave? What were their names? What was the color of their dog? Such questions can only be of interest to those who concern themselves with the husk rather than with the kernel; for those interested in irrelevant details rather than in the substance. Hence God has directed His Prophet (peace be on him), and through him ail believers, that even if others raise irrelevant questions, they should refrain from answering them; nor should they waste their time on academic research pertaining to such irrelevant questions. They should rather concern themselves with substantive questions. It is presumably for this reason that God did not care to reveal the true number of the People of the Cave so as not to encourage those who have a penchant for fruitless and sterile intellectual pursuits.

24. We believe this to be a parenthetical statement which is thematically linked to the preceding verse. The preceding verse states that God alone knows the exact number of the People of the Cave and that it is pointless to try to ascertain their true number. One should, therefore, avoid wasting one’s time on substantive matters, and should refrain from pursuits that will lead nowhere.

The question is of such trivial consequence that one should not even get involved with others in such debates.

At this stage, before proceeding to the next point, both the Prophet (peace be on him) and the believers are directed not to make categorical statements as to what they would do on the morrow. For no one knows what they will in fact be able to do. One does not know at all what lies in store for the future. Nor has one absolute power to do whatever one wills. So even if one were to unintentionally make any categorical statements as to what one will be able to do on the morrow, one should be instantly conscious and remember God, and make one’s statement conditional with God’s will. In other words, one should state that one will do a certain thing provided God so wills. In like manner, a person does not know for sure whether the act he intends will be beneficial for him or whether some other action would be conducive to greater benefit. Hence, one ‘ought to place one’s reliance on God and say that one hopes God will direct one to the right judgement.

25. This is in continuation of the statement immediately preceding the parenthetical statement: ‘Some people will say that they were three in number and the-fourth was their dog .. .’ This part of the earlier verse connects with the present verse: ‘They remained in the Cave for three hundred years and some others add nine more years.’ In our opinion these figures — three hundred or three hundred and nine years — have been mentioned by way of narrating the different opinions held by people on the question. The statement, therefore, about the period of stay in the cave is not God’s, but rather the varying opinions of human beings. This is substantiated by what has been said in the very next verse in which the Prophet (peace be on him) has been asked to say that God knows best how long they actually remained in the cave. Had God Himself said that they remained in the cave for three hundred and nine years, the statement - which follows would be meaningless. It is for this reason that ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas has expressed the view that the statement is not God’s; it rather merely - recount" what people said on the matter. (See al- Alusi, Ruh al-Ma ‘ani, vol. 15, p. 252.)

26. After concluding the story of the People of the Cave, another subject is introduced. In this discourse comments are made about the problems which the Muslims of Makka were then facing.

27. This does not in any way mean that the Prophet (peace be on him) was inclined — God forbid — to alter the Qur’an so as to placate the Makkan unbelievers and strike a deal with them, and that God asked the Prophet (peace be on him) not to do so. The fact is that this verse is directed to the unbelievers of Makka, even though it is addressed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) who had no authority to make any alteration of his own accord to the Book of God. His task rather consisted in faithfully transmitting what had been revealed to him by God. The unbelievers had the option to accept what he had communicated to them on God’s behalf or not; and those who accepted it were required to accept it in toto. If they were not convinced about the Prophet’s Message, then they were free to reject it. They could exercise either of these two options. It was quite out of the question, however, that the religion revealed by God could, in any way, be subjected to modifications, however minor, so as to suit peoples’ fancies.

This has been said in response to the unbelievers’ persistent demand that the Prophet (peace be on him) should not insist on the acceptance of his message in full. They asked the Prophet (peace be on him) to make at least some allowance for their ancestral faith, for their age-old customs and usages. What they proposed was a kind of compromise, involving give and take on both sides. They suggested that such a compromise would have the benefit of averting dissension. The Qur’an frequently recounts this demand by the unbelievers and its response too is uniformly the same. To cite just one example:

And whenever Our clear revelations are recited to them, those who do not expect to meet Us say: ‘Bring us a Qur’an other than this one, or at least make changes in it’ (Yunus: 10: 15).

28. As reported by Ibn ‘Abbas, the Quraysh elites advised the Prophet (peace be on him) that they were not prepared to sit in the company of people of such low status as Bilal, Suhayb, ‘Ammar, Khabbab and Ibn Mas‘ud. Were the Prophet (peace be on him) to get rid of them then they would be willing to visit - him and spend time learning about his message. (See al-Qurtubi’s comments on al-Kahf 18: verse 28 in his Commentary — Ed.)

In response, God tells the Prophet (peace be on him) that he should ‘be content with the company of those who had gathered around him merely to seek God’s pleasure, and to remember God at all times of the day and night. There was no good reason for him to choose for his company those whose claim to importance rested on their affluence in preference to his sincere and devoted followers.

Once again, even though this directive is apparently addressed to the Prophet (peace be on him), it is meant to give a message to the Quraysh elites who are being told that their affluence and the pomp and glory in which they exulted carried no weight with God and His Messenger. As compared to them, those poor ones who were sincere and ever-conscious of God, were of much _ greater value.

All this has a striking similarity to the exchange between the Prophet Noah. (peace be on him) and the notables of his nation. The latter used to tell the Prophet Noah (peace be on him): “We merely consider you a human being like ourselves: Nor do we find among those who follow you except the lowliest of. our folk, the men who follow you without any proper reason’ (Hud 11: 27). To this the Prophet Noah replied: ‘Nor will I drive away those who believe’ (Hud 11; 29). On another occasion he said: “Nor do I say regarding those whom you look upon with disdain that Allah will not bestow any good upon them’ (Hud _ 11: 31). (See also al-An‘am 6: 52 and al-Hijr 15: 88.)

29. That is, one ought not to follow a person who is heedless of God, nor submit to him, nor accept his command. Here the word ‘obedience’ means all this, having been used in its widest, most comprehensive sense.

