1. The earthquake mentioned here will be one of the preliminary signs of the Last Day. Most probably it will take place at a time when the earth will suddenly start whirling rapidly in a direction opposite to its erstwhile direction, and when the sun will rise from the west rather than from the east. This view is held by some of the early Qur'anic commentators such as 'Alqamah and Sha'bi. (See Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-Ma'ānī, comments on the verse - Ed.) The same point is borne out by the lengthy ḥadīth cited on the authority of Abu Hurayrah by Ibn Jarir al-Ṭabari and Ibn Abi Ḥātim. According to this ḥadīth, the Prophet (peace be on him) said that the Trumpet would be blown three times. When blown for the first time, it would cause extreme fright and consternation; the second blowing of the Trumpet would cause everyone to die; and at the third sounding, everyone would be resurrected and stand before God for His judgement. While giving a graphic account of the first Trumpet blow, the Prophet (peace be on him) said that the earth would then resemble a boat that is tossed about by tempestuous waves, or it would resemble a suspended lamp that is violently shaken by strong gusts of wind. (See Ibn Kathir's comments on the verse - Ed.) The state of the inhabitants of the earth at that moment is portrayed at several places in the Qur'an:

So, when the Trumpet is blown with a single blast, and when the earth and the mountains are borne away and crushed with one stroke, on that Day shall the Great Event come to pass (al-Haqqah 69: 13-15).

When the earth will be shaken to its utmost convulsion, and the earth will throw up its burdens, and man will cry out: 'What is the matter with it?' (al-Zalzalah 99: 1-3).

On the Day when the first commotion of the quake shall shake everything, followed by a repetition of the quake. On that Day people's hearts shall shiver and their eyes shall stare with awe (al-Nazi'at 79: 6-9).

When the earth shall be shaken to its depths, and the mountains shall be crumbled to pieces, becoming scattered dust (al-Waqi'ah 56: 4-6).

Then how shall you, if you reject [the Message of the Prophet], guard yourselves against the affliction of the Day that will make children grey- headed, and to whose severity will cause the heaven to be cleft asunder? (al-Muzzammil 73: 17-18).

True, a few Qur'ānic commentators believe that this earthquake will coincide with the resurrection of the dead. Several traditions are also cited in support of this view. (See Ibn Kathir's comments on the verse - Ed.) However, the explicit statement of the Qur'an does not allow one to accept this. For, according to the Qur'an, when this quaking takes place mothers will flee from the babies they are suckling and pregnant women will abort their foetuses. Obviously, such incidents cannot take place in the Next Life. In the Next Life, no woman will suckle her baby, nor will there be any occasion for pregnant women to abort their foetuses. This is obvious because, according to the clear statements of the Qur'an, all worldly ties will then have ended, and everyone will stand before God in his individual capacity to render an account of his deeds. For these reasons, the tradition that we have cited (see p. 5) is to be preferred over the views of the commentators just mentioned.

Even though the chain of narration of this tradition has a formal defect, this is offset by the fact that it conforms to the Qur'anic statements on the subject. As for the traditions on this subject in opposition to this tradition, even if they appear to be more in conformity with the formal criteria of authentification, they are weakened by the fact that they do not conform to the categorical statements of the Qur'an.

2. In the above verse, the word that is used is murdi'ah rather than murdi'. In Arabic usage, murdi' denotes the woman who suckles. As for murdi'ah, it is used with reference to a woman in the actual state of suckling a child from her breast. However, when the earthquake of Doomsday strikes, mothers will flee in fright, abandoning the babies they are suckling, too panic-stricken even to be able to think of what will happen to their babies.

3. The purpose of the above verse is not to portray the events of the Last Day. Rather, it aims at instilling fear of God's chastizement in the hearts of people so that they may shun whatever incurs God's displeasure. Hence, this brief description of the Last Day is followed by a discourse that addresses the main theme.

4. When one considers the discourse that follows, it is clear that the issue under debate was not whether God actually existed or not. The real issue of contention was: what are the rights of God against His creatures, what is the extent of God's authority, and what is the attitude that one should adopt to His directives and commands? The Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) sought to persuade people to accept that there is no God except the One True God, and that the Hereafter is bound to come to pass. It was on these matters that people questioned the Prophet (peace be on him). The debate ultimately led to the question of what lies in God's power and what lies beyond it? Is the universe governed by the One True God or do any other beings share His Divinity with Him?

5. This verse means either that each man was created from materials all of which are derived from the earth and that the actual process starts with creating the sperm. Or else it means that the human species began its existence with the Prophet Adam (peace be on him), who was directly created from clay, whereafter all generations were created from sperm, as stated elsewhere in the Qur'an: 'He began the creation of man with clay, and made his progeny from the quintessence of a despised fluid' (al-Sajdah 32: 7-8).

6. This refers to the different stages of gestation through which the foetus passes in the mother's womb. The stages of gestation known today with the help of powerful microscopes, and through them alone, are not mentioned in the Qur'an. Instead, only those major changes are mentioned with which even the illiterate bedouin of that time were familiar. What is said here is that once the sperm settles down and fertilizes, it turns into congealed blood, then into a lump of flesh which is initially devoid of any definite shape, and then it develops into a human baby whose features gradually crystallize. Since those stages of human gestation were common knowledge because of abortion, reference is specifically made only to those stages. Thus, no detailed knowledge of embryology was required then, nor it is required now, for grasping the main stages through which the human embryo passes before its birth.

7. This refers to that state of senility when man loses awareness of the state he is in. Someone who may once have been known for his mental sharpness and for imparting wisdom to others, degenerates into a decrepit old man; his mental state reverting to almost that of a small child. All that he once took pride in his knowledge, experience, and wisdom - depart from him and he becomes altogether empty-headed and senseless, and the laughing-stock of even children.

8. In the context of the present discourse, this Qur'anic verse carries three meanings: first, that God alone is truthful, and that the fanciful opinion that Life after Death is beyond the range of the possible is absolutely baseless. Second, that God is not a phantom, a being invented merely to obviate the intellectual difficulties people face in comprehending the riddle of existence. He is also not a figment of the philosopher's imagination, nor just a necessary being, nor simply the first cause. He is, instead, the True, All-Powerful Master Who acts according to His own Will. He unceasingly rules over the whole universe, of every little part of it, and does so by dint of His Infinite Power, His Will, His Knowledge and His Wisdom. Third, since God is the Truth, all His acts are animated with purposefulness and wisdom. He is far from being One Who acts in sport and play, Who contrives a plaything merely to entertain Himself with for a while and then capriciously shatters it to pieces.

9. The above verse mentions the various stages of man's birth, the effects of rain on the earth, and the growth of vegetation as arguments in support of the following truths: (1) that God is the Truth; (2) that God restores the dead to life; (3) that God has power over everything; (4) that the Hour of Judgement is bound to come; and (5) that God will most surely raise the dead to life.

Now let us see how the above-mentioned phenomena serve as supporting evidence in favour of the five truths mentioned above. Even if one were to close one's eyes to the working of the universe and consider merely one's own creation, still one would be able to appreciate how God's Will is actively involved in the life of every single individual, and that the different stages in the birth and growth of every single individual is determined by His Will. Some people are of the opinion that all this is part of a set of laws which are regulated by a nature that is blind and mute, and devoid of both knowledge and will. However, if one sees things with open eyes and a perceptive mind, one then knows how the wilful decision of an All-Powerful and Wise Being is tied up with the manner in which every single human being comes into existence, as well as the manner in which he passes through different stages of growth and development. All that

man partakes is bereft of even an atom of sperm. Nor does his food contain anything which has the power to generate the properties which characterize man. When this food is digested, it is transformed into such things as hair, flesh and bones, which in themselves lack reproductive qualities. And yet, it is these lifeless ingredients that give birth to sperm in men and ovaries in women, the combination of which leads to the constant birth of living beings.

Now let us move away from this and cast a glance around us. We see that there are almost limitless seeds of a variety of things that are scattered all around by the birds and wind. There are also roots of a very large number of plants and trees which lie hidden in the earth. In this arid terrain there is no trace of any plant life. The barren tracts of land seem altogether dead, as if they were a large graveyard. But as soon as a few drops of rain fall on a piece of land, verdant life begins to pulsate all over. Every dead root is resurrected; every lifeless seed becomes a living plant. This process of the resurrection of the dead takes place every year before our very own eyes.

The third thing which is established by human observation is that God has power over everything. Man may disregard other parts of this vast universe, and simply consider the earth on which he lives; in fact, he may simply reflect over the life of plants and human beings to the exclusion of all other aspects relating to the earth. Would such a reflection lead him to the conclusion that God has the power to do only what we see Him doing and that His power does not extend beyond that; and that if He decides to do something more than what He has done up until now, it will be beyond the range of His capacity to do so? Such conclusions about God's capacity and power are patently unjustified. In fact this would be evident were we to consider the extent of man's capacity up until the recent past. We know well that until the previous century, it was thought that man was capable of manufacturing only those vehicles that could operate on the earth. It was considered absolutely beyond man's power to manufacture vessels that would fly in the air. But aeroplanes made by man have shown how grossly conservative people's estimates of man's capacity were. Now if anyone were to estimate the extent of God's power only on the basis of what He has done uptil now, he would only provide evidence of the smallness of his own mind, for God's power in any case, is not bound by man's conservative estimates.

The fourth and fifth propositions are that the Day of Judgement is inevitable and that God is bound to raise all those who have suffered death. These are logical corollaries of the three premises mentioned above. If one looks at God's acts as reflections of God's power, one is bound to be convinced that He has the power to bring about the Doomsday whenever He wills. Additionally, He can also resurrect all those that are dead, i.e. the same people whom He once brought into existence from nothing.

Now, if one considers God's acts from the vantage-point of God's wisdom, human reason bears witness that God is bound to do both. This is so because without these two acts of God, the requirements of wisdom are not fulfilled and it is inconceivable that any wise person, let alone God, would disregard that. Man is possessed of only a limited amount of wisdom. But even this limited wisdom enables him to appreciate that when a person entrusts his wealth or property or business to anyone, sooner or later he calls him to account for the same.

In other words, there is a logical nexus between the bestowal of trust and calling the trustee to account, a nexus that even man, despite the limited nature of his wisdom, can never ignore. Again, it is because of this very wisdom that man distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary acts. He associates moral responsibility with acts of a voluntary character, and declares some of those acts to be good and others bad. He praises and likes to reward those who do good, whereas he likes to see those engaged in evil acts punished, so much so that he establishes a fully-fledged institution - the judiciary - to this end. Now, can one believe that He who created wisdom and which He bestowed on man, will Himself be devoid of it? Can one seriously entertain the proposition that God, Who created man and charged him with this huge world with its immense resources and endowed him with enormous powers, would forget about man after all this and never call him to account? Can any sound-minded person be persuaded to believe that criminals, who have managed to escape the punishment they deserve or those who have not been punished in proportion to their crimes, will never be brought to book? Furthermore, can one seriously believe that those who have not been rewarded in this world for the good they have done, remain deprived of their reward ever after? If this is not the case, then there can be no escaping the conclusion that Life after Death is an inevitable concomitant of God's wisdom. Indeed it is not Life after Death that should be a matter of surprise; it would be surprising if it were not.

10. This refers to the knowledge that one gains through direct observation and first-hand experience.

11. That is, knowledge gained indirectly from some evidence or as a result of the guidance of a knowledgeable person.

12. This refers to the knowledge gained from the Scriptures.

13. This consists of three things: (1) adamance and intransigence arising out of ignorance and folly, (2) arrogance and egotistic presumptuousness, and (3) indifference to the sincere counsel of others.

14. Previously mention was made of those who are themselves misguided. Here, reference is being made to those who are not simply misguided, but who are also bent upon misleading others.

15. This alludes to those whose allegiance to the true faith is peripheral; to those who, rather than be at the centre, prefer to sit on the fence. These are like reluctant soldiers who, being on the periphery, are ready to throw in their lot with the winning party, be it their own side or the enemy's.

16. This alludes to those immature, self-serving and vacillating people who embrace faith only to promote their own self-interest. Their allegiance to Islam rests on the condition that they will have the opportunity for the unfettered pursuit of self-interest, of their being able to enjoy every possible ease and comfort. Allegiance to Islam, in their view, should not mean their being asked to make any sacrifice in its cause. Nor should this allegiance lead to denial of anything in the world which they cherish. If all these interests are guaranteed, they are happy with their God and satisfied with their faith. However, if they are faced with misfortune or suffer loss or hardship in the cause of God, or if any of their desires remain unfulfilled, they are prone to scepticism about everything about God's Godhead, about the truth of prophethood, and about religion itself. In this state of mind, they are naturally prepared to bow in reverence before every doorstep.

17. This is a vital truth which is succinctly stated here. The verse portrays an ambivalent, wavering Muslim, one whose state is the worst. So far as an unbeliever is concerned, because of his convictions he is neither bothered by the idea of God nor of the Next Life, nor is he concerned with the idea of observing God's Laws. Hence, he concentrates, single-mindedly, on pursuing material objectives. As a result, even if he deprives himself of the good of the Hereafter, he is at least able to achieve some success in the present world. On the other hand, when the true believer firmly and resolutely follows the teachings. of the religion of God, he ultimately achieves worldly success as well. Furthermore, even if he remains deprived of worldly success, at least felicity and success in the Next Life are fully assured.

A wavering believer, however, is likely to have no success either in this world or the Next. For, when he rushes to achieve worldly gains, the vestiges of belief in God and the Hereafter and his concern for morality, whatever its extent, all prevent him from riding rough-shod. The result is that he does not have the single-mindedness needed for the kind of unbridled pursuit of worldly interests which is the hallmark of rank unbelievers. Conversely, when he thinks of working for his success in the Hereafter, he is impeded from proceeding in that direction because of his excessive greed for worldly benefits, his fear of worldly losses, and his disinclination to observe the restrictions placed by religion on seeking to satisfy his carnal desires. In fact, worldliness impairs his belief and corrupts his conduct to such an extent that he can hardly escape punishment in the Hereafter. Thus, he courts failure both in this world and in the World to Come.