30. The words used in the above verse are. This can be translated in more than one way. One such possibility is reflected in our translation above. The verse may, however, also be understood in a slightly different sense; it can typify the person who brazenly abandons the truth, and who exceeds all moral bounds in his ruthless bid to achieve his aims. In both cases, however, the result is much the same. The lives of all those who become slaves to their base desires as a result of relegating God to oblivion become devoid of balance and proportion. To obey such a person means that one should abandon one’s own sense of proportion and indulge in immoderation and stumble in all directions in one’s effort to follow leaders who are not bound by any limits.

31. It is quite clear at this point as to why this statement was made after narrating the story of the People of the Cave. While recounting the events referred to above, it was mentioned that after having come to have faith in God’s unity, the People of the Cave rose up and proclaimed: ‘Our Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth’ (verse 14). Moreover, they categorically refused to enter into any compromise with their people who were immersed in doctrinal error. Instead, they resolutely proclaimed: ‘We shall call upon no other god beside Him; (for if we did so), we shall be uttering a blasphemy’ (verse 14).

Thus, abandoning their people and their gods, they preferred to retire to a cave despite being devoid of any support and resources. They preferred this to striking a bargain with their people at the cost of truth. Later on, when they woke up after their long slumber, the thing that truly agitated them was the possibility of their being reverted to the faith of their erring people, a possibility which seemed catastrophic to them (see verse 20).

After narrating these events the discourse now turns to the Prophet (peace be on him) even though its true purport is to impress upon the opponents of Islam that any compromise with those who associate others with God in His divinity or who deny the truth is simply out of the question. The Prophet (peace be on him) is directed to faithfully communicate the truth that had been vouchsafed _ to him from on high. Once he had done so, the people would be free both to accept it and see its good result, or to reject it and suffer the consequences. All those who accept the truth — even if they be young, poor resource less, ordinary slaves or laborers — deserve to be considered as valuable as precious gems. As for those who are indifferent to God on account of their excessive devotion to their base desires, they should be considered as devoid of all worth even if they have a great deal of influence and an abundance of riches.

32. The word suradiq signifies the walls of a tent. In its present usage in " connection with Hell, however, it seems that it denotes the extent of the reach of the flames or the heat of Hell-Fire. The verse here says that the suradig of Hell-Fire encompasses the wrong-doers. Some scholars consider this expression to refer to the future, in which case it would mean that in the ‘Hereafter the Hell-Fire would enclose them as the walls of a tent encloses the inmates of the tent. We are, however, of the opinion that the verse means that the wrong-doers who have rejected the truth have already been enclosed by this Hell-Fire and that it is not possible for them to escape it.

33. The word muhla has a number of meanings. According to some scholars, it means a residue of oil. According to others, it means lava, that is the elements of the earth which have melted under excessive heat. Others consider it to mean molten metals. Some consider it to mean pus and blood. (Cf. the meaning of muhl, al-Zamakhshari, al-Kashshaf, comments on al-Kahf 18: verse 29. See also muhl, Ibn Manzur, Lisan al- ‘Arab — Ed.)

34. In ancient times kings used to wear bracelets of gold. This has been mentioned with regard to the People of Paradise to emphasize that the believers will be made to don a royal dress so as to honor them. Thus, the situation of the Hereafter will be altogether different from what it is in the present world.

For in the Hereafter even those unbelievers who are highly placed in this world, including kings, will be made to suffer humiliation. On the contrary, righteous believers — even if they occupy humble positions in this world — will be shown the honor usually reserved for kings.

35. The word ara’ik is the plural of arikah, meaning a throne shaded by a canopy. Once again, this verse underscores the truth that the honor which is accorded to royal personages will be conferred on all those who are rewarded with Paradise.

36. In order to understand the context of this parable one would do well to recall verse 28 above which was in fact revealed in response to the arrogant attitude displayed by the Quraysh chiefs. They had disdainfully refused to sit in the company of poor and humble believers. They had expressed their readiness to listen to the Prophet’s teaching only if his assembly was cleared of these ordinary, poor believers.

It is also pertinent at this stage to consider this parable in conjunction with another in al-Qalam, 68: 17-33. Furthermore, it is also useful to bear in mind the following verses: Maryam 19: 73-4, al-Mu’ minun 23: 55-61, Saba’ 34: 36, and Fussilat 41: 49-50.

37. That is, he entered his orchards which he considered no less than Paradise. Small, mean people are easily puffed up by worldly successes, and they tend to believe that their achievements in this world are-synonymous with Paradise. So great are these successes and attainments in their eyes that they hardly see any reason to strive for the attainment of Paradise in the Hereafter.

38. They claim that if the Next Life really does come about, then they will be even better off. For the prosperity that they enjoy in this world — at least, as they see it is only indicative of the fact that they are God’s favorites.

39, The person concerned did not deny the existence of God. In fact, the words and even if I am returned to my Lord’) (see verse 36) positively indicate that he did believe in the existence of God. Still, he was branded by his neighbor as one who denied God. The reason for this is that kufr does not merely consist in denying the existence of God. In addition, pride, arrogance, vainglory and the denial of the Hereafter also constitute kufr of God; for the faith required of man does not merely consist of affirming God’s existence; it also requires affirming. Him as the Master, the Lord, and the Sovereign. Whoever focuses his attention exclusively upon himself, who considers his attainments, his wealth and his high social standing not as gifts from God but the result of his own ability and effort, who thinks that his wealth will endure and that none has the power to deprive him of it, and who thinks that he is accountable to no one — such a person in fact does not believe in God in the sense in which he is required to; that is, he does not believe in Him as his Master, Lord, and Sovereign.

40. Whatever God alone wills come to happen, for man does not have the power to make things happen according to his wishes. Whatever man does is only by God’s aid and succor.

41. God grants life as well as death. He enables people to rise as well as causes them to fall. He causes the blossoming of the spring, and also ordains that it will be followed by autumn. Hence, if someone happens to flourish and enjoy prosperity, he ought not to be deluded into believing that this state would necessarily last forever. It is God Who has granted man all bounties and he will be instantly deprived of them the moment God so wills.

42. This refers to the time when the present order of things will be disrupted. The earth will lose its gravitational pull and the mountains will float about as clouds. The same point has been made elsewhere in the Qur’an: ‘And you see the mountains and think that they are firmly fixed, but they shall pass by like clouds’ (al-Naml 27: 88).

43, The earth will become devoid of all vegetation and of every structure. It will turn into a barren, desolate mass of land. This virtually reiterates what was said earlier in this surah:

Surely, We have made all that is on the earth an embellishment for it in order to test people as to who of them is better in conduct. In the ultimate, We shall reduce all that is on the earth to a barren plain (verses 7-8).

44, This includes all human beings that have ever been born from the very early beginnings till the very last moment before the Day of Resurrection. This includes even those infants who may have lived after birth for no more than a single breath. All human beings who ever existed will be resurrected and will be brought together at the same time.

45. At that moment it will be impressed on all those who had denied the Hereafter that what the Messengers had informed them had indeed come about. ‘The Prophets had told people that God Who had created them in the first instance would bring them back to life. There were many who had refused to accept this, and it is they who will be asked on the Day of Resurrection whether what they had been told by the Messengers of God about being raised back to life after death had been proven true or not.

46. No one will be wronged. It will not happen that sins which a person did not commit will find a way to his record. Nor will a person be punished in excess of his actual misdeeds. And, of course, no one who is innocent will be seized and punished without justification.

47, This is an allusion to the story of Adam and Satan. The purpose of alluding to it in the present context is to draw man’s attention to a folly that he is wont to commit. That Satan is man’s sworn enemy is well-known. And yet, man tends to turn away from God, Who is clement, and compassionate; man also turns away from the Prophets who are his sincere well-wishers. Ironically enough, after turning away from God and His Prophets man falls into the trap of his eternal enemy, Satan, who has always been consumed with envy of man.

48. This means that Satan did not belong to the species of angels. Instead, he was a jinn. Accordingly, it was possible for him to disobey God’s command.

The Qur’an categorically states that the nature of angels is so constituted that they can only obey God: ‘. . . they do not disobey Allah and do what they are bidden’ (al-Tahrim 66: 6). Likewise, the angels are elsewhere described in the Qur’an: ‘. . . as never do they behave in arrogant defiance. They hold their Lord, Who is above them, in fear, and do as they are bidden’ (al-Nahl 16: 49-50).

In contrast to angels, the jinn — like human beings — are invested with free will. They are not inherently obedient; instead, they have the freedom to choose between belief and unbelief, between obedience and disobedience.

This is the point which is spelled out clearly here: that since Iblis (Satan) was a jinn, it was possible for him to choose disobedience and transgression. This clarification should put an end to the common misconceptions that Satan was an angel. (For further elaboration see al-Hijr 15: 27 and al-Jinn 72:13-15.) Here another question naturally arises. If Satan was not an angel, why does the Qur’4n state: ‘And when We ordered the angels: ‘‘Prostrate yourselves — before Adam’’, all of them fell prostrate, except Iblis...’ (al-Bagarah 2:34). It must be appreciated that the command to the angels to prostrate themselves before Adam also signified that all other earthly creatures which lived in the jurisdiction of the angels should also acknowledge their subservience to man.

And indeed all creatures did actually prostrate themselves before man along with the angels. Iblis, however, refused to go along with the rest of the creatures in carrying out the order to prostrate. (For the meaning of the word Iblis see al-Mu’ minun 23, n. 73.)

49. The verse puts a straight question to man: ‘What right do the satans have to be obeyed and served by men?’ For, far from having any share in the creation of the heavens and the earth, they were themselves created by God.

50. This is a recurring Qur’anic theme — that to follow someone’s command and guidance other than God’s amounts to associating others with God in His divinity. It is irrelevant whether one verbally brands such a being as a partner in God’s divinity or not. Even if a person curses someone while following his commands in disregard of God’s, he is guilty of associating him with God in His. divinity. This point is best illustrated with reference to satans. As we know, everyone curses satans but at the same time follows them. The Qur'an, therefore, charges people with associating satans with God in, His Divinity.

This form of polytheism is not related to belief; it is rather linked with action.

The Qur’an, nevertheless, denounces it as a form of polytheism. (For further details see al-Nisd’ 4, nn. 91 and 145; al-An‘am 6, nn. 87 and 107; al-Tawbah 9, n. 31; Ibrahim 14, n. 32; Maryam 19, n. 27; al-Mu’minun 23, n. 41; al-Furqan 25, n. 56; al-Qasas 28, n. 86; Saba’ 34, nn. 59-63; Ya Sin 36, n. 53; al-Shura 42, n. 38 and al-Jathiyah 45, n. 30.)

51. Commentators on the Qur’an have given two different interpretations of this verse. One of these is reflected in our translation of the text above. The second interpretation is that God will cause enmity among them; that is, the friendship which they enjoyed among themselves during this worldly life will change into severe enmity in the Hereafter.

52. The Qur’an has advanced all kinds of arguments and has marshalled all kinds of evidence to illuminate the truth it expounds. It has spared no device in making an appeal to peoples’ hearts and minds. Since all available measures had been exhausted, it was not clear what prevented people from embracing the truth. Were people waiting to be seized by God’s scourge? Would they only accept the truth the hard way?

53. This verse also has two possible meanings, both of which seem valid. In one sense, the verse means that the Messengers are sent by God for no other purpose than to apprise people of the good consequences of obeying God and the evil consequences of disobeying Him. It is tragic that foolish people have often failed to pay heed to these warnings and seem to be bent upon inviting God’s scourge upon themselves while the Messengers of God try hard to avert this.

The other meaning of the verse is that if the unbelievers wanted to witness God’s scourge, they need not ask the Messenger (peace be on him) to bring it forth. For the Messengers are not sent to bring about God’s scourge; they are rather raised to warn people about it.

54. If someone resorts to sheer irrationality when confronted with arguments and sincere counsel, and pits falsehood, fraud and deception against truth and evinces no readiness in recognizing that his misdeeds will have evil consequences, then God seals his heart and mind. As a result, such people become deaf to all voices calling them to truth and sanity. Instead of taking heed of sincere counsel, they obstinately continue towards self-destruction.