18. The preceding verse categorically refutes the notion that deities other than the One True God can either benefit or harm anyone insofar as they are devoid of the power to do so. The present verse goes a step further, asserting that those deities are more likely to be a source of harm. This is so because when a man prays to them and turns to them for aid, he instantly suffers a significant loss, the loss of his faith. As to the benefit for the sake of which he invoked those false gods, even an unbeliever acknowledges that - regardless of the intrinsic truth or otherwise of the matter there is apparently no surety or even likelihood that he will be able to obtain that benefit. It is possible, however, that in order to put him to further test God may make some of his wishes fulfilled by his approach to these false gods. It is possible though that even if he suffers the loss of his faith, the wish that had prompted him to sacrifice his faith might nevertheless also remain unfulfilled.

19. Whoever puts a person on an erroneous course, be he a human being or Satan, is an evil patron and an evil companion.

20. In contrast to the opportunist, self-seeking, and wavering believers are those sincere believers, the true men of faith. They are the ones who, after due reflection, have firmly made up their mind to believe in God, in the Prophet (peace be on him), and in the Hereafter. Once they reach this stage of firm conviction, they resolutely and steadfastly pursue the way of the truth they opted for. They continue to follow this course regardless of whether they are confronted with adversity or prosperity, whether mountains of affliction impede their onward march or favours are lavished upon them.

21. God's power is simply unlimited, both in this world and the Next. He grants a person whatever He Wills and withholds from him whatever He Wills. If He decides to reward someone, no one can prevent Him. Likewise, if He decides to withhold something from a person, no one has the power to force God to bestow it upon him.

22. There is much disagreement among commentators of the Qur'an concerning the import of this verse. What follows is a summary of their various views. (1) Whoever believes that God will not help the Prophet Muḥammad (peace be on him), let him commit suicide by fastening a rope from the roof and hanging himself with it. (2) Whoever believes that God will not help the Prophet Muḥammad (peace be on him) should climb up to the heavens with the help of a rope, and then try to prevent all help reaching the Prophet from God. (3) Whoever believes that God will not help the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) let him try to reach the heavens in order to prevent revelations from being made. (4) He who believes that God will not help the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) should try to reach the heavens to ensure that the Prophet (peace be on him) is deprived of his livelihood. (5) Whoever believes that God will not help those who hold such an opinion let him commit suicide by fastening a rope from his roof and hanging himself with it. (6) Whoever believes that God will not help those who hold such an opinion, let him somehow reach the heavens and try his luck in securing help from above. (See Ibn Kathir's comments on the verse - Ed.)

It is obvious that the first four opinions are altogether out of context. As for the last two, although they have some relevance, they nonetheless fail to do full justice to the import of the discourse. If one remembers the context of the discourse, it is quite clear that reference is being made to those who, as believers, are content with sitting on the fence. As long as things go well, they are happy. But as soon as they encounter any adversity, or are faced with a situation that is not to their liking, they turn away from the One True God and start prostrating themselves at the temple of one false deity after another.

What explains this behaviour? Simple: such people are not satisfied with what God decrees for them. Ultimately, this stems from their fancy that there are others beside God who decide regarding man's fate. Hence, when they despair of God, they place all their expectations in others than the One True God. Accordingly, such people are being told that they may do whatever they can.

They can even climb up to the heavens in order to find out whether anything can change God's decrees. Climbing up to or making a hole in the heavens signifies the utmost effort that man can imagine. Most obviously, then, it is not meant to be taken literally.

23. This refers to all Muslims: that is, to those Muslims before the advent of the Prophet (peace be on him) who believed in the Messengers and Scriptures of their respective times, as well as to those who, in the days of the Prophet Muḥa..mad (peace be on him), believed in him in addition to believing in the earlier Messengers. These believers include those who are sincere in their faith, as well as those on the periphery who waver between belief and unbelief.

24. For further details see Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. II, al-Nisa' 4, n. 72, p. 44.

25. In the olden days, two communities were known as Sabaeans - the followers of the Prophet John (peace be on him) who inhabited, in large numbers, the upper region of Iraq called al-Jazirah. They practised baptism according to the way of the Prophet John. The other community bearing this name consisted of star-worshippers who claimed to follow the religion of the Prophets Shith and Idris (peace be on them). They believed that the planets held ascendancy over the elements, and that the angels had ascendancy over the planets. Based in Ḥarran, they were scattered over different parts of Iraq. This second group is also known for its mastery of philosophy, science and medicine. It is, however, more likely that the Qur'an here refers to the former group, i.e. to the followers of the Prophet John. This seems so because the other group was probably not known at the time the Qur'an was revealed.

26. For an explanation see Towards Understanding the Qur'ān, vol. II, al- Ma'idah 5, n. 36, pp. 146-8.

27. The term 'Magians' refers to the fire-worshippers of Persia who believed in the two gods of light and darkness and claimed to be the followers of Zoroaster. Their faith and morality became greatly corrupted as a result of the erroneous doctrines and practices of Mazdak, so much so that they had no qualms about marrying their sisters, a practice which actually was in vogue with them.

28. This refers to those polytheists of Arabia who did not have any specific name to identify themselves with. In order to distinguish them from other religious entities, the Qur'an refers to them as mushrikūn (those engaged in shirk) and al-ladhīna ashraku (those who committed shirk). The Qur'an does so despite the fact that polytheistic beliefs and practices had also made their inroads among other religious communities, the only ones remaining immune from polytheism being the Muslims.

29. The differences of opinion among the various communities concerning God will not be definitively resolved in the present world. It can only be settled for good on the Day of Judgement. It is then that it will be decided beyond all doubt as to who is in error and who is in the right. In a sense, the Scriptures have already decided this question even in the present world. However, the Qur'anic usage in the above verse - signifying final judgement and resolution of the dispute between the different contending parties - clearly identifies that a judgement will uphold, once and for all, the claim of one party and so reject the claims made by all other parties.

30. For an explanation see Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. IV, al- Ra'd 13, nn. 24-5, p. 230, and al-Naḥl 16, nn. 41-2, pp. 334-5.

31. These include angels, heavenly bodies and all the creatures that might exist in worlds other than the earth. These might include beings possessed of reason and free-will like human beings, or animals, plants, or solid matter, air and light that are devoid of reason and free-will.

32. This specifically refers to those who deliberately and wilfully, rather than involuntarily, prostrate themselves before God. Mention follows immediately thereafter of those who, in contrast wilfully refuse to prostrate themselves before God. This is so in spite of the fact that they are in the firm grip of natural laws and are among those who involuntarily prostrate themselves before God's Will. The reason why the latter group deserves punishment is that they act rebelliously in a domain where they have been endowed with free-will.

33. True, the dispute among these different groups will finally be resolved on the Day of Judgement. A sensible person, however, can see for himself even in the present life who is in the right, whose contention will eventually be upheld. The working of the entire universe bears out that it is only the One True God Whose Godhead, fully and most pervasively, embraces the whole universe. Everything, from the particle of dust to the massive planet is bound by the same law, a law from which no one can deviate even so much as a hair's breadth. A believer, out of his genuine belief in God, willingly submits to Him. But even atheists who deny the existence of God and polytheists who associate other helpless beings with God in His Divinity, find themselves forced to obey Him in certain matters in the manner of air and water. None - neither angel, jinn, Messenger, saint, nor any of the so-called gods and goddesses - has as much as a shred of the power that makes them descrve to be set up as God, as an object of worship. Nor can anyone be considered God's peer, or as someone who resembles God. Nor is it conceivable that a law without a Law-Giver, or a nature without its Creator, a system without anyone to set it up, is able to bring such an immense universe into existence, regulate its working with such absolute perfection, or exhibit those wonderful feats of power and wisdom which are evident in every nook and cranny of the universe. Now, it is possible that some people fail to pay heed to the Prophets despite the existence of the universe - this awesome, open book - and dispute with them about God because they accepted man-made beliefs in preference to the teachings of the Prophets. The rank error of such people is as evident in this world as it will be on the Day of Judgement.

34. The expressions 'to humiliate', or 'confer honour upon someone', signify, respectively, the attitudes of rejecting the truth or following it. The former is bound to lead one to humiliation and the latter to achieving a position of honour. Anyone who does not perceive with open eyes the truths that are clear and radiant, and fails to give heed to those who, out of sincerity and good- will, try to explain things to him and try to help him with good counsel is simply inviting humiliation and disgrace upon himself. It is God's Will that a man shall have whatever he has himself asked for. Thus, if God does not confer upon someone the honour of following the truth, who, then, can confer that honour upon him?

35. It is incumbent upon everyone who recites this verse to perform sajdah (prostration). In fact, there is unanimity in the obligatoriness of all those who recite this verse to make sajdah. For the rationale of and injunctions with regard to the sajdah of Qur'an-recitation see Towards Understanding the Qur'ān, vol. III, al-A'raf 7, n. 157, pp. 117-18.

36. The groups that contend about God are very many. Nevertheless, the present verse divides them into two broad categories. One consists of those who accept the teachings of the Prophets and adopt the right attitude in serving God. The other consists of those who do not accept the teachings of the Prophets, reject the truth, and embrace unbelief. The essence of this latter attitude remains one and the same no matter how numerous the disagreements among the exponents of such an attitude are, or the extent to which the different versions of unbelief vary from one to another.

37. Here, something which is inevitably bound to happen in the future has been described in the past tense. This in order to emphasize its inevitability; to give the impression as if it is something that has already taken place. As for the expression 'garments made out of fire', this seems possibly to refer to the same thing mentioned in Surah Ibrāhīm 14: 49-50. (The verse mentions that the guilty ones shall be 'secured in chains', and 'their garments shall be black as if made out of pitch, and the flames of the fire shall cover their faces... Ed.) For further explanation see Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. IV, Ibrāhīm 14, n. 58, p. 277.

38. What is meant by this is that the believers will be made to don royal dress. At the time the Qur'an was revealed, kings and nobles wore jewellery of gold and precious stones. Such custom is in vogue even in our own time among the petty rulers, the nawābs and rājahs, of India.

39. Although the expression used here connotes a general significance, it refers, in fact, to that true statement and sound creed whose acceptance made them believers. (This consisted of affirming that there is no God other than Allah and that Muḥammad is His Messenger - Ed.)

40. As we have stated in the introduction to this surah, in our opinion this verse concludes that part of the surah which was revealed during the Makkan period. The content and style of the verses up until the present one are those of the Makkan surahs. To put it differently, there is nothing in these verses to suggest that this part of the surah was revealed either wholly or partially in Madina.

Some commentators, however, believe that verse 19 of this surah belongs to the Madinan period. (See Ibn Kathir's comments on the verse - Ed.) This view is based on the assumption that the two disputing parties mentioned refer to those who fought against each other in the Battle of Badr. This assumption, however, does not hold much water. The context does not indicate that the particular battle referred to is the Battle of Badr. Instead, the statement is couched in quite general terms. Commentators also seem to indicate that a reference is made here to the perennial dispute between belief and unbelief from the very beginning of time, a dispute which will last till the Day of Judgement. However, had there been any connection between this verse and the Battle of Badr it would have been located in Surah al-Anfal rather than in the present surah or in this particular context. If one accepts such a line of argument, it implies that the verses revealed subsequently were placed quite arbitrarily according to the whims of people and without any regard for textual coherence. On the contrary, we find a highly cohesive order in the Qur'an, something which is in itself, emphatic refutation of such an argument.

41. This refers to those who rejected outright the Message of the Prophet Muḥammad (peace be on him). What follows makes it evident that the reference here is to the unbelievers of Makka.

42. That is, they prevent the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) and his Companions from performing Hajj and Umrah.

43. The Holy Mosque is not the property of any individual, family or tribe. It is meant instead for everyone and, hence, no one can bar others from visiting it. This gave rise to two legal questions regarding which Muslim jurists have disagreed. First, whether the expression 'Holy Mosque' stands for the Mosque itself, or for the sacred precincts of Makka? Second, what is meant by the statement that 'those who dwell therein', and 'those who come from outside' enjoy equal rights over it?

Some scholars are of the opinion that the verse refers only to the Mosque and not to the entire area covered by the term Haram. (See Ibn Kathir's comments on the verse - Ed.) This seems to be indicated by the apparent meaning of the words used here. As for equality of rights, what is meant is equality in the right of worship. In this respect, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) said: 'Decendants of 'Abd Manaf! Those of you who are placed in authority over the affairs of men shall not prohibit anyone from performing tawaf or praying for a while [in it] whenever he likes, be it in day or night.' (For this command of the Prophet (peace be on him), see Tirmidhi, K. al-Ḥajj, ‘Bāb mā jā' fī al-Ṣalāh ba'd al-'Asr wa ba'd al-Subh'. The words of the ḥadīth are:

يابني عبد مناف من ولى منكم من أمور الناس شيئا فلا يمنعن أحدا طاف بهذا البيت أو صلى آية

ساعة شاء من ليل أو نهار

See also Aḥmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 4, p. 8: Ed.

يابني عبد مناف لا تمنعوا أحدا طاف بهذا البيت أو صلى آية ساعة شاء من ليل و نهار

Hence, exponents of this opinion contend that it is wrong to think that the Qur'an speaks here of the whole area of Makka. Nor is it legitimate to think that this verse declares that Makkans and outsiders are entitled to the same rights in all respects. They point out, by way of evidence, that from pre-Islamic times the land in Makka was considered to be the property of its inhabitants which they could inherit, buy, sell or lease, and these rights continued to be recognized even after the advent of Islam. This is evident, for instance, from the purchase of Safwan ibn Umayyah's house for four thousand dirhams during 'Umar ibn al-Khattab's caliphate so as to transform it into a prison-house. (See Ibn Kathir's comments on the verse - Ed.) Hence, what equality means is simply equality in the right to worship. This, then, is the opinion of Imam Shafi'i, as also of some other scholars.

Another group, however, is of the opinion that the expression 'Holy Mosque' here stands for the whole sacred area of Makka. The first argument advanced in support of this opinion is that the specific act of the Makkan polytheists, for which they are here reproached, is in barring the Muslims from Hajj. It is also significant that this act is denounced on the grounds that all have equal rights there. Now, it is quite evident that the performance of Hajj rites is not confined to the Holy Mosque. Instead, its rituals are performed at several places, such as Şafa, Marwah, Muzdalifah and ‘Arafāt. Moreover, the Qur'an frequently employs the expression 'Holy Mosque' to denote the sacred precincts of Makka rather than in the narrow sense of the 'Holy Mosque of Makka'. There are several examples of this in the Qur'an:

Barring people from the way of Allah and denying entry into the Holy Mosque and expelling its inmates from it are more awesome acts in the sight of Allah... (al-Baqarah 2: 217).