They do not. acknowledge that they are rushing towards the abyss of destruction until they find themselves helplessly in it.

55. God does not punish the guilty instantly. Out of infinite mercy, He grants such criminals a reasonable period of respite that they may mend themselves. Out of utter folly and ignorance, many people totally misunderstand this respite they receive from God. They tend to believe that regardless of what they do, they will not be held to account — a belief which, of course, is totally erroneous.

56. This refers to the ruins and desolation of the lands of the people of Saba, Thamud, Midian and Lot which lay on the trade routes of the Quraysh. All these were also well known to the other tribes of Arabia.

57. The narration of Moses’ story here is meant to draw both the unbelievers’ and the believers’ attention to an important fact. Those who are concerned with the external aspects of things are liable to draw false conclusions from their observations. This happens because man is not aware of the wisdom underlying the events that take place under God’s dispensation.

One frequently witnesses that the wrong-doers prosper whereas the innocent suffer hardships; those who disobey God and commit transgression live in great affluence whereas those who obey God face adversities, and that the wicked enjoy the pleasures of worldly life whereas the virtuous live in misery. Such spectacles are quite common.

Not knowing why such things happen, doubts arise in people’s minds, leading them, on occasion, to have a totally false perception of things. Those who consciously disbelieve and are immersed in the perpetration of injustice and oppression are led to conclude that they live in a disordered and chaotic world, a world which has either no sovereign, or if there is any, one who must have become senseless or unjust. Hence, they conclude that people may go about doing what they please, without fearing that they will be called to account, On the other hand, those who believe in God are heart-broken by what they see around them. It also often happens that when such believers are faced with severe tests, their faith is shaken to the core.

It was in order to enable Moses to comprehend the wisdom underlying those events which generally baffle one’s understanding that God slightly lifts the curtain from the reality which governs the workings of the world. In this way Moses was able to appreciate that appearances are quite different from the reality.

The Qur’an does not specify where and when this incident relating to Moses _ took place. In the Hadith, however, we do find some information about it. For instance, there is a tradition from ‘Awfi in which he reports a statement by Ibn ‘Abbas according to which the incident took place after Pharaoh’s drowning, and when Moses had settled his people in Egypt. (Al-Alusi, Ruh al-Ma‘ani, vol. 15, comments on al-Kahf 18, verse 60, p. 313 — Ed.) There are, however, other traditions, more authentic ones, which are found in al-Bukhari and other collections of Hadith which do not support the content of the tradition just mentioned. Nor do any other sources confirm that after Pharaoh’s drowning, the Prophet Moses (peace be on him) ever lived in Egypt. In fact, the Qur’an makes it clear that after the exodus from Egypt, Moses spent all his life in Sinai, in the wilderness. (See al-Ma’ idah 5: 26 — Ed.) Hence there seems no reason to accept al-‘Awfi’s report.

When we reflect over the details of the story, however, two points clearly emerge. Firstly, that the Prophet Moses’ experience probably belongs to the early phase of his prophethood. For it is in the earlier part of their prophetic careers that Prophets stand in need of the kind of instruction given to Moses and requiring that he be exposed to certain experiences. Secondly, it also stands to reason that Moses would have been in need of such instruction at the time when the Israelites faced conditions similar to those facing the Muslims during the Makkan phase of the Prophet’s life.

Because of these two reasons we presume — though the truth is known to God alone — that this story belongs to the period when the Israelites were being persecuted by Pharaoh in Egypt. At that time Pharaoh and his courtiers, in the manner of the Quraysh aristocracy, believed that they would not be held to account because God’s punishment — which, as we know, is not meted out instantly — was not in sight. It is likely that the Egyptian Muslims [i.e. the followers of Moses], like their Makkan counterparts in the time of the Prophet (peace be on him) felt agitated at seeing their tormentors flourishing while they suffered grievously. How long, they asked somewhat impatiently, will this state of affairs continue? Even Moses cried out to God in these words: ‘Our Lord! You bestowed upon Pharaoh and his noble’s splendor and riches in the world. Our Lord! Have You done this that they may lead people astray from Your path?’ (Yunus: 10: 88).

If our assumption is correct, then it is probable that the Prophet Moses (peace be on him) travelled towards the Sudan and that the place referred to in the Qur’4n by the expression majma‘al-bahrayn (see verse 60) is located near Khartoum where the two main branches of the Nile — the Blue Nile and White Nile — converge (see Map 1.) When one traces the places through which Moses journeyed in his life, there is no other place than the one just mentioned where the two rivers meet.

The Bible is totally silent about all this. The event as such is, however, mentioned in the Talmud. The Talmudic version is, however, quite different in so far as it is attributed to Rabbi Joehanan, the son of Levi, rather than to the Prophet Moses (peace be on him). According to the same report, the other person involved in the incident was Elijah. This is the same Elijah who is considered to have been taken up alive from this world to the heavens, who was subsequently made an angel and asked to look after the affairs of the world. (See H. Polano, The Talmud Selections, pp. 313-16.) Possibly, like other events of Jewish history which pre-date the exodus, this event might not have been authentically preserved. Accretions might also have adulterated the account as has happened in the case of other events. Influenced by the Talmudic account, some Muslim scholars think that the person called Moses in the Qur’anic account is a Moses other than the Prophet Moses (peace be on him). Now, there is no reason to believe that all reports mentioned in the Talmud are reliable. Nor is there any prima facie reason why the Qur’an would narrate the story of some unknown Moses at such length. On the other hand, we have authentic hadith narrated by Ubayy bin Ka‘b, in which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) mentioned Moses (peace be on him) while explaining this very story. (See al-Bukhari, K. Tafsir al-Qur’an: Sarah al-Kahf, ‘Bab wa idh qal Musa li Fatahu’ and ‘Bab Qawluh fa lamma balagha Majma‘ baynihima nasiya Hutahuma’ .. . — Ed.) In view of all this, there is no reason for any Muslim to pay attention to the Talmudic account.

The Orientalists, true to their ilk, have attempted to explore the possible sources of this Qur’anic story as well. After strenuous efforts, they identify three possible sources from which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) may have composed the story and ascribed it to God’s revelation. These sources are the Gilgamesh epic, the Alexandrian romance in Syriac, and the Talmudic report referred to earlier about Elijah.

It is obvious that Orientalists share a common attitude: that one may be open to all assumptions except that the Qur’an is a revelation from God. That being definitely excluded, these scholars embark on this grand mission to dissect whatever was presented in the Qur’an (which, in their view, was definitely the work of Muhammad (peace be on him) rather than God) and to show how each fragment had some external source. They pursue this line of inquiry so brazenly and go to such absurd lengths that one feels instinctively repelled.

Ironically, they term their bigoted pursuit scholarly research. If such, biased inquiry can be called knowledge or research, one might as well do without it.

The true nature of their bigoted research would become fully evident if they were asked to answer the following four questions:

Firstly, granted that there are similarities in the contents of the Qur’an and the contents of several ancient texts, one might, nevertheless, ask: Is there any positive evidence to suggest that this similarity of content is the result of the Qur’anic account having been taken from other sources? Secondly, the sources mentioned as the materials for the Qur’anic stories are quite numerous. Were all such sources to be added up, they would be so numerous as to make the fully-fledged catalogue of a fairly good library. Did any such library exist in Makka at the time of the Prophet (peace be on him)? And even if there had been an abundance of sources from which he might have drawn his material, is there any evidence to indicate that there existed a large team of translators available to the Prophet (peace be on him) whereby this wealth of information might have been brought to his knowledge. Now, since that is quite certainly not the case, the allegations of borrowing simply rest on the two or three trade journeys which the Prophet (peace be on him) took to lands outside Arabia; journeys which he made a few years before his designation as a Prophet. In this respect, it is pertinent to ask: Did the Prophet memorize whole libraries during those journeys? Additionally, how does one explain that before being designated a Prophet, Muhammad (peace be on him) never displayed any such knowledge? Thirdly, the Makkan unbelievers as well as the Jews and Christians were always on the look-out to identify possible sources of the Prophet’s statements.

Yet the Prophet’s contemporaries were unable to point to any definite source for the Prophet’s alleged plagiarism. The Qur’an frequently challenges them by emphatically stating that the Qur’an is from God alone, that its only source is revelation from God. The Qur’an repeatedly asks its detractors to come forth with whatever proof they have to show that the Qur’an is the product of the human mind. This challenge struck at the very root of their contention, and yet they failed to point to any plausible human source for the Qur’an. Not only were they totally unable to point, in a persuasive manner, to any specific source from which the Qur’an might have been derived, they could not produce even as much as a shred of evidence that would create any reasonable doubt about the matter. It is ironic that while the Prophet’s contemporaries failed to point to any plausible source of the Qur’an; some pseudo-scholars of our time, animated by inveterate hostility to Islam, have the temerity to claim — a thousand and several hundred years after the Prophet’s time — the so-called sources from which the contents of the Qur’an were derived! The fast point to consider is the following. It is not possible for anybody to ~ deny that there exists at least the logical possibility that the Qur’an might be the revealed word of God. It is logically possible that the information the Qur’an provides about past events might indeed be true whereas those reports commonly available to us about the past might be the distorted versions of oral reports of events over the centuries, and hence unreliable. It should be noted ‘that this possibility was arbitrarily ruled out without any valid reason - whatsoever. Having discarded this all attention was focused on one assumption alone — that the material in the Qur’an was primarily drawn from oral reports - and legends that were current in the region at the time the Qur’an was revealed.

One wonders if this can be explained by anything other than religious prejudice _ and bigotry. _ A little reflection on the above points should convince us that much of what has been trumpeted by the Orientalists as knowledge and scholarship is far too palpably colored by bigotry to be worthy of serious consideration by students who: have embarked on a quest for the truth.

58. Moses exclaimed that it was precisely the disappearance of the fish in the sea that was the significant indicator of the place where he would encounter the person whom he wanted to meet. This implies that Moses (peace be on him) had undertaken his journey under God’s direction. It is for this reason that he was informed he would encounter certain incidents which would be of special significance. He had been foretold that the place where the fish intended for breakfast would disappear would be the meeting place between him and the person he was required to meet.

59. According to authentic traditions, this person was called Khidr. Hence, those reports which, under the influence of the Israelite traditions, link this story with Elijah are erroneous. It is incorrect to think that Moses met Elijah, firstly because it is opposed to the Prophet’s statements on the question. (Al-Bukhari, K. Tafsir al-Qur’an: Surah al-Kahf, ‘Bab wa idh qal Musa li Fatahu ...’ and ‘Bab fa lamma balaghd Majma‘ baynihima. . . - Ed.) Secondly, Elijah was born several hundred years after the time of the Prophet Moses (peace be on him), thus casting further doubt on the likelihood of their meeting.

The Qur’an does not specify the name of Moses’ servant. According to some reports, it was Joshua, son of Nun who later succeeded the Prophet Moses (peace be on him). (See al-Bukhari, K. Tafsir al-Qur’ an: Surah al-Kahf, ‘Bab wa idh qal Musa li Fatahu . . . — Ed.)

60. This story gives rise to a difficult and complex problem which needs to be explained of Khidr’s three acts, all except the third, are opposed to injunctions which, since man’s inception, have always been an integral part of Divine Law. No version of the Divine Law permits man to damage things which belong to others, or to kill-an innocent person. In fact, such injunctions are of fundamental importance. Hence, even if a person were to learn by means of revelation (Ilham) that a boat will be forcibly damaged by someone in the future, or that a young person will grow into an unbeliever and commit excesses, still no one, according to all versions of Divine Law, has the right to damage that boat by making a hole in it, or to kill that innocent person.