This privilege is for those whose families do not live near the Holy Mosque (al-Baqarah 2: 196).

In these verses, the expression 'Holy Mosque' quite evidently denotes the sacred precincts of Makka rather than the Mosque itself. Hence, the equality mentioned in the above verse cannot be limited to the Mosque itself; rather, it embraces the entire precincts. Furthermore, this group of scholars does not limit equality to matters pertaining to worship or to acts relating to sanctity and reverence. They rather contend that within the area of the Haram there should be equality in other respects as well. They are also of the opinion that the land of Makka falls into the category of common waqf, i.e. endowment on behalf of God. Hence, none has any property rights over its land or its buildings. Anyone can stay wherever he likes. No one has the right to stop anyone from staying wherever he wants nor can anyone be evicted from the place where he is staying.

These scholars marshal a number of traditions in support of this view. For instance, they adduce a ḥadīth narrated by 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar to the effect that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'Makka is a site [for pilgrims]; its land may not be sold nor its buildings rented.' (See the comments of Qurtubi and Jaṣṣās on the verse. The former attributes the transmission of the ḥadīth to 'Abd Allah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As rather than to 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar - Ed.) Ibrāhīm al-Nakha'i also narrates a mursal tradition from the Prophet: 'Allah has made Makka a sacred territory: it is unlawful to sell its land or to receive rent on its houses.' (See Alūsī, Rūḥ al-Ma'ānī, vol. 17, p. 138-Ed.) It may be pertinent to point out that the mursal[1] traditions of Ibrahim al-Nakha'i are rated as marfu’.[2] This in view of his well-known practice of narrating a mursal tradition which was in fact a tradition transmitted by 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud. 'Alqamah ibn Naḍlah also reported that in the time of the Prophet (peace be on him) and of Abu Bakr and 'Umar ibn al-Khattab the land of Makka was treated as sawa'ib, that is, land on which a person might live as long as he needed to, and pass it on to others when he did not. (See the comments of Ibn Kathir on the verse; and Älūsi, Rūḥ al-Ma'ānī, vol. 17, p. 138 - Ed.) 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar reports that 'Umar even issued the order that no Makkan may close his door during the days of Hajj. In fact Mujahid reports that 'Umar directed the residents of Makka to keep the courtyards to their houses open; he asked them to have no door to their courtyards so that a pilgrim might stay wherever he wished. (See the comments of Ibn Kathir on the verse, vol. 3, p. 215 Ed.) The same tradition is reported by 'Ata' who adds that the only exception that was made was in respect of Suhayl ibn 'Amr who, because of his trading requirements, needed to keep his camels in an enclosure. He was, therefore, allowed to have a door to his courtyard. *Abd Allah ibn 'Umar says that he who receives rent on his houses in Makka fills his belly with fire. (See the comments of Ibn Kathir, vol. 3, p. 215; and Ālūsi, Rūḥ al-Ma'ānī, vol. 17, p. 138, 'Bay' Arāḍī Makkah wa Ijārat Buyutihā'. Ibn Kathir has attributed this statement to 'Abd Allah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As, whereas Ālūsi and Jaṣṣās have attributed it to 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar - Ed.) The same opinion is held by 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas who says that Allah sanctified the precincts of Makka into a mosque where all have equal rights. He was of the opinion that the people of Makka had no right to receive any rent from outsiders. In the same vein, 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz issued the directive to the governor of Makka that no one may receive rent on houses in Makka.

[1]. A mursal tradition from the Prophet (peace be on him) narrated by a Successor, or anyone belonging to the generation(s) following the Successors, stating that the Prophet (peace be on him) said or did or tacitly approved something, even though the narrator, not being a Companion, did not have any direct contact with the Prophet. (See al-Sayyid al-Sharif al-Jurjānī, al-Ta'rifāt, Beirut, Dār al-Surür, n.d., q.v. 'mursal' - Ed.)

[2]. A marfu tradition is a tradition from the Prophet (peace be on him) which has been narrated by a Companion (ibid., q.v. 'marfu" - Ed.)

In view of these traditions, the majority of Successors subscribed to the above-mentioned opinion. Among the leading jurists of that age, Malik, Abū Hanifah, Sufyan al-Thawrī, Aḥmad ibn Hanbal and Ishaq ibn Rāhawayh are of the opinion that the sale of Makkan land and the renting out of houses there, at least during the Hajj season, are not lawful. Most jurists concede, however, the right to property on the houses of Makka and, accordingly, consider it permissible to rent out houses even though they may not rent out land.

This viewpoint seems closer to the spirit of the Qur'an, the Sunnah and the practice of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs. For God did not prescribe Hajj as an obligatory duty on Muslims around the world in order to provide a source of income to the residents of Makka; nor in order to provide them with an opportunity to fleece pilgrims by charging exorbitant rents. Makka is to be treated as a common endowment for the benefit of all believers. No one has proprietary rights over it. Every pilgrim has the right to stay on any spot that he finds available. (For a detailed discussion of the question and for the traditions mentioned here see the comments of Ibn Kathir and Ālüsi on the verse. See also Qurtubi who, however, does not go into details - Ed.).

44. Zulm does not signify a specific act, but rather embraces all acts that do not conform with righteousness and share the attribute of 'wrong-doing'. Such acts are sinful regardless of the place where they are committed. However, to commit them within the sacred precincts of the Haram is all the more iniquitous. Commentators, for example, are of the opinion that if someone swears without there being any legitimate reason for this in the precincts of the Haram, then it amounts to blaspheming the Ḥaram, and so the present verse applies to such a person.

Apart from ordinary sins, there are certain acts which violate the sanctity of the Haram quite directly and blatantly on the grounds of this verse. The following represent some instances of violating the sanctity of the Haram.

If someone who commits a homicide outside the sacred precincts or commits any other crime which entails a ḥadd-punishment and seeks refuge in the sacred precincts, no action will be taken against him as long as he stays there. The Haram is considered to have enjoyed this immunity since the time of the Prophet Abraham. The only exception being made, quite temporarily, was on the day of the conquest of Makka after which the age-old inviolability of Makka was restored. The Qur'an says that: 'Whoever enters it becomes secure' (Al 'Imrān 3: 97). Statements from each of the following Companions, 'Umar ibn al- Khattab, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar and 'Abd Allah ibn Abbās, have authentically been reported to the effect that even if offspring were to get hold of those who had killed their father, they still could not touch them as long as they remained in the precincts of Makka. (See Ālūsi's comments on Al 'Imran 3: 97 - Ed.) Accordingly, a majority of Successors and Hanafi, Hanbali and Ahl al-Hadith scholars are of the opinion that qiṣāṣ cannot be meted out in the Ḥaram area for crimes committed outside it. (See the comments of Ibn Kathir on Al 'Imrān 3: 97 and Tirmidhi, K. al-Hajj, 'Bāb mā jā' bi Jarḥat Makkah' - Ed.).

Fighting and bloodshed have also been forbidden within the sacred precincts. The Prophet (peace be on him) prohibited it in his address on the day following the conquest of Makka, declaring: 'O People! God has sanctified Makka from the very beginning and it will remain so till the Last Day. It is forbidden for anyone who believes in God and the Last Day to shed blood within its precincts.' Then he added: 'If someone were to cite this fighting of mine to legitimize the shedding of blood within the sacred precincts, let him know that God has made it especially lawful for His Messenger; and even so for a certain hour on a certain day, after which its sanctity is restored as it was ever in the past.'

Such is the sanctity of Makka that its self-grown trees may not be felled and its self-grown grass may not be uprooted; nor may any birds and animals be hunted in Makka. Nor may any animals be driven away from Makka for the purposes of game outside its precincts. The only exception in this regard are snakes, scorpions and other harmful animals which may be killed even in the sacred precincts. Exception has also been made with regard to wild grass, there being explicit injunctions on all these matters in the collections of Hadith. (See Abū Dā'ūd, K. al-Manāsik, ‘Bāb Taḥrīm Ḥaram Makkah' - Ed.)

It is a part of the inviolability of the Haram that one may not pick up in the Ḥaram articles that have been dropped by others. According to a tradition of Abu Dǎ'ūd: "The Prophet (peace be on him) forbade people to pick up the articles dropped by pilgrims.' (See Abū Dā'ūd, K. al-Luqtah - Ed.)

Likewise, whoever visits the sacred area for the purpose of Hajj or 'Umrah may not enter without iḥrām. There is, however, some difference of opinion among jurists about whether it is obligatory for all persons who enter the sacred area to observe iḥrām even if their purposes be for other than Pilgrimage. 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas believes that no one may enter the sacred area without iḥrām, regardless of the purpose of his visit. A statement to this effect is attributed to both Aḥmad ibn Hanbal and Shafi 'I. There is, however, an opinion regarding those who frequent the Haram in connection with their occupation to the effect that such people are exempt from the requirements of iḥram. This is the opinion of Aḥmad ibn Hanbal and Shafi'i. There is another opinion, however, that anyone who lives within the miqat may enter Makka without iḥrām. However, those living outside the mīgāt may not do so. This position is held by Abū Ḥanifah.

45. According to some commentators, this marks the end of the commandment addressed to the Prophet Abraham (peace be on him). They consider the commandment concerning the proclamation of Hajj (verse 26) to be part of God's command addressed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him). (See Aļūsi's comments on the verse - Ed.) It appears from the context, however, that this last verse is also addressed to the Prophet Abraham (peace be on him), constituting as it does, a part of the command directed to him at the time of the construction of the Ka'bah. Moreover, it is evident from the thrust of the above discourse that the Ka'bah was constructed, from the very beginning, for the sole purpose of worshipping the One True God, and, hence, a general summons was made to all devotees of God to perform Ḥajj.

46. Dämir, the word used in the verse, denotes a lean and thin camel. (See Lisan al-'Arab, q.v. d-m-r - Ed.) The purpose of using such an expression is to portray pilgrims who journey to the Holy Mosque from far-off lands. The result is that their camels become frail because of the long and strenuous journey during which they are deprived of both food and water.

47. This marks the end of the command which was originally given to the Prophet Abraham (peace be on him). A new directive was, however, added in order to elaborate the original command. Our view that this addition was made is based on the fact that the earlier discourse concludes with the directive to circumambulate the ancient House of God. It is obvious that this could not have been enjoined at the time of the construction of the Ka'bah. For further details regarding the construction of the Ka'bah by the Prophet Abraham (peace be on him) see Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. I, al-Baqarah 2: 125-9; Al 'Imran 3: 96-7 and vol. IV, Ibrāhīm 14: 35-41.

48. This signifies both religious and worldly benefits. It was precisely because of the blessings of Ka'bah and Hajj that ever since the days of the Prophet Abraham (peace be on him), for a period spanning two and a half thousand years, the people of Arabia have had a powerful focal point for their unity, one which preserved their wider Arab identity and prevented it from dissipation under the impact of tribal particularisms. By keeping themselves attached with this centre, and thanks to Hajj which brought people from all parts of the Arabian peninsula to Makka, their language and culture remained much the same, and they were also able to retain their Arab consciousness. Moreover, they also had the opportunity to exchange views and transmit information and cultural mores. Again, this was due to the great blessing of Hajj, in that the Arabs enjoyed at least four months of absolute peace in their land in an age of rampant lawlessness. Ultimately, this ensured security of travel for individuals and trade caravans. Hajj was also a great blessing for the economic life of the Arabs. For further details see Towards Understanding the Qur'ān, vol. I, Āl 'Imrän 3, nn. 80-1, p. 274 and vol. II, al-Nisa' 4, nn. 90–6, pp. 46–7 and al-Ma'idah 5, n. 113, pp. 195-6.

After the advent of Islam, the advantages of Hajj became manifold. Initially, it was a blessing for the Arabs alone. But now Muslims the world over became the recipients of its blessings.

49. The expression bahīmat al-an'ām denotes cattle such as camels, oxen, sheep and goats as is clearly stated in al-An'am 6: 142-4.

That the name of God should be pronounced over those animals means that the name of God should be pronounced while slaughtering them. This is mentioned in the phrase that follows.

The allegorical expression 'to pronounce the name of Allah over the cattle Allah has provided them' has been employed throughout the Qur'an in connection with sacrificial animals. On all such occasions when this expression has been used, people are told that slaughtering these animals without pronouncing the name of God over them, or slaughtering them in the name of anyone other than God, is a characteristic practice of unbelievers and polytheists. On the contrary, a Muslim can only slaughter an animal after pronouncing the name of God. Similarly, whenever he makes a sacrificial offering, he is required to consecrate it to God.

There is disagreement as to which days are meant by the ‘appointed days' mentioned in this verse. According to one view, the expression signifies the firs. ten days of the month of Dhu al-Hijjah. This view was held by 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas, Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, Ibrahim al-Nakha'i, Qatadah and several other Companions and Successors. Abū Ḥanifah too subscribes to this view. We also find a statement from Shafi'i and Aḥmad ibn Hanbal in support of it. According to another statement by Shafi'i and Aḥmad ibn Hanbal the expression refers to the 10th of Dhu al-Hijjah and the three days following. This variation is also supported by 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar, Ibrāhīm al-Nakha'i, Hasan al-Başri, and 'Aṭā'.

According to the third view, the expression signifies three days, from the 10th to the 12th of Dhu al-Hijjah. Reports on the authority of 'Umar ibn al- Khaṭṭāb, 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbās, Anas ibn Malik, Abu Hurayrah, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab and Sa'id ibn Jubayr are cited in this respect. Among jurists, Sufyan al-Thawrī, Mälik, Abū Yusuf and Muḥammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybānī also hold this view. This is also accepted by the Hanafi and Mäliki schools.

There are, however, some isolated opinions on the subject. For instance, the 'appointed days', according to some, end with the 10th of Dhu al-Hijjah. According to others, the 'appointed days' include the subsequent day (i.e. the 11th of Dhu al-Hijjah) that is, one may sacrifice animals up until that day. These statements, however, are considered tenuous insofar as they are not supported by strong evidence. (See the comments of Ibn Kathir, Alūsi and Qurtubi on the verse - Ed.)