One can of course, claim that both these acts were committed under God’s command and hence the person concerned was not blameworthy. This contention, however, does not solve the problem. For the question as to who asked Khidr to commit those acts is not at all relevant. There is no doubt that those acts were in compliance with God’s command. Khidr himself states [in this very verse] that it was God’s mercy rather than his own volition which caused those acts. This is also confirmed by God Who clearly states that He bestowed a special knowledge upon Khidr (see verse 65 above). Thus, there can be absolutely no doubt that these acts were carried out in compliance with God’s command. The real issue, however, is what the nature of those commands was.

It is obvious that these commands were not part of the Law revealed by God as an imperative for man. For doubtlessly the basic principles which form part - of the Qur’an or the earlier Scriptures do not permit the killing of any person who has not been convicted of a crime. Hence, the only reasonable assumption in this case is that these commands are in the nature of God’s cosmic laws — laws which are merely statements of causal relationships. These laws are similar to those by which some people fall sick and then recover, which cause some to die and enable others to survive, and which lead some to their destruction but enable others to prosper.

This being the nature of the commands in the present context, it is clear that they could only have been communicated to angels: For there can be no question that the angels would violate God’s commands, that is so because angels, [according to the Qur’an], involuntarily carry out God’s commands. (See al-Tahrim 66: 7; al-Nahl 16: 49-50 - Ed.) But man’s position is quite different. Whether he performs an act involuntarily in accordance with the laws of nature, or does so in accordance with some inspiration (Ilham) or on the basis of some special knowledge obtained from some unseen source, ‘he will be guilty of committing a sin if his act is opposed to any of God’s revealed laws.

This is so because man, qua man, is responsible for carrying. out God’s commands [in the sense of imperatives]. Additionally, the principles of Divine - Law do not permit anyone to violate any of God’s laws on the grounds that he ‘was directed by means of inspired knowledge or that he had discovered the rationale and wisdom of violating God’s laws through some extraordinary, super-sensory means of cognition.

There is complete agreement on this point among all scholars of the Shari‘ah. Not only that, prominent Sufis are also agreed on this point. Al-‘Alusi has quoted extensively from the writings of prominent Sufis such as ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Sha‘rani (d. 973 A.H./1565 C.E.), Muhi al-Din ibn al-‘ Arabi (d. 638 A.H./1234 C.E.), Mujaddid-i Alf-i Thani (d. 1034 A.H./1625 C.E.), ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani (d. 561 A.H./1166 C.E.), Junayd al-Baghdadi (d. 297 A.H./910 C.E.), Sari al-Saqati (d. 253 A.H./867 C.E.), Abi al-Husayn al-Nuri (d. 295 A.H.), Abu Sa‘id al-Kharraz (d. 279 A.H.), Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad al-Dinawari (d. circa 340 A.H.) and Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 350 A.H./1111 C.E.). On the basis of these quotations, al-Alusi has established that according to the Sufis a person may not do anything against a law clearly laid down in the authoritative texts even if he is the recipient of an inspiration which directs him to do-so. (See al-Alusi, Ruh al-Ma‘ani, vol. 16, pp.16-18.)

Should we, then, assume that at least one human being — Khidr — was granted exemption from this rule? Or should we hold that Khidr was not a human being; that he was one of those creatures of God who work in consonance with God’s cosmic providential Will rather than according to the injunctions of Divine Law? It would be logical to opt for the former position if the Qur’an had explicitly stated that the ‘servant’ under whom the Prophet Moses (peace be on him) was to receive this instruction was a human being. The Qur’an, however, does not specifically describe him as a ‘human being’. The word used by the Qur’an is ‘abd which simply indicates that Khidr was one of the creatures or servants of God, a word that does not necessarily signify a human being. It is significant that the same expression has been used at several places in the Qur’an for angels. (See, for example, al-Anbiya’ 21: 26 and al-Zukhruf 43: 19.)

Nor do we find in any authentic tradition mention by the Prophet (peace be on him) of Khidr as a human being. The most authentic traditions in this regard are those which bear the following chain of transmission: Sa‘id ibn al-Jubayr — Ibn ‘Abbas or Ubayy b. Ka‘b — the Prophet (peace be on him). The word that occurs in these traditions is rajul, and although it is used for human males, this is not exclusively the case. (For the occurrence of the word rajul see al-Bukhari, K. al-Ilm, ‘Bab ma yustahabb li al-‘Alim idha su’ il ayy al-Nas A‘lam...’ —Ed.) The Qur’an itself uses the same word in connection with jinn (see al-Jinn 72: 6). Obviously whenever a jinn, an angel or any invisible being appears before man, it will also do so in human form and in this state it will also be called a human being (bashar or insan). For example, when an angel came to Maryam, the Qur’an makes the point that it appeared before her as a human being (Maryam 19: 17). Hence, the statement by Muhammad (peace be on him) that the Prophet Moses (peace be on him) found a male does not conclusively establish that Khidr was necessarily a human being.

The only way for us to resolve this difficulty is to consider Khidr not as a human being but as one of the angels of God, as a creature belonging to some other species of God’s creation, one of those who act as God’s agents and carry out God’s will as reflected in the laws of nature and who are not bound by the Shari‘ah. Some earlier scholars also hold this view, which has in any case been mentioned by Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir on the authority of al-Mawardi. (See Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, comments on al-Kahf 18, verse 82 — Ed.)

61. The word wa (‘and’) which precedes the query about Dhu al-Qarnayn certainly connects the two parts of the verse. This makes it clear that the story of Khidr and Moses was also narrated in response to the questions that had been asked. This further corroborates our contention that the Makkan unbelievers put a number of questions to the Prophet (peace be on him) in order to test whether he had access to any extraordinary source of knowledge or not.

62. The identity of Dhu al-Qarnayn has long been a contentious issue. Early commentators on the Qur’an were generally inclined to believe that it referred to Alexander. The characteristics attributed to Dhu al-Qarnayn in the Qur’an, however, hardly apply to Alexander. In the light of the latest historical evidence, contemporary commentators on the Qur’4n are inclined to believe that Dhu al-Qarnayn signifies the Persian Emperor, Cyrus. This, in any case, seems more plausible. Nevertheless, the information available to date does not enable us to form a definitive opinion concerning Dhu al-Qarnayn’s identity.