50. Some scholars have interpreted the statement ... eat of it and feed the distressed and the needy...' to mean that both eating and feeding are obligatory since the directive is couched in the imperative. According to others, this statement means that while it is desirable that he who makes the sacrifice should also eat of the sacrificial animal, what is obligatory is to feed others. This view is held by Shafi'i and Malik.

In the opinion of some other scholars, it is mustahab (recommended; desirable) that one should both eat of the sacrificed animal and feed others. The reason for this desirability being that in the time of Jahiliyah people considered it unlawful to partake of the meat of sacrificial animals.

As for feeding others, this is desirable because it helps and supports the poor. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah. Ibn Jarir al-Tabarī, however, cites the statements of Hasan al-Başrî, 'Aṭā', Mujahid and Ibrāhīm al-Nakha'ī to the effect that the imperative mode of the verse does not make it obligatory to partake of the animal. According to them, this command belongs to the category of the following commands in the Qur'an (which simply indicate the permissibility of the acts in question even though they are couched in the imperative form - Ed.):

But once you are free from Pilgrimage restrictions, then hunt (al-Ma'idah 5:2).

And when the Prayer is finished, disperse through the land and seek of Allah's bounty (al-Jumu'ah 62: 10).

As is evident from verse 5: 2 the imperative to 'hunt' does not make it obligatory for everyone to hunt after being released from the restrictions of iḥrām. It is also evident from verse 62: 10 that the imperative to 'disperse through the land' after the Friday Prayer is over is not of an obligatory character. What is meant by the imperative is that there is no harm in doing so. Since some people considered it unlawful to partake of sacrificial meat, they are in effect being told that there is no such prohibition. (See Jaṣṣās, 'Bāb fī Akl luḥüm al-Hadāyā', vol. 3, p. 235- Ed.) Additionally, the injunction that the distressed and needy should be fed does not mean that the rich and the prosperous may not be offered anything of the sacrificial animals. It is perfectly lawful to distribute sacrificial meat among one's friends, neighbours, and relatives, regardless of whether they are needy or not. This view is supported by the practice of the Companions. According to 'Alqamah, 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud sent his sacrificial animals through him and directed him to slaughter them on the Day of Sacrifice, partake of them, distribute them among the needy, and also send of them to his brother's house (i.e. the house of 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud's brother - Ed.). A statement has come down on the authority of 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar that one-third of this meat should be consumed, one- third distributed among neighbours, and one-third given to the needy.

51. On the 10th of Dhu al-Hijjah, the Day of Sacrifice, after the pilgrims are finished offering their sacrifices, they may remove their iḥräm, have their hair cut, and take a bath; in sum, the offering of the sacrifice marks the end of the restrictions which are binding upon pilgrims while they are in a state of iḥrām. The word tafath literally means the dirt and filth caused by travelling. However, in the context of Hajj the usage carries a special meaning which is alluded to above. For, as long as a pilgrim does not complete certain rituals of Hajj and sacrifice, he may neither cut his hair, clip his nails, nor clean his body in certain other ways (such as removing the hair from his armpits, etc. - Ed.). It may be noted in this regard that even after a pilgrim has offered sacrifice and become free of the restrictions imposed on him, one restriction nonetheless still remains: he may not have sexual intercourse with his spouse until the completion of tawaf al- ifāḍah.

52. This refers to the vow which a person might have made on this occasion.

53. The expression 'ancient house' for the Ka'bah is significant. To say that some place is 'atiq (ancient) conveys the following meanings in Arabic: (1) that it is hallowed by time; (2) that it is independent and does not form anyone's property; and (3) that it is an object of reverence and veneration. All these apply to the place for which the word 'atiq is used in the verse. The word tawaf here signifies tawaf al-ifāḍah or ṭawāf al-ziyarah which is perfornied after one has made the sacrificial offering on the Day of Sacrifice, and after one has removed the pilgrim's garb. This Qur'anic statement further underlines that this particular tawaf should be performed after one has offered the sacrifice, removed the iḥräm and taken a bath.

54. Apparently this is a general exhortation: that everyone should honour the restrictions laid down by God. In the present context, however, the restrictions meant are those enjoined in connection with the Holy Mosque of Makka, Hajj, 'Umrah, the Haram and the Haram of Makka. Moreover, this verse also subtly reproaches the Quraysh who were guilty of driving the Muslims away from the Holy Mosque, of barring them from performing Hajj and of overlaying Ḥajj with polytheistic practices. Likewise, they are reproached for polluting the House of God with polytheism and the desecration of many of those sanctities which were laid down in the time of Abraham (peace be on him).

55. The statement that 'Cattle have been made lawful to you except those mentioned to you as unlawful' is made for two purposes. One, that the Quraysh and the polytheists of Arabia considered baḥirah, sā'ibah, waṣilah and ḥām among the animals that were inviolable. It was, therefore, made clear that no sanctity was attached to them; that it was lawful to slaughter all cattle, including these. Second, since the hunting, of animals is forbidden in the state of iḥrām, it is necessary to clarify that slaughtering cattle and eating them is not forbidden. The main purpose of this above verse, then, is to make these clarifications.

56. This refers to the injunctions about prohibiting the eating of carcasses, blood, the flesh of swine, and animals slaughtered in the name of anything other than God. See al-An'am 6: 145 and al-Nahl 16: 115.

57. One ought to shun worship of idols in the manner a man of sound instinct is repelled by, and tries to flee from, filth. The implicit suggestion being that idols are an abomination and no sooner a person approaches them, than he is contaminated with that filth.

58. The words here seem to have a general import and signify that every kind of falsehood, slander and false testimony is forbidden. However, in the present context, these words are specifically aimed at denouncing the false beliefs, norms, practices and superstitions which are rooted in unbelief and polytheism. To associate others with God in His Divinity and to hold any of God's creatures as His partners in His essence, attributes, rights and authority is the greatest conceivable falsehood and this is denounced here. This denunciation also embraces the falsehood that had misled the polytheists of Arabia into believing that it was unlawful to kill baḥirah, ḥäm, etc., for human beings have no right to declare, of their own accord, anything to be lawful or unlawful, as the Qur'an says: 'And do not utter falsehoods by letting your tongues declare: "This is lawful" and "that is unlawful", thus fabricating lies against Allah' (al-Nahl 16: 116).

Likewise, the interdiction contained in this verse also covers false oaths and false testimonies. This point is further elaborated in the following ḥadīth: 'False testimony amounts to associating others with God in His Divinity.' The Prophet (peace be on him) said so and supported it by reference to the above verse. According to Islamic Law, false testimony is a cognizable offence. Abū Yusuf and Muḥammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybānī are of the opinion that if anyone is convicted of false testimony by a court, this should be made public and the person so convicted should be sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. 'Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb also held this opinion and applied it. According to Makḥul, 'Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb said: 'He [r.e. the culprit] should be flogged, his head should be shaved, his face should be blackened, and he should be subjected to long-term imprisonment.' (See Jaṣṣās, 'Bāb Shahädat al-Zür', vol. 3, p. 241, Ibn Kathir, vol. 3, p. 220, and Aḥmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 4, p. 178 Ed.) 'Abd Allah ibn 'Amir narrates from his father that once a person was convicted by 'Umar ibn al- Khattab of false testimony whereupon he got him to stand in a public place and had it proclaimed that the person concerned, the son of so and so, was guilty of false testimony, and that he should be known as such. Thereafter, he imprisoned him. (See Jaṣṣās, 'Bab Shahadat al-Zür', vol. 3, p. 242 - Ed.) In our time, this purpose can be served by publicizing the same in newspapers (and via electronic media - Ed.).

59. The word 'sky' in this parable stands for the natural state of man wherein he is the servant of none except God and his nature recognizes no other doctrine than this, i.e. the doctrine of pure monotheism. When a man embraces the guidance brought by the Prophets, it helps him adhere to monotheism on the grounds of knowledge and sound insight and this carries him to even greater heights. On the other hand, when someone embraces polytheism or atheism, he falls away from this natural state and is then confronted with either of the following two situations. First, that Satan and those who are out to misguide others, those who are metaphorically called 'birds' in the above account, pounce upon him, each trying to snatch him away. Second, that he is carried to and fro by his lusts, emotions and fancies, all of which are likened in the above verse to the wind, with the result that he is ultimately hurled into some abysmal ditch.

The word saḥiq used here is derived from the root s-h-q which signifies 'to grind' (see s-h-q in Lisän al-'Arab - Ed.). A place can be termed as saḥiq, if it is so deep that anything that falls into it is reduced to particles. Here, a depraved state of thought and action is likened to a ditch, where he who falls in is blown to pieces.

60. Reflective of the manifestations of God-consciousness are deeds such as Prayer, fasting and Hajj, or such objects as mosques and sacrificial animals. For further details see Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. II, al-Ma'idah 5, n. 5, pp. 128-9.

61. That someone 'venerates' the symbols of God is indicative of his inner piety. It shows that he is possessed of some degree of God-consciousness which prompts him to revere God's symbols. In other words, if someone deliberately desecrates God's symbols, this shows a lack of God-consciousness in him. It indicates either that he lacks belief in God; or if there is in him any vestige of belief in God, he is bent upon adopting a rebellious posture towards Him.[1]

[1]. The sequence of notes in the text here deviates from the original translation of the Qur'anic text of Sayyid Mawdüdi in Tafhim al-Qur'an. We have indicated number 61 before 60 in the English translation of the Qur'anic text in order that those readers who wish to compare the notes in English with those of the original Urdu are not confused - Ed.

62. The preceding verse sets out a general directive: that the symbols of God should be revered, characterizing such reverence as a manifestation of inner piety. The present statement, which follows the previous one, seeks to rectify a common misunderstanding. Sacrificial animals are, as we know, one of God's symbols, a fact that was recognized by the pre-Islamic Arabs, and has been affirmed in this very surah of the Qur'an: 'We have appointed sacrificial camels among the symbols of [devotion to] Allah' (22: 36).

It was, however, not quite clear as to what were the practical implications of recognizing sacrificial animals as the symbols of devotion to God. Several questions arise in this respect: when sacrificial animals are being taken to the Ka'bah, is it unlawful to derive any benefit from them? Is it sacrilegious to use them for riding or to employ them to transport goods, to milk them, and consume their milk? The Arabs of the time had misperceptions. The result being that they would take great care of sacrificial animals while leading them to the place of sacrifice. They considered it sinful to make any use of them whatsoever en route. The present verse, removing those misperceptions, affirms that one may benefit from the animals consecrated for sacrifice en route to the place of sacrifice; that to do so is not at all a derogation of God's symbols. This point is also corroborated by the traditions which have been transmitted by Abu Hurayrah and Anas ibn Malik. According to them, the Prophet (peace be on him) once saw someone walking, holding the rein of the camel in his hand, and that he asked him to ride the camel. The man replied that the camel was meant for sacrifice. The Prophet (peace be on him) nevertheless told him to use it for riding. (See Jaṣṣās, 'Bāb Ruküb al-Badnah', vol. 3, p. 242 - Ed.)

As for the expression 'until an appointed time', this means 'up until the time when an animal is consecrated for sacrifice'. This is the opinion of such commentators as 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbās, Qatādah, Mujahid, Daḥḥāk and ‘Ața". According to this interpretation, a person may benefit from these animals as long as he does not set them apart for sacrifice. But once he has designated them as sacrificial animals with the intention of taking them to the Ka'bah, he forfeits the right to benefit from them. (See Jaṣṣās, ‘Bāb Rukūb al-Badnah', vol. 3. p. 242 and Ibn Kathir, vol. 3, p. 221 – Ed.) Such an interpretation, however, does not seem correct. Had this been the case, the Qur'ānic permission above to benefit from them would be pointless. After all, there was never any confusion about benefitting from animals other than those consecrated for sacrifice, and quite evidently, the Qur'anic permission relates specifically to such animals. Moreover, the verse pointedly deals with animals to whom the appellation 'the symbols of God' might apply, and this applies only to those animals that had already been consecrated for sacrifice. Some other commentators such as 'Urwah ibn al- Zubayr and 'Ata' ibn Abī Rabāḥ are of the opinion that the 'appointed time' refers to the time of sacrifice. Before the actual sacrifice one may use sacrificial animals for transport, partake of their milk, take their young ones, shear their wool or hair. Shafi'i also upholds this view. Though Abu Hanifah is inclined to the former view, he also grants permission to benefit from sacrificial animals in case of need.

63. It refers elsewhere in the Qur'an to sacrificial animals as those that are 'brought to the Ka'bah' (al-Mā'idah 5: 95). This does not mean that the sacrifice should be performed inside the Ka'bah, or in the Holy Mosque. It rather means that it is meant for sacrifice within the sacred precincts of the Haram. This is corroborated by the fact that often when the Qur'an uses the words 'Ka'bah, the House of Allah', or the 'Holy Mosque', it means the sacred precincts of Makka rather than the building known as the Ka'bah.

64. This verse brings out two fundamental truths. First, that sacrifice has always been an integral part of the system of worship in all versions of Divine Law. The essential requirements for consecrating worship for the One True God is that all forms in which men have ever worshipped other deities be consecrated exclusively for God. For instance, men have bowed down and prostrated themselves before false gods; God's Law, as revealed to the Prophets, however, consecrated these rites exclusively to God. In the past, men made pecuniary offerings to others than the One True God. The Law of God forbade the making of offerings to others than God, and laid down Zakāh and Ṣadaqah as the acceptable, indeed obligatory forms of pecuniary offerings to God. In the past people visited the shrines of false gods; the Law declared certain sites to be sacred or the House of God, and directed believers to make Pilgrimage to and circumambulate around them. Men had fasted for the sake of others than God; the Law of God laid down that men shall fast, but only for the sake of the One True God. Likewise, men had offered sacrificial animals at the altars of deities: the Law prohibited all sacrificial offerings to anyone other than the One True God, and made it obligatory that such sacrifices be offered to Him.

The other point emphasized in this verse is that what really matters is that sacrifice be truly made for the sake of God rather than for the legal minutiae of the act. Whilst details of sacrifice have varied in different times, lands, and communities, the common denominator, however, has always been the spirit and purpose of sacrifice.

65. It is hard to find a one-word equivalent for mukhbitin. Essentially, it embraces the following three meanings: (1) to eschew arrogance and vanity and humble oneself before God; (2) to feel gratified at serving God; and (3) to feel satisfied with whatever God has decreed. (See Ālūsī. Rūḥ al-Ma'ānī, vol. 4, p. 154 - Ed.)

66. As we have pointed out earlier, God never calls the things that are unlawfully earned or are inherently impure as His sustenance (rizq). The meaning of this verse, therefore, is that believers spend out of the lawful and wholesome sustenance bestowed on them by God. Again, this spending is not to be understood in its absolute sense. For the spending which is approved by Islam consists of spending to meet the legitimate needs of oneself and one's family, spending to assist one's relatives, neighbours and the needy, spending to support acts of public welfare, and spending in order to generously contribute to efforts aimed at upholding the Word of God. The Qur'an does not sanction extravagant expenditure, nor spending on luxury, nor excessive ostentatious spending to display one's piety. Such spending is not infäq, because it is not sufficiently meritorious. Such forms of expenditure are in fact condemned as extravagant and wasteful. At the same time, the Qur'an does not approve of a person being stingy and niggardly in his spending, of spending so sparingly that one's dependants live in unduly straitened circumstances, spending on oneself much less than is warranted by one's financial position, or an aversion to providing assistance to God's creatures. Whatever a person spends in this way is not deemed, in Islamic parlance, as infäq. It is rather considered as bukhl (miserliness; niggardliness) or shuḥh al-nafs (covetousness; avarice).

67. In Arabic usage, the word budn which is used in this verse denotes camels only.[1] However, the Prophet (peace be on him) clarified that it is permissible to sacrifice oxen as well as camels. As with camels, seven people may have a share in the sacrifice of an oxen. Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah reported that the Prophet (peace be on him) commanded us that we may share in sacrifice: a camel on behalf of seven persons and also a cow on behalf of seven persons'. (See Muslim, K. al-Hajj, 'Bab Bayan Wujub al-Iḥrām wa annahū yajūz Ifrad al-Hajj wa al-Tamattu' wa al-Qiran'.) In Muslim the words of the tradition narrated by Jabir are as follows:

أمرنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أن نشترك في الأضاحي البدنة عن سبعة والبقرة عن سبعة

[1]. This seems questionable. The word budn seems to signify both camels and oxen. See b-d- n in Lisan al-'Arab, root b-d-n. See also Alūsi, Rüḥ al-Ma'ānī, vol. 17, p. 155 - Ed.)

68. To say that 'there is much good for you in them' implies that people derive much benefit from them. This is suggestive of why people should sacrifice animals: in other words, man is required to make sacrifices in the name of God for the innumerable benefits that have been bestowed upon him by God. Sacrifice, however, should not only be offered to thank God, but also to acknowledge His Supremacy and Lordship. It is required that man should fully appreciate all that he has is an endowment from God.

As far as sacrifice is concerned, such an appreciation should fill man's heart and should be manifest from his actions. Sacrifice indeed is quite pervasive. Iman and islām constitute the sacrifice of one's inner self. Prayer and fasting represent bodily sacrifice. Zakāh represents sacrifice of the wealth which God has granted us in a variety of forms. Jihad represents the sacrifice of time, and of mental and physical capacities. Fighting in the way of God represents the sacrifice of life. Each of these amount to thanking God for the different kinds of bounties and endowments we have received from Him. Likewise, the sacrifice of animals has also been enjoined in order that we may thank God and acknowledge the great favour He has conferred upon us by His subduing on our behalf a great many of the animals He created. As a result, we benefit from them: we ride them, we employ them in cultivation, in transporting goods, and we partake of their meat and milk. In fact, we also use their hair, blood and bones in countless ways.

69. It needs to be pointed out that a camel is slaughtered in a standing position. One of its feet is tied, and a sharp knife slits through its throat, causing an abundance of blood to gush out. After a considerable amount of blood is drained out, the camel falls to the ground. This is what is meant by the word ṣawaff. 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas, Mujahid and Daḥḥāk have also explained the verse in this sense. (See Ibn Kathir, vol. 2, p. 223 Ed.) In fact this mode of slaughter is also reported on the authority of the Prophet (peace be on him). According to a tradition in both Ṣaḥiḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥiḥ Muslim, 'Abd Allāh ibn 'Umar once observed someone slaughtering a camel while it was in the sitting position. To which he said: 'Slaughter it while it is in a standing position, and is tied, as was the practice of Abu al-Qāsim [i.e. the Prophet Muḥammad] (peace be on him).' (See Bukhārī, K. al-Hajj, 'Bāb Naḥr al-Ibl Muqayyadah' and Muslim, K. al-Hajj, 'Bāb Nahr al-Budun' - Ed.) It is also narrated by Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah that the Prophet (peace be on him) and his Companions used to tie one leg of the camel such that it was standing on its remaining three legs and then they would slaughter it. (See Abū Dā'ūd, K. al-Manāsik, 'Bāb Kayfa Tunḥar al-Budun - Ed.) This mode of slaughtering is also implicit in the present Qur'ānic verse which says: ... and when they fall down on their sides' (al-Hajj 22: 36).

For a camel can only fall down if it is slaughtered in a standing position; had it been lying on the ground at the time of slaughter the above account would not be applicable.

70. These words once again reinforce the point that an animal does not become lawful unless it is slaughtered in the name of God. Hence, God does not direct us to slaughter an animal, but simply to pronounce His name on it. The fact that this expression signifies the slaughtering of animals establishes that in Islamic Law there is no concept of slaughtering an animal without pronouncing God's name on it.

while بسم

الله، الله أكبر : It is pertinent to point out that the practice of saying

slaughtering an animal is derived from the present verse. For it lays down the directive to pronounce God's name while slaughtering animals, whereas verse 37 identifies that God should be magnified in recognition of His bestowal of true Guidance. In the traditions, we find mention of several sets of expressions to be pronounced at the time of slaughtering an animal.

Some of the formulas recited on this occasion are:

(1) بسم الله والله أكبر، اللهم منك ولك

'In the name of Allah; Allah is Great. O Allah! This is from You and this is for You.' (See the comments of Ālüsī, Rüḥ al-Ma'ānī, vol. 17, p. 155 on verse 36 Ed.)

(2) الله أكبر، لا إله إلا الله، اللهم منك ولك

'Allah is Great. There is no god other than Allah. Allah! This is from You and is offered to You.' (See the comments of Ālūsī, Rūḥ al-Ma'ānī, ibid., on verse 36 - Ed.)

(3) ابي وجهت وجهي للذي فطر السماوات والأرض حنيفا وما أنا من المشركين، إن صلاتي ونسكي ومحياي ومماتي لله رب العالمين لا شريك له وبذلك أمرت وأنا أول المسلمين، اللهم

منك ولك

'I have exclusively directed myself to Him Who created the heavens and the earth and I am not of those who associate others with Allah in His Divinity. My Prayers and my [ritual] sacrifice and my living and my dying are all for Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. O my Allah, this is from You and is offered to You.' (See Abū Dā'ūd, K. al-Aḍāḥī, ‘Bāb mā yustaḥabbu min al-Daḥāyā' - Ed.)

71. 'Falling down on their sides' does not simply mean that the sacrificial animal's body touches the ground when it falls down after slaughter. It also means that its body becomes still when its wreathing ceases and it completely dies. (Thus it is required that until the animal is fully dead, no part of its flesh be cut off - Ed.) The Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'Whatever is cut off from an animal that is alive, is like a carcass,' (See Abū Dā'ūd, Tirmidhi and Aḥmad ibn Hanbal's Musnad.) (See Abū Dā'ūd, K. al-Ṣayd, 'Bāb fî Şayd Quti'a minhu Qit'ah', Tirmidhi, K. al-Aḍāḥī, ‘Bāb mã quți'a min al-Hayy fa huwa Mayyit' and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 5, p. 218 - Ed.)

72. This again alludes to the reason for instituting the ritual of sacrificing animals: the purpose is to offer thanks to God for His great favour in making the cattle subservient to man.

73. In pre-Islamic times, the Arabs used to offer the flesh of the animals they sacrificed at the altars of idols. In like manner, they brought the flesh of animals so sacrificed to the Ka'bah, smearing the walls of the Ka'bah with their blood. Exposing the underlying folly of this practice, the Qur'an points out that what reaches God is not the blood or the flesh of the sacrificed animal, but rather piety. If a man sacrifices an animal out of genuine feelings of gratitude to God, and does so with purity of intention and for the sake of God alone, then the purity of his spirit and intention is bound to reach God. Devoid of that purity of spirit, however, the mere offering of blood and flesh are meaningless. The same point is made in the following ḥadīth which states that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'God does not look at your faces or complexions; He rather looks at your intentions and your deeds.' (See Ibn Majah, K. al-Zuhd, 'Bab al-Qana'h' and Aḥmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 2, p. 285. In both these works there occurs the word أموالكم instead of ألوانكم Ed.)

74. That is, one should sincerely acknowledge God's greatness and paramountcy, and this should be reflected in one's deeds. Here, once again, we find reference to the objective of sacrifice. Sacrifice has been made obligatory not only to express man's gratitude to God for making the cattle subservient to him, it has also been instituted in order that man may fully remember, both in thought and deed, the Lordship of God Who subjected the cattle, His creatures, to man's control. This enables man to avoid falling prey to the illusion that he is the true master of whatever he happens to possess. The formula recited at the time of slaughtering an animal (see n. 70 above), emphatically states that God is the true Master of everything including the animals that men sacrifice: 'O my Allah, this is from You and is offered to You.' (See Ibn Majah, K. al-Aḍāḥī, 'Bāb Aḍāḥi Rasul Allah' - Ed.)

It must also be pointed out here that the Qur'anic injunction with regard to sacrifice is not just meant for pilgrims. Nor is it meant to be performed only in Makka at the time of Hajj. Sacrifice is obligatory on all Muslims who can afford it, regardless of where they might be. For, by offering this sacrifice, they can thank God for making the cattle subservient to them and, thereby, extol the greatness of God. Indeed, Muslims who are unable to perform Pilgrimage, often sacrifice animals at the time of Hajj, and in this way at least they are able to do one thing that all pilgrims do in the neighbourhood of the Ka'bah.

The obligatory nature of sacrificing animals is amply borne out by a number of sayings of the Prophet (peace be on him). Many authentic traditions establish that the Prophet (peace be on him) used to sacrifice animals on the occasion of 'Id al-Adha during the Madinan period of his life, and that sacrifice came into vogue among Muslims for that reason. Abu Hurayrah narrates that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'He who has the means and yet does not offer sacrifice shall not approach our Prayer-place.' (See Ibn Majah, K. al-Aḍāḥī, 'Bāb al-Aḍāḥī Wajibah am la' - Ed.) Whilst all narrators of this tradition are reliable, the only disagreement there is relates to whether the tradition goes back to the Prophet himself or stops at the Companions. According to another tradition narrated by 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar: 'The Prophet (peace be on him) stayed in Madina for ten years and every year he made a sacrifice.' (See Tirmidhi, K. al-Aḍāḥī, ‘Bāb al- Dalil 'ala ann al-Udhiyyah Sunnah' - Ed.) According to still another tradition, Anas ibn Malik narrates that on the day of 'Id al-Adha the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'He who has slaughtered before the Prayer should repeat his sacrifice. As for him who sacrifices after the Prayer, his sacrificial duty is completed, and he [will be deemed] to have correctly followed the way of Muslims.' (See Bukhari, K. al-Aḍāḥī, 'Bāb Sunnat al-Udhiyyah wa qala Ibn 'Umar hiya Sunnah wa Ma'ruf'. The words of the ḥadīth from Anas ibn Mälik in Bukhārī are as follows:

من ذبح قبل الصلاة فإنما ذبح لنفسه ومن ذبح بعد الصلاة فقد تم نسكه وأصاب سنة المسلمين – Ed.)

Now, it is known that on the Day of Sacrifice [that is, on the 10th of Dhu al-Hijjah] no Prayer is held in Makka. Hence the whole question of sacrificing animals before or after the 'Id Prayer in Makka is totally irrelevant. Hence, it is certain that the Prophet's above statement was not made on the occasion of Hajj in Makka, it could only have been made in Madina. According to a tradition narrated by Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah, on one occasion when the Prophet (peace be on him) led the 'Id al-Adha Prayer in Madina, some people thought that he had offered the sacrifice before the Prayer. So thinking, they offered their own. When the Prophet (peace be on him) came to know of this he directed those people to repeat their sacrifice. (See Muslim, K. al-Aḍāḥī, 'Bab Sunan al-Udhiyyah' - Ed.)

Thus, it is beyond all doubt that the sacrifice made by Muslims all over the world on the occasion of 'Ïd al-Adha is a sunnah introduced by the Prophet (peace be on him). If there is any disagreement on the subject it is whether offering the sacrifice is a wajib (obligatory) or simply a sunnah (i.e. a recommended) act. Ibrāhīm al-Nakha'i, Abū Ḥanifah, Mālik, Muḥammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybānī and, according to one report; Abu Yusuf regard it as wajib whereas Shafi'i and Aḥmad ibn Hanbal consider it a sunnah. Sufyan al-Thawri is also of the opinion that he who does not offer the sacrifice is not guilty of a sin. Nonetheless, no Muslim scholar subscribes to the opinion that if Muslims abandoned it altogether it would not be a sin. The preposterous view that the institution of sacrifice can be altogether abolished is an innovation of our own times and has been put forward by people who are guided by nothing else but their own desires.

75. This marks the beginning of a new discourse. In order to better understand it, one should recall that this part was revealed on the occasion of the first Hajj after the Muslims had migrated to Madina. Obviously, both the Muhajirun and Anṣār were quite annoyed over the fact that they had been denied the opportunity to perform Hajj and were forcibly restrained from visiting Makka. Moreover, the persecution perpetrated on the Muslims in Makka was still fresh in people's minds. Additionally, they were incensed at the fact that even after Hijrah, the Makkan Quraysh were not prepared to leave them in peace in Madina.