Qur’anic statements concerning Dhu al-Qarnayn clearly bring out the following four points: , (1) .The title Dhu al-Qarnayn (literally, ‘The Two-Horned’), was at least familiar to the Jews. This is evident from the fact that they had instigated the Makkan unbelievers to ask the Prophet (peace be on him) about him. One must, therefore, inevitably turn to Jewish literature to find out who this person was or to establish which was the kingdom known as ‘The Two-Horned’. (2) The Qur’anic description also makes it quite clear that Dhu al-Qarnayn must have been a great ruler as well as a conqueror for his conquests covered a vast stretch of territory extending from the east to the west: and on the third side, extending either to the north or the south. There were only a few such outstanding figures before the revelation of the Qur’an. So we must apply our search for the other characteristics of Dhu al-Qarnayn to any one of these figures. (3) The title Dhu al-Qarnayn may aptly be used for a ruler who, being concerned with the defence of his kingdom from the assaults of Gog and Magog, had a strong protective wall constructed across a mountain pass. In order to determine who that person was, it is necessary to find out to whom the words Gog and Magog refer. It is also necessary to find out whether any such wall was ever built adjacent to the habitat of Gog and Magog; and if it was, by whom. (4) In addition to all this, the Qur’4n describes Dhu al-Qarnayn as a God-conscious and just ruler. In fact, in the Qur’anic portrayal of him, these stand out as his dominant characteristics. Let us consider the first clue regarding Dhu al-Qarnayn — that he was known to the Jews. Now the information available in Jewish sources seems to apply to Cyrus. For according to the Bible, Daniel saw the united empire of Media and Persia, before the rise of the Greeks, in the form of a two-horned ram (see Daniel 8:3, 20). There was much talk of the ‘two-horned’ one among the Jews for it was he who shattered the Babylonian Empire to pieces and brought about the liberation of the Israelites (see Bani Isra’il 17, n. 8 above).

The second clue also seems, to a very large extent, to apply to Cyrus, though not fully. His conquests undoubtedly extended as far as Asia Minor and the Syrian coastline in the west and Balkh in the east. So far, however, we have not found any trace of a north or south expedition by Cyrus even though the Qur’an categorically mentions a third expedition by Dhu al-Qarnayn (see verse 83 ff.).

The possibility that Cyrus did undertake such an expedition, however, cannot be ruled out for according to historical sources Cyrus’ empire extended as far as Caucasia in the north.

As far as the third clue is concerned, we know almost for sure that Gog and Magog were the wild tribes of Russia and northern China who were variously known as Tatars, Mongols, Huns, and Scythians. who had carried out various raids against civilized lands. We also know that the bulwarks of Darband and Daryal were built in the southern regions of Caucasia so as to ensure defense against the incursions of these wild tribes. It has not been fully established historically, however, that those bulwarks were built by Cyrus.

Arriving at the last clue, this applies most to Cyrus of all the conquerors of - the world. For Cyrus was widely praised for being a just ruler, so much so that even his enemies praised him for this. The Bible’s Book of Ezra portrays him as a God-worshipping and God-fearing king who liberated the Israelites precisely by virtue of his devotion to God, and that he also ordered the Temple of — ‘Solomon in Jerusalem to be rebuilt for the worship of God.

On the basis of all the above, we would be quite justified in concluding that of all past conquerors Cyrus comes closest to the Qur’anic description of Dhu-al-Qarnayn. However, the evidence so far available to us, does not conclusively establish that Cyrus was indeed the Dhu al-Qarnayn of the Qur’an. Nevertheless, no other conqueror comes as close to the Qur’anic characterization. of Dhu al-Qarnayn as Cyrus. Historically speaking, Cyrus was a Persian ruler whose rise to fame began around 549 B.C. Within a few years he seized the kingdoms of Media and Lydia (Asia Minor), and later in 539 B.C. he also conquered Babylon. This made ‘him the supreme ruler of the region, as there was no powerful kingdom left to oppose him. His subsequent conquests extended to Sind, Sughd (present-day Turkestan), Egypt and Libya on one side, and to Thrace, _ Macedonia, Caucasia and Khwarazm in the north on the other. For all practical purposes, the civilized world of the day was under his sway.

63. The ‘limit where the sun sets’, as pointed out by Ibn Kathir, signifies the extreme limit of the west. It does not mean the actual place where the sun sets. (See Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, comments on verse 86 — Ed.) Thus, what the verse implies is that Dhu al-Qarnayn conquered one territory after another in a westward direction until he reached the very end of the land mass and beyond which lay the sea.

64, When the sun set in that land it seemed as if it had set in the blackish, muddy waters of the sea. If we are to assume that Cyrus was indeed Dhu al-Qarnayn, then the reference would be to the western coast at the point where the Aegean Sea splits into several small gulfs. This is also supported by the Quranic use of the word ‘ayn, instead of bahr, since the former word is more appropriately used to denote a lake or gulf, rather than sea.

65. The present statement does not necessarily mean that God communicated this directive to Dhu al-Qarnayn by means of revelation (wahy) or inspiration (Ilham). Had that been the case, it would necessarily mean that Dhu al-Qarnayn was a nabi (Prophet) or muhaddath (one to whom God spoke). (See Muhammad ibn A‘la al-Thanawi, Kashshaf Istilahat al-Funun (Calcutta, 1863), vol. 2, art. ‘al-Nabi’ , pp. 1358-9 - Ed.) It is quite possible that no actual communication took place and that it amounted to no more than making a statement of fact. This indeed seems more likely. For the situation obtaining at that time was that Dhu al-Qarnayn had just established his control over that territory; i.e. that the conquered nation was firmly in his grip. At this stage, God put a question to Dhu al-Qarnayn’s conscience: How should he treat these helpless people? Being in full control, he could either treat them with injustice or treat them with grace and magnanimity. The situation was, thus, a test for his moral caliber.