The first part of the discourse revealed on this occasion consists of a detailed discussion of the true purpose of building the Ka'bah, of establishing the institution of Hajj and laying down the rites pertaining to sacrifice. It was, thereby, shown how the true purpose of all these institutions had been grossly distorted by Jahiliyah. Thus, the Muslims were infused with a sincere zeal to change the current state of affairs, and to do so with a reformist spirit rather than with vengeance. At the same time, by instituting the ritual of sacrifice in Madina, the Muslims were able to share a privilege they had been denied by their enemies. That is to perform a rite which was performed by all pilgrims during the Hajj season, and to do so while staying in their homes without even making the Pilgrimage. All this because the ritual of sacrifice was instituted as a religious rite independent of Pilgrimage so that even those who did not perform Hajj could still give thanks to God for His blessings and so glorify Him.

In the second part of the discourse, the Muslims are permitted to unsheathe their swords against the injustice to which they had been subjected in the past. and from which they still suffered.

76. The verb yudafi'u is derived from the root d-f- which literally means to ward off, to repel an attack, to defend. When the word df' is used as a verb in the present tense, however, it also suggests the following two connotations: first. that there is an enemy which is on the offensive and that the defending party is engaged in repelling it. Second, that this encounter is not a one-time affair. Rather. whenever there is any such offence, it should be met with an operation aimed at resisting it.

If one bears both these meanings in mind, the statement that 'Allah defends those who believe' acquires special significance. It means that the believers are not alone; that God, Himself, is a party with them. He helps and supports them. counters the stratagems of their enemies, and wards off the harm that their enemies try to inflict upon them. The verse, therefore, is in the nature of a tiding from God to the believers. Undoubtedly, nothing else could have inspired them with greater assurance or be a source of greater comfort than this bounty from God.

77. This explains why God becomes a party with the votaries of the truth in the conflict between faith and unbelief. The reason being that those who fight against the truth engage in treachery and are guilty of ingratitude to God for all the bounties bestowed on them by Him. They are guilty of breaching every trust. of responding to each of God's innumerable bounties with ingratitude. Hence. God does not like them and, instead, supports those devotees to the truth who strive against them.

78. We have already mentioned in the introduction to this surah that it contains the very first verse in which leave was granted to the Muslims to engage in fighting (qital) in the way of God. The present verse, however, simply grants Muslims the permission to fight. It was only later that they were commanded to fight. The verses embodying this command are as follows: (1) 'Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you' (al-Baqarah 2: 190); (2) And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out' (al- Baqarah 2: 191); (3) 'And fight them until there is no more oppression and the way prescribed by Allah prevails' (al-Baqarah 2: 193); (4) 'Fighting is prescribed upon you and you dislike it' (al-Baqarah 2: 216); (5) 'Then fight in the cause of Allah and know that Allah hears and knows all things' (al-Baqarah 2: 244).

There was only a short lapse of time between the granting of permission to fight and the command to do so. To the best of our knowledge, such permission was granted in Dhu al-Hijjah 1 A.H., while the command was given a little before the Battle of Badr, either in Rajab or Sha'ban 2 A.H.

79. Although the Muslims were few in number, God could still make them prevail against the polytheists of Arabia. It might be noted that at the time when the Muslims were granted permission to take up arms against their tormentors, their power was limited to the confines of a small town and the total number of Muhajirun and Anṣār did not reach even the figure of one thousand. It was in this situation that the challenge was thrown down to the Quraysh, the latter enjoying the support of many polytheistic tribes of Arabia, and who, a little later on, also gained the support of the Jews.

In this context, it was appropriate that the Muslims be assured that Allah, being 'Immensely Strong, overwhelmingly Mighty' was fully capable of supporting them. This assurance gave them encouragement to take on the whole of Arabia. Moreover, this was also a warning to the unbelievers that they were not pitted against only a handful of Muslims, but were in fact engaged in an encounter with the Almighty God. If they, indeed, had the power to confront Him, they were welcome to try.

80. This phrase makes it quite clear that this part of Surah al-Ḥajj was definitely revealed after the Hijrah.

81. One can possibly gauge the extent of the persecution suffered by the Muslims in Makka, forcing them to migrate to Madina, by the following incidents:

When Ṣuhayb al-Rūmī was about to migrate, the unbelieving Quraysh told him that since he had arrived in Makka empty-handed and had become rich during his stay there, he could leave only if he left all his belongings behind. Quite obviously, all that Ṣuhayb had earned was by dint of hard work. Yet he was forced to leave everything behind so that when he reached Madina he was once again empty-handed.

Umm Salamah and her husband, Abū Salamah, set out to migrate along with their suckling baby. They were stopped on the way by Banu Mughirah, the tribe to which Umm Salamah belonged. The relatives of Umm Salamah told her husband that he was free to go wherever he wanted but could not take along any female member of their tribe. He was, thus, forced to leave his wife behind. Then Banu 'Abd al-Asad, the tribe to which Abū Salamah belonged, approached him and told him that since the baby belonged to the tribe, he should also leave that behind. He was, thus, separated from both his wife and child, and remained so for almost a year. Likewise, Umm Salamah had to live alone, and it was only after much difficulty that she managed to retrieve her baby and leave for Madina. She travelled all this distance on a camel with the baby in her lap, using routes dreaded by even armed caravans. (See Ibn Hisham, vol. 1, p. 469 - Ed.)

'Ayyash ibn Rabi'ah, a cousin of Abu Jahl, reached Madina along with 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. While on his way, Abu Jahl sent someone to 'Ayyash with a false report that his mother had vowed that if he did not return to her, she would not move out of the scorching sun into the shade, nor comb her hair. Moved by love for his mother, 'Ayyash decided to return to Makka. On his return journey, he was captured by his brothers and brought to Makka tied with ropes. As he entered Makka, one of his brothers announced: 'O people of Makka! Here is an example for you to retrieve the members of your families.' 'Ayyash was interned for a long time, but eventually he was rescued by a courageous Muslim who helped him migrate to Madina.

Almost everyone who dared to migrate to Madina was subjected to similar persecution. The Makkan unbelievers were callous and did not even allow these oppressed Muslims to depart in a decent manner. (See Ibn Hisham, vol. 1, p. 474 f. - Ed.)

82. The Qur'an uses the following expressions: ṣawāmi, biya' and ṣalawāt. While the word sawāmi' signifies a place inhabited by monks and ascetics, biya' and salawat stand respectively for Christian and Jewish places of worship. Ṣalawāt is a derivative of ṣalawta, originally an Aramaic word. It is not unlikely that the words 'salute' and 'salutation', derive from the word salawta, finding their way first into Latin and, thereafter, into English. (For these words see Ālūsī, Rūḥ al- Ma'ānī, vol. 17, p. 163 - Ed.)

83. It is indeed one of God's great favours that He has not bestowed perpetual power and authority on any particular group of people. On the contrary, He keeps removing one group of people from its position of power through another. Had a particular group been granted that privilege on a permanent basis, they would have destroyed virtually everything, forts, castles, palaces, and centres of political, industrial and commercial activity as also places of worship. The same point is made elsewhere in the Qur'an: 'And were it not that Allah repelled men with one another, the earth would surely be overlaid with mischief; but Allah is Bounteous to the people of the world' (al-Baqarah 2: 251).

84. That those who summon mankind to monotheism, strive to establish the true faith, and seek to promote righteousness in place of evil are helpers of God is a recurrent theme in the Qur'an. This is so because the above- mentioned tasks are God's, and those who exert themselves in the performance of these tasks, thereby, become His helpers. For further elaboration see Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. 1, Äl 'Imran 3, n. 50, p. 257.

85. These are the characteristics of those who help God and who are deserving of God's aid and support. When power is bestowed on them, rather than on those who engage in evil deeds and who strut about arrogantly exulting in their power, such people concern themselves with such noble tasks like establishing Prayer. Likewise, rather than squandering their wealth on luxury and self-indulgence, they use it in the way of Zakah. Again, they use their power to promote goodness and to extirpate evil.

This verse succinctly states the basic objective of the Islamic state. It also clearly expresses the main characteristics of its functionaries and rulers. Anyone who wants to comprehend the nature of the Islamic state will be able to do so with the help of this single verse.

86. It is, in fact, God Who decides to whom governance of a territory should be entrusted. People who are intoxicated with power are prone to misunderstand that it is they who decide the fate of people. But God, Who has the power to transform a tiny seed into a huge tree, and Who conversely, can turn a huge tree into a pile of ashes, also has the power to strike a fatal blow and make an example of those who, by their acts of repression, struck terror into the hearts of people making themselves appear too well entrenched to be removed from power. On the other hand, He can also raise the drown-trodden to heights of power that none can dream of.

87. This alludes to the unbelievers of Makka.

88. No people in the past were visited with God's scourge immediately after they rejected the Prophet sent to them, calling him a liar. On the contrary, each people was granted respite several times in order that they might understand and mend their ways. Yet each of them was eventually punished after all the dictates of justice had been fully met. The unbelievers of Makka should, therefore, not misperceive the fact that they have not as yet been punished and they should not, therefore, look upon the warnings of the Prophet (peace be on him) as hollow and baseless. They should instead realize that the respite which they are enjoying has been granted to them in keeping with God's way of dealing with nations to whom He sends Prophets. If they do not make proper use of the respite granted to them they are bound to meet the same fate as that of their predecessors and be dealt an awesome punishment.

89. The word nakīr used in the verse is far too rich to be adequately expressed by a one-word equivalent such as punishment. The word rather signifies two things: (1) strong disapproval of someone's evil ways; (2) the infliction of a severe punishment on him, a punishment that reduces him to a miserable thing, so miserable he does not even remain recognizable. In view of the above, the Qur'ānic statement means that by incurring God's Wrath for their misdeeds, a woeful fate has befallen them.

90. In Arabic usage, the word bi'r connotes 'well' in addition to 'habitat'. When a town is inhabited by a particular tribe it is also mentioned by reference to its well. Likewise, if an Arab is told that all the wells are dried up, he readily understands that this alludes to the desertion and abandonment of that habitat.

91. One should not lose sight of the fact that the Qur'ānic discourse is couched in literary rather than scientific phraseology. One should not, therefore, get stuck with the question of how can anyone say that the organ, the heart, which is located in man's bosom, think? In literary usage, emotions, feelings, thoughts, in fact all actions of the brain are ascribed to the heart. When a person says that he remembers something, he expresses the idea by saying that such and such a thing is preserved or stored in his heart.

92. This refers to the ludicrous statement repeatedly made by the Makkan unbelievers to the effect that if Muḥammad (peace be on him) was indeed a Prophet sent by God, then why had his detractors not been visited by the scourge that ought to afflict those who deny a true Prophet? Why did such a scourge not specifically visit them even though they had repeatedly been warned by their Prophet that were they to deny him they would be seized by a calamity?

93. It is preposterous to think that the consequences of obeying or disobeying God's injunctions can be observed instantly. If a nation is warned that a certain pattern of behaviour it follows will prove catastrophic, it is absurd for them to retort that they have taken that course for the last ten, twenty, or fifty years, and still no calamity has befallen them. For it often takes not days, months or years, but centuries for the consequences of a people's behaviour to become fully evident.

94. It is clarified here that the decision about the fate of a people does not rest with the Prophet (peace be on him). His job is merely to warn them before God's punishment actually overtakes them. As for the ultimate decision, it rests with God alone. He alone decides who is to be granted respite and till when, and who is to be punished and in what manner.

95. The word maghfirah signifies overlooking one's faults, weaknesses and being indulgent. The other expression used here, rizq karīm, signifies the sustenance which is both instrinsically good and which is provided in an honourable manner.

96. For further clarification on the distinction between the terms rasul and nabi see Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. V, Maryam 19, n. 30, pp. 161-3.

97. The word tamanna is employed in Arabic to denote two things (see m-n-y in Lisän al-'Arab - Ed.): (1) to wish and yearn for something, and (2) to recite.

98. Were the word tamanna to be taken in the first sense, the verse would mean that Satan obstructs the fulfilment of the wishes of all Prophets and Messengers, but God fulfils them despite Satan's efforts. Taken in the second sense, (namely, that of recitation), the verse would mean that whenever the Prophet (peace be on him) recited the Word of God to people, Satan sowed doubts in their hearts, dressed it up with weird meanings, and prompted people to misconstrue the Qur'an in every possible sense other than the right one.

99. According to the first meaning, the import of the statement is that notwithstanding Satan's obstructions, God will see to it that the Prophet's wish is fulfilled. And, quite obviously, what can a Prophet (peace be on him) wish for other than the successful accomplishment of his mission? God subsequently confirmed the truth of His promise made to the Prophet (peace be on him) when his mission was indeed fully accomplished.

If, however, the word is understood in the latter sense, the statement would suggest that God removes all the doubts Satan planted in peoples' minds and that He repels all the incriminations made about the teachings of the Prophets. Additionally, whatever misconceptions people might entertain regarding a particular verse are clarified by God in His revealing another verse with clearer import.

100. God knows full well the tricks to which Satan resorted and what their impact was. God's wisdom counters all Satan's evil designs, and frustrates them.

101. That is, God made Satan's evil designs a means of testing people so that those who are righteous may be distinguished from those who are evil. In the nature of things, those whose minds have been corrupted derive wrong conclusions from such things and this in turn becomes a means of misleading them. As for those whose minds are straight, those very things lead them to confirm the truthfulness of God's Prophets and His Books. The result is that these people are led to believe that all these are no more than Satan's mischiefs. They know that the Prophet's call is essentially to nothing other than truth and righteousness. Had this not been so, Satan would not have carried on so desperately.

If one bears in mind the context of the present discourse, one can easily grasp the import of the present verse. The specific stage through which the mission of the Prophet (peace be on him) was then passing misled many of those who were concerned only with appearances. Such people, therefore, behaved as though the Prophet had failed in his mission. For what people could observe was simply that the person who wished his people to believe in him, virtually found no other way after thirteen years of striving than to bid farewell to his homeland and this with only a handful of followers. When people considered the Prophet's claim that he was God's Messenger and that he enjoyed God's support in this context, or when they considered the proclamation of the Qur'an that unbelievers who reject a true Prophet are seized with God's scourge, they were inclined to doubt the veracity of both the Prophet and the Qur'an. In this way the detractors of the Prophet (peace be on him) were encouraged to let their tongues loose, so much so that they started mocking him, saying: 'Where is God's support that you so much talk about? What has happened to God's scourge against which you have been warning us?'

The preceding verses contain a response to these questions, as indeed do the present ones. There is, however, a difference: while the preceding verses were addressed to the unbelievers, the current ones are addressed to those believers who are somewhat influenced by the unbelievers' propaganda. The main thrust of the present discourse is as follows:

There is nothing new about a people's rejection of the Messenger sent to them, nor about their calling him a liar. History is replete with such instances.

At the same time, the tragic fate which these rejecters suffered is also well known; a fate which they could see with their own eyes in the ruins of the nations of Arabia that were obliterated by God's scourge. Those who wished to draw any lesson from all that could do so.

As for the query as to why God's punishment did not overtake the Makkans following their rejection of the Messenger (peace be on him), and their branding him a liar, it is pointed out that the Qur'an nowhere says that God's punishment will strike down wrong-doers the very moment that they deny the Prophet (peace be on him). Furthermore, the Prophet (peace be on him) never claimed that it would be he who would strike them down with a scourge. It is God alone Who decides such punishment, and He does not punish a whole nation in a hurry. Instead, before punishing a people He grants them sufficient respite. He has done so in the past and is doing so even now. Periods of respite sometimes extend to several centuries. Hence, if a nation that denies a Prophet has not been punished so far, this does not mean that the warnings in the Qur'an amount to no more than empty words.

Also, there is nothing new in the fact that obstructions were set in motion so as to prevent the desires and aspirations of a Prophet from materializing. Nor was there anything new in the false allegations or the storm of doubts and objections against the teachings of a Prophet. All this had been witnessed by previous Messengers. What is important to note, however, is that eventually God smothers all such Satanic mischiefs. Despite all obstructions, the call to truth flourishes and any doubts and misgivings that are created are obviated by the revelation of clear and unambiguous verses. Satan and his disciples employ a variety of designs to bring disgrace to God's Signs. God, however, thwarts these designs and turns them instead into a means of distinguishing between good and bad people. Thus, good people are attracted to the truth, and evil ones are separated, and become distinct from it.

This, then, is the thrust of these verses, as understood in the context against which this discourse was revealed. Regrettably, however, one particular report of this incident has given rise to a serious misunderstanding. This is of such a serious nature that not only the meaning of the verses in question is distorted, but the very foundation of Islam seems to be jeopardized. We are taking note of this, here, such that the students of the Qur'an are aware of the manner in which they can distinguish between adequate and inadequate methods in the use of historical reports for a proper understanding of the Qur'an. Basically, we are treating this question at some length so that one may become aware of the unwholesome consequences of accepting, uncritically, all historical reports, and become conscious of the pitfalls in excessive traditionalism, and that one, thus, may come to know the right ways of critically examining the reports that have come down to us. For, if one makes any mistakes in examining these reports, one is bound to end up with faulty interpretations of the Qur'an. The incident in question is reported as follows:

The Prophet (peace be on him) once felt the desire that God reveal something in the Qur'an that might remove the hatred of the unbelieving Quraysh for Islam so that they might come close to it; or at least that the Qur'an should not say anything so blatantly critical about their faith that might antagonize them further. It was whilst the Prophet (peace be on him) had this wish in mind, and he was sitting in a large gathering of the Quraysh that Surah al-Najm was revealed to him. He, thus, began to recite it, but when he reached the verses:

افرأيتم اللات والعزى ومناة الثالثة

(Have you seen al-Lät and al- 'Uzzä, and another, the third, al- Manat, al-Najm 53: 19-20), suddenly he involuntarily uttered the following words:

تلك الغرائقة العلى وإن شفاعتهن لترجي

(These are exalted deities whose intercession should surely be looked forward to.)

He then proceeded further, reciting the remaining verses of the surah. At the conclusion of the surah when the Prophet (peace be on him) prostrated himself, all those present in the gathering, both believers and unbelievers, followed suit. The unbelieving Quraysh said that there no longer remained any disagreement between them and Muḥammad (peace be on him). They contended that their belief was also the same: that while God was the Creator and Sustainer, that did not detract from the fact that other gods and goddesses would still intercede with Him.

The angel Gabriel visited the Prophet (peace be on him) that same evening and expressed his disapproval of what he had done; his having added to the revelation the sentences which he [i.e. Gabriel] had not brought to him. This grieved the Prophet (peace be on him) intensely, whereupon God revealed the following verses which occur in Bani Isrā'il:

They had all but tempted you away from what We have revealed to you that you may invent something else in Our Name. Had you done so, they would have taken you as their trusted friend. Indeed, had We not strengthened you, you might have inclined to them a little, whereupon We would have made you taste double [the chastisement] in the world and double the chastisement after death, and then you would have found none to help you against Us (Bani Isrā'il 17: 73-5).

This incident, however, continued to torment the Prophet (peace be on him) until this above verse of the present surah was revealed. This aimed at consoling him, identifying as it did that something similar had happened to the earlier Messengers as well.

At the same time, the Muslims who had migrated to Abyssinia also came to learn that the Quraysh had prostrated themselves along with the Prophet (peace be on him) when the latter had recited this verse. Understandably, this led them to assume that a reconciliation had beer brought about between the Prophet (peace be on him) and the unbelievers. Many migrants, therefore, returned to Makka, only to learn that the report was false and that the hostility between Islam and unbelief' persisted as before. (See the comments of Ibn Kathir and Qurtubi on verse 52 Ed.)

This incident is mentioned by Tabari in his Tafsir as well as by several other commentators in their exegeses of the Qur'an. It is also found in Ibn Sa'd's Tabaqat, in al-Wahidi's Ashab al-Nuzül, in the Maghazi of Mūsā ibn 'Uqbah, and in the Ḥadīth collections of Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Marduwayh and al-Tabarani. The report has also been transmitted on the authority of the following narrators: Muḥammad ibn Qays, Muḥammad ibn Ka'b al-Qurazi, 'Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, Abū Ṣāliḥ, Abū al-'Aliyah, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Dahḥāk, and Abu Bakr ibn 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Abbas, the only one among the Companions said to do so.

Leaving aside several minor discrepancies in the details of these various accounts, there are two serious areas of disagreement. First, the utterance ascribed to the Prophet (peace be on him) in praise of the deities differs in almost every single report. We have attempted to examine all these reports and have found at least fifteen different versions of what the Prophet (peace be on him) is supposed to have said.

The other major discrepancy is that according to some reports this utterance was instigated by Satan and the Prophet (peace be on him) mistook this Satanic inspiration for genuine revelation. In other reports, it is claimed that the sentences uttered by the Prophet (peace be on him) reflected his own desire. According to still others, the Prophet (peace be on him) had dozed off for a short while and these sentences were uttered in that state, or that he deliberately uttered them, meaning to couch them in the form of a question so as to negate the power of the deities concerned to intercede with God, or that Satan pronounced these words, joining his voice with the Prophet's, the assumption being that that statement was made by the Prophet (peace be on him), or in other reports that the words were uttered by one of the idolaters.

Ibn Kathir, Bayhaqi, Qäḍī 'Iyäḍ, Ibn Khuzaymah, Abu Bakr ibn al-'Arabi, Rāzi, Qurtubi, Badr al-Din al-'Ayni, Shawkānī and Ālüsī are among the scholars who reject this report lock, stock and barrel. Ibn Kathir, for instance, says: *All the chains of transmission of this report that have been narrated are mursal and munqata' (interrupted).' Bayhaqī, rejects it, saying that it is not established according to the canons of transmission. When Ibn Khuzaymah was asked about it he said: 'It is an invention of Zanadiqah (heretics).' Qāḍī 'Iyāḍ states: "That this report is weak is established by the fact that none of the compilers of the six authentic collections of Hadith have narrated it, nor does it occur in any sound, uninterrupted, fault-free chain of narration; nor is it narrated by trustworthy narrators.' Rāzi, Abu Bakr ibn al-'Arabi and Alūsī all examined this report in detail and forcefully rejected it. On the other hand, however, such a leading scholar of Ḥadīth as Ibn Hajar, a distinguished jurist such as Abu Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ, and the rationalistically inclined commentator of the Qur'an al-Zamakhshari, and a no less distinguished authority on Tafsir, history and Fiqh than Tabari are of the opinion that this report is genuine and regard it as the right explanation of the verse in question. Here is the argument advanced by Ibn Hajar:

The chains of narrators of this report, except the one by Sa'id ibn Jubayr, are either weak (da'if) or interrupted (munqața). However, the sheer numerousness of the chains of narration of the report suggests that there is some basis to the report. Moreover, it has also been reported through a chain of narration as an uninterrupted tradition backed up by a chain of reliable narrators which has been recorded by al-Bazzar. (This refers to the following chain of narrators: Yusuf ibn Hammäd, Umayyah ibn Khalid, Shu'bah, Abū Bishr, Sa'id ibn Jubayr, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbās.) Although two chains of narration of this tradition are mursal, its narrators fulfil the conditions as laid down in the standard works of Ḥadīth. Both these chains of narration have been recorded by Tabarī; the one through Yūnus ibn Yazīd, is Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri's and the other through. Mu'ammar ibn Sulayman and Ḥammad ibn Salamah is from Da'ud ibn Abū Hind from Abu al-'Aliyah.

So far as the supporters of this report are concerned, they consider it completely sound. Even its detractors have failed to subject it to critical scrutiny. One group of scholars rejects it simply on the ground that its chains of narrators are not sound. In other words, had this been so, i.e. the chain sound, they would have confirmed the truth of the narration. Another group reject it out of hand on the premise that if the story is accepted as true, everything pertaining to Islam becomes doubtful. To accept the report means there is no strong basis for belief in any of the teachings of Islam. This because there is no way of knowing which elements of Islam have retained their original, pristine form, and which have been corrupted under the influence of Satan, or as a result of human desires.

Obviously, to reject this tradition may appeal to those who are determined to remain loyal to their faith. But surely it is not persuasive for those who are either already in a state of reluctance or who are inclined to scepticism about Islam. Nor does this argument satisfy those who have not made up their minds about whether they should believe or not, and would like to do so only after making further inquiry. Surely, such people cannot accept the proposition that whatever renders Islam doubtful should be rejected ipso facto. The contention being that as long as this tradition is endorsed by as much as at least one well- known Companion, several Successors, and a number of reliable narrators of Hadith, why should it be dismissed simply on the basis that it renders doubtful the basic tenets of Islam? Why should Islam not be considered doubtful when this story proves it so?

Let us now turn to the right method of criticism to be followed in evaluating the soundness of the tradition in question. If this method is followed, it is evident that regardless of the soundness of the chain of narration, this story is altogether incredible.

The first and foremost factor which establishes the falsity of the report is the internal evidence of the story itself. In this respect, the incident took place at a time when the Muslims had already migrated to Abyssinia and when these migrants heard about it all a number of them returned to Makka. Let us take a look, then, at the chronological sequence of events. (See Ibn Sa'd, Tabaqāt, vol. 1, pp. 213 f. - Ed.)

According to authentic, historical reports, the migration to Abyssinia took place in the month of Rajab in the fifth year of Prophethood. On learning about this incident and the resultant reconciliation between the Prophet (peace be on him) and the Makkan unbelievers, a group of migrants returned to Makka after three months, i.e. in the month of Shawwal during the fifth year of Prophethood. This, unmistakably, establishes that the incident took place in the fifth year after the conferment of Prophethood on Muḥammad (peace be on him).

It is claimed that the verse of Bani Isrā'il under discussion was revealed as a means of reproaching the Prophet (peace be on him). The fact is, however, that these verses were revealed after the Prophet's Ascension (Mi'raj). Furthermore, according to the most reliable historical reports, Mi'raj took place in the eleventh or twelfth year of Prophethood. This means, then, that God took the Prophet (peace be on him) to task for what he had done some five or six years previously!

Moreover, as is clearly indicated by the context, the verse was revealed in 1 A.H. In other words, two and a half years after the Prophet (peace be on him) was reproached in Sūrah Banī Isrā'īl, it is pointed out that the unjustified addition to God's revelation was made by him at the prompting of Satan, and that the addition now stood abrogated.

Can any sensible person believe that the Prophet (peace be on him) would be reproached for one of his acts six years after it occurred, and that almost nine years after the Prophet's utterance which had brought about God's reproach it would be declared abrogated?

مناة الثالثة الأخرى

Moreover, according to this report, the incident in question was alluded to in Surah al-Najm. When the Prophet (peace be on him) reached the words (see al-Najm 53: 19-20), he added a statement either of his own volition or under Satan's influence. However, after he had added those few words, he resumed the recitation of subsequent verses of the surah. The tradition in question mentions that on hearing the Prophet's praise for their deities, the Makkan unbelievers felt intensely happy and declared that the difference between them and the Prophet (peace be on him) had ended.

Now let us attempt to read the relevant verses of Surah al-Najm, adding the words the Prophet (peace be on him) is supposed to have interjected, and see how it reads:

Have you then considered al-Lat and al-'Uzzā? And al-Manāt, the other one, the third? These are exalted deities whose intercession should surely be looked forward to. Shall sons be yours and for Him (i.e. Allah) there should be daughters? This is an unfair division! Nay, these are but names that you have named and Allah has sent down no authority for it. They are merely following conjectures and fancies of their liking without receiving any guidance from Allah (al-Najm 53:19-23).

Just consider the location of the italicized words and you are bound to be struck by its incongruity, by its being totally discordant with the main thrust of the discourse. For, if these words are there, the relevant verses would assert in one breath that the deities of the Makkan unbelievers are exalted and have the power to intercede with God, and in the very next, emphasize the stupidity of the doctrine by identifying the unfairness of the division, i.e. daughters for God, and sons for themselves. This is not only mischievously unfair, but also something for which God has not given any sanction.