66. Dhu al-Qarnayn went forth eastwards, conquering one land after another until he reached a territory which marked the end of the civilized world. The lands ahead were inhabited by slave nations who did not have the skill to construct houses, jet alone even know how to pitch tents.

67. The Qur’an later points out that the land beyond the two mountains was of Gog and Magog (see verse 94). Hence the mountains mentioned in the present verse are bound to have been part of the range located between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea.

68. The language of these people was almost foreign to Dhu al-Qarnayn and his companions. Being a wild people, they neither knew any other language nor did others know theirs.

69. We stated earlier (see n. 62 above), that Gog and Magog were the wild peoples which inhabited the north-eastern region of Asia. They constantly carried out predatory raids against civilized lands, pouring over both Asia and Europe like tidal waves. In Genesis (see chap. 10), their ancestry is traced to Japheth, son of Noah. (This view is also shared by Muslim historians.) The Book of Ezekiel (see chaps. 38-9) states that their land was comprised of Meshech (presently Moscow) and Tubal (presently Tubalsek). The Jewish historian, Josephus, identifies them with the Scythians who inhabited the area lying north and east of the Black Sea. According to Jerome, the Magog lived to the north of Caucasia, near the Caspian Sea.

70. Dhu al-Qarnayn was conscious that as a ruler it was his duty to safeguard his people against predatory invaders. It was not proper for him, therefore, to impose any additional tax on his people for that purpose. The treasures of the land which had already been entrusted to him by God were sufficient to arrange for his people’s defense. This defense would, however, still require that his people should provide him with physical help.

71. The other point made by Dhu al-Qarnayn concerned the protective arrangements he had made. He said that even though he had built a strong, protective wall to the best of his ability, there was no reason to believe that it would endure forever. As long as God willed, it would remain intact; but when the appointed time for its destruction came, nothing could avert its destruction.

The expression ‘the appointed time of my Lord’ is very meaningful. This refers both to the time set by God for the destruction of the wall as well as the -. time appointed for the death and extinction of all — i.e. the Last Day. (See also. Appendix IT.)

72. This marks the conclusion of Dhu al-Qarnayn’s story. The story itself being narrated in response to a query put to the Prophet (peace be on him) by the Makkan unbelievers so as to test him. The Qur’an, however, employs this story, just as it did the stories of the People of the Cave and Moses (peace be on him) and Khidr, to drive home a moral. The Qur’an emphasizes that Dhu al-Qarnayn, whose glorious achievements were known to the People of the Book, was not simply a conqueror, but also someone who believed in monotheism and the Hereafter and who was just and generous in his dealings with his subjects. Moreover, Dhu al-Qarnayn was not a petty person who puffed up with pride as soon as he attained any success.

73. ‘On that Day’, refers to the Day of Resurrection. Dhu al-Qarnayn had alluded to the Day of Resurrection as a day that is bound to come about because God had so decided. What is being said here is in that context and is an addition to the statement made by Dhu al-Qarnayn (see verse 98 above).

74. This is the conclusion of the whole sarah. In order to comprehend the context of this conclusion, one should not only consider the story of Dhu al-Qarnayn, but also the contents of the surah as a whole.

The central point of the surah is that the Prophet (peace be on him) called upon his people to give up polytheism and to embrace monotheism in its place; to give up excessive devotion to the world and to base their conduct on a strong belief in the Hereafter. The Makkan chiefs — thanks to the intoxication caused by their riches and eminence — spurned this call. Additionally, they persecuted and humiliated those righteous people who had accepted the Prophet's call. It is in this context that we ought to view the entire discourse of this surah, for these three stories which the Prophet (peace be on him) is asked about by his opponents by way of a test are narrated beautifully, and are so interwoven as to constitute an integral part of the overall discourse. With this the three stories end, and the discourse reverts to the main subject mentioned at the outset of the surah (see verses 24-59).

75. Do the unbelievers still think, despite all they have been told, that it will do them any good to take God’s creatures rather than God as their patrons and gaurdians?

76. This verse may be interpreted in two ways, one of which is reflected in our translation above. The other meaning could be that the efforts of the unbelievers were exclusively devoted to this worldly life. In other words, whatever they did was for the purpose of gaining worldly goods and they paid "no heed to God and the Hereafter. They mistook worldly life as their true ‘objective and they set their eyes on worldly success alone. Even if they believed in the existence of God, they did not care enough to find out what would please Him. Nor did they care for the fact that one day they would return to God and would be required to render their account to Him. They considered themselves no different from animals, albeit endowed with rationality, animals possessed of absolute freedom, unencumbered with any responsibility; animals whose term in life had only one purpose — to enjoy worldly life to its full.

77. No matter how great the unbelievers’ worldly attainments might be they are bound to come to an end with the end of the world itself. All that man 1s intensely proud of — his grand palaces and splendid mansions, his universities and libraries, his grand highways and wondrous vehicles of transportation, his great inventions and staggering industries, his magnificent arts and sciences, his impressive museums and art galleries— will all be left behind at the time of man’s death and will have absolutely no weight in God’s scale. If anything is to be of enduring benefit to man in the Next Life it will be the good deeds that he has performed, acts performed according to God’s directives and with the intent of seeking God’s pleasure alone.

Now, if someone’s objectives are confined to this worldly life and he wishes to see his efforts bear fruit in the present world alone, then it is quite obvious that all his acts will vanish with the extinction of the world. If he seeks any recompense in the Hereafter, then obviously he should seek it with regard to those acts which were performed to please God and to attain good results in the Hereafter, and which were in consonance with God’s command if a person did nothing of the sort, then all his striving in this world would have gone to waste.

78. For an explanation of this see al-Mu’minun 23, n. 10.

79. The inmates of Paradise could never even think of going anywhere else since one cannot imagine a better state than that of Paradise.

80. The word kalimat (words) here signifies God’s marvelous acts, and the excellent and wondrous manifestations of His power and wisdom.