Let us disregard for the moment that this statement is too preposterous to have been made by an intelligent person. Let us assume instead that for a moment Satan temporarily had such influence over the Prophet (peace be on him) that he indeed uttered these words in praise of other deities. But what happened to the audience, the Quraysh? Had they gone altogether insane that notwithstanding a devastating refutation of their beliefs in subsequent verses, they took these two sentences, supposedly uttered by the Prophet, at face value and assumed that their deities had indeed been extolled? It will be seen that the whole thrust of Surah al- Najm, right from its opening verse to the one that concludes it, is in blatant opposition to the statement that allegedly occurs in between a statement which affirms an exalted position for the deities of the Quraysh. Does it stand to reason that the Quraysh would listen to the whole of Surah al-Najm, and still remain convinced that they had ceased to have any differences with the Prophet (peace be on him)?

This is the internal testimony of the account which establishes its utter baselessness and absurdity. The next point to be considered is whether the circumstantial context mentioned for the revelation of these three verses is in consonance with the sequence of revelation of the Qur'anic text.

According to accounts of the incident, the verses in question were made a part of Surah al-Najm, revealed in the fifth year of Prophethood. However, the verses which are supposed to contain the Prophet's reproach occur in Surah Bani Isra'il (verses 73-5). Thereafter, the verses concerned were abrogated and the whole incident explained in Surah al-Hajj (see verses 52-4 - Ed.).

Quite naturally, either of the two things must have happened. The first possibility is that the verses containing the Prophet's reproach and the abrogation of the verses were revealed, one following the other, shortly after the incident took place. In this case, the verses of reproach should have been revealed along with Surah Bani Isrā'il and the verse of abrogation along with Surah al-Ḥajj. If so, it seems very strange, indeed inexplicable, that these interrelated verses did not form part of Surah al-Najm. Instead, the verses which supposedly censure the Prophet (peace be on him) were deferred for a full six years, and were then made part of Surah Bani Isrä'il. Likewise, it seems strange that the verse clarifying the whole incident was held in abeyance for a further two and a half years, and then not made part of any surah until the revealing of Surah al-Hajj. This runs counter to the process of the collection of the Qur'an. For it would suggest that the verses revealed on different occasions were left lying dispersed, separated from one another, and only placed in different surahs after a lapse of several years.

If the first alternative is not tenable, let us consider the second: that the verses of reproach were revealed six years after the incident, and the verse of abrogation eight or nine years later. This of course lends itself to the criticism we have made above, namely, that this is extremely odd. Moreover, it raises the question of what the events were which occasioned the revelation of these verses of Surah Bani Isrā'il and Surah al-Hajj.

This brings us to the third canon of criticism, namely, that the adequacy or otherwise of the interpretation of a Qur'anic verse should be determined on the basis of whether it fits into the context of the Qur'anic text. Let us now look at verses 73-5 of Surah Bani Isrā'īl. Taking note of those verses that precede and follow the ones in question, do we find in them anything that calls for the reproach of the Prophet (peace be on him), and that too with regard to an incident that had taken place six years previously? One may well consider whether the words employed here ("They had all but tempted you away...' Bani Isrā'il 17: 73) indicate that the Prophet (peace be on him) was reproached; and also whether the verse can be considered to endorse or refute the Prophet's having fallen prey to the unbelievers' mischievous designs. Likewise, let us look at Surah al-Hajj which is before us, and specifically at the verses that precede and follow the one in question (i.e. verse 52). Is there any reasonable ground to believe how, in this context, the Prophet (peace be on him) would be abruptly reassured and told not to be too concerned at his act of having mixed with the Qur'an something extraneous to it? He need not worry because Satan had caused the Prophets of the past to do similar acts, and whenever a Prophet makes such a mistake, God abrogates those verses which have been mixed with true revelation under Satanic influence, and subsequently strengthens His own signs.

We have emphatically stated earlier and would like to reiterate here that no matter how well-supported a tradition might be in respect of its chain of narration, it can never be accepted if it testifies to its own falsity, or if the words of the Qur'anic text or their context and sequence are in discordance with that tradition. In fact, arguments based on these considerations are so unassailable that they should convince both those who are overly sceptical and those who are unbiased seekers after the truth that the account in question is altogether false.

As for a believer, it is obvious that he can never accept the account in question because it conflicts sharply with a large number of Qur'anic verses and, hence, can in no way be considered authentic. It is easier for a believer to accept that it was the narrators of the report who were misled by Satan rather than to believe that the Prophet (peace be on him) was so misguided that he added anything, however insignificant, to the text of the Qur'an. Nor can a believer entertain the view that the Prophet (peace be on him) would have toyed with the idea, even for a moment, of adulterating the pure Message of monotheism with elements of polytheism so as to win over unbelievers. Nor is it conceivable that the Prophet (peace be on him) would have desired that God not reveal to him something that would offend the unbelievers. Nor can it be imagined that revelation was communicated to the Prophet (peace be on him) in a manner that was not absolutely safe and beyond all doubt. For it is only in such circumstances that it is possible for both Gabriel and Satan to communicate messages to the Prophet (peace be on him), causing uncertainty in his mind and mistaking the words of Satan for those of Gabriel. Each of these assumptions is opposed to explicit statements of the Qur'an and is antithetical to our well-established beliefs regarding the Qur'an and the Prophet (peace be on him). May God save us from that exaggerated traditionalism which prompts us to accept monstrosities about the Qur'an and the Prophet (peace be on him) simply on such technical grounds as the uninterrupted transmission of a tradition, or the trustworthiness of the narrators of that tradition, or the sheer numerousness of the channels through which it has been transmitted.

It seems pertinent at this point to remove a misunderstanding which might agitate some minds because of the story being told by a large number of narrators of Hadith. For one might ask: if there is no truth in this story, how could a calumny, which calls into question the integrity of the Qur'an and the Prophet (peace be on him), gain currency among the Muslims? How did it come about that such a large number of narrators, including some very prominent and trustworthy ones, took part in transmitting it?

The problem can be well appreciated by turning to the Hadith literature itself. The incident, as reported in the works of Bukhārī, Muslim, Abū Dā'ūd, Nasa'i and Aḥmad ibn Hanbal is as follows: the Prophet (peace be on him) recited Surah al-Najm and when at its conclusion he prostrated himself, all those present followed suit. This is what took place and there is nothing for us to question about why it did. First, people fell into prostration because of the unusual force of the Qur'anic verses, made all the more effective by the moving manner in which the Prophet (peace be on him) recited them. We know that the unbelievers of Makka, despite their lack of belief in the Qur'an, were nonetheless well aware of its attractiveness. In fact, it was precisely for this reason that they branded the Prophet (peace be on him) a sorcerer. However, it appears that some of the Quraysh subsequently regretted their being involuntarily carried away, even if temporarily, by the spell of these verses. It is likely, therefore, that in order to justify their actions they fabricated the story that they had actually joined the Prophet (peace be on him) in prostration following his recitation of certain verses of the Qur'an which extolled their deities.

Let us, now, consider the other part of the story, that is that the news about the incident reached the Muslim migrants to Abyssinia in such a way that they were given the impression that reconciliation had come about between the Prophet (peace be on him) and the Quraysh. The basis for this notion being that many people had actually seen both believers and unbelievers together in a state of prostration. The rumour that the two groups had become reconciled spread far and wide, with the result that 33 migrants returned to Makka.

These three components of the story, the Quraysh falling into prostration, their reason for their so doing, and the return of Muslim migrants from Abyssinia, became so mixed up over the course of a century that a fanciful story emerged to the point at which people who were otherwise trustworthy began to narrate it. Human beings are, after all human beings. Hence we occasionally come across lapses even by those who are otherwise extremely righteous and blessed with mature understanding. Understandably, their lapses cause much greater harm than those of ordinary people.

Those who go to excess in the veneration of our esteemed forbears are at times inclined to uncritically accept their mistaken notions along with the sound opinions that have come down from them. Indeed, they even go a step further and reckon those mistakes as among the good deeds which characterize their overall behaviour. On the other hand, there are those who, actuated by evil intent, deliberately collect and parade the lapses of good people, arguing that the entire heritage of Islam passed on to us by such people should be dumped and set on fire.

102. Literally the word 'aqim means 'barren'. Here the word has been employed to characterize a particular day. The implication being that it would be an ominous day when no effort would succeed, when every endeavour on man's part would end in failure, when every hope would turn into despair. The other meaning of the expression 'barren day' is that it is a day destined not to turn into night.

In both senses, the expression signifies that the day on which a nation's destruction takes place will be a barren one for that nation. For instance, the day the people of Noah witnessed the great flood was a barren day for them. In like manner, the people of 'Ad, Thamud and Lut, the people of Midian, and several other nations were totally annihilated by God's scourge. Each of these days was a barren day for the people in question. This because they were unable to witness its morrow. Nor had they any effective device whereby they could avert the disaster.

103. God is All-Knowing, that is, He knows full well who sincerely migrated in His cause, and He also knows the reward that each of them deserves for his good deeds.

The statement that Allah is Most Forbearing suggests that because of this attribute, He will not bring to aught a person's major acts of goodness and services if minor lapses and weaknesses are found in his life-record. He will rather overlook these and forgive such people their sins.

104. Previously, reference was made to those who were subjected to wrongs and injustices but who failed to act in response to these (see verse 58 above - Ed.). The present verse, however, identifies those who had recourse to force in response to the persecution perpetrated by wrong-doers.

Shafi'i infers from this verse that retribution is to be inflicted exactly in the form in which the wrong itself was.inflicted. For instance, if someone kills a person by drowning him, he will also be drowned. Likewise, if someone burns another person to death, he will be punished in like manner. However, the Ḥanafis are of the opinion that irrespective of the mode in which a person is killed, the murderer will be subjected to retribution in one and the same established manner, i.e. regardless of how he had committed his treachery.

105. This verse may be interpreted in two ways, and presumably both are valid. First, that even though killing and bloodshed are not good per se, killing and shedding the blood of wrong-doers will nevertheless be pardoned by God. Second, that since man is a creature of God, Who is Oft-Pardoning, man should also be inclined to pardon others. Men of faith should be characteristically forbearing, magnanimous and tolerant. They are perfectly entitled to retaliate, but it does not befit them to take revenge and act vindictively.

106. The present paragraph relates to the previous one in its entirety. The upshot of this verse is that those who follow the course of unbelief and injustice will be punished and those who believe and act righteously will be rewarded; that the standard-bearers of truth who have been wronged, will see their own wrongs redressed; and those who seek to forcefully confront injustice will be aided by God. So, what is the reason underlying all these assurances? The verse suggests that this will happen because of certain of God's attributes, i.e. those mentioned here.

107. God rules over the whole universe, and it is because of His Will that day and night follow in succession. In addition to this apparent meaning, the verse also subtly points to the fact that God, Who brings about the brightness of the day after the darkness of night, and Who subsequently overwhelms the brightness of the day with the darkness of night, is equally capable of bringing about the decline and fall of those who are presently at the zenith of their power and glory. In like manner, the darkness of ignorance and unbelief which is presently struggling to prevent the break of the morn of the truth will soon give way, by God's command, to the brightness of truth and knowledge that will illuminate the whole world.

108. God is All-Hearing and All-Seeing; He is neither blind nor deaf to what happens in the world.

109. God wields all power and is Lord in every sense of the term. Those who serve Him, therefore, cannot suffer and lose. Conversely, all other deities are no more than illusions; the attributes and authority ascribed to them have no basis in fact. Hence, all those who turn away from the One True God and depend instead on false deities can never achieve success and felicity.

110. Here again a subtle message underlies the apparent mearing of the verse. For, taken literally, the verse affirms God's Power. What is, however, hinted at is that in the same way as the sprinkling of even a light shower makes barren land blossom into verdure, so the ble. sed downpour of revelation in the time of the Prophet (peace be on him) will soon show its blessed results. The barren desert of Arabia will be quickened to life and turn into a flourishing centre of knowledge, of good morals and of a righteous and benevolent civilization never before witnessed.

111. To say that Allah is 'subtle' means that He accomplishes what He Wills by ways that are not quite tangible. When He Wills to bring about a change, He designs that it comes about in a manner which cannot even be imagined. One sees, for instance, the system of procreation in the world with the result that hundreds of thousands of babies are born every day. But who knows whether one of these will be an Abraham providing spiritual leadership to the greater part of the world, or a Chenghis Khan bringing about large-scale devastation and destruction in his wake. When the microscope was first invented who could have imagined that it would ultimately contribute to the manufacture of atomic and hydrogen bombs? In short, God's plans are fulfilled in such fine and imperceptible ways that people are hardly aware of them before their actual fulfilment.

God has also been characterized as 'All-Aware'. This underlines that God fully knows the circumstances and needs of all. God also knows full well the true interests of each of us. He is also well aware as to how He should manage the affairs of His realm.

112. God alone is self-sufficient. He and He alone is in need of no one, while everyone else is in perpetual need of Him. Likewise, He alone is truly praiseworthy. All praise is essentially due to Him and He alone deserves to be gratefully extolled for everything that is good. Moreover, He is intrinsically praiseworthy, independent of whether people actually utter words of praise for Him or not.

113. The word 'heaven' signifies the whole celestial sphere every part of which is held in its proper place solely by the Will and Power of God.

114. This refers to deliberate denials of the truth expounded by the Prophets.

115. That is, the community of each Prophet.

116. The word mansak is not used here in the limited sense of ritual sacrifice. It rather signifies the whole system of worship. In an earlier instance, we translated the same word as 'the ritual of sacrifice' because in that context what was indicated was the ritual of sacrifice and nothing else. The use of the word on that occasion was followed by the Qur'anic statement: 'that they pronounce the name of Allah over the cattle He has provided them'. (See verse 34 of the present surah - Ed.)

However, in the present verse there is no basis for taking this word in its limited sense of just the 'ritual of sacrifice'. Likewise, in translating the word mansak we have used the expression 'way of worship and service' since here both situations are meant. In other words, it refers to the mode of worship and service which is synonymous with the word Shari'ah in the Qur'an as: 'For each of you We have appointed a Law and a way of Life' (al-Ma'idah 5: 48).

117. The earlier Prophets prescribed a particular way (mansak) for their communities. In like manner, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) also prescribed a particular way for his community. No one is entitled to dispute this because this is the only way that is suitable for the present age. This point is put forward in the Qur'an as follows: 'Then We put you on the right way of religion: so follow that and do not follow the desires of those who do not know' (al- Jathiyah 45: 18). For further details see Tafhim al-Qur'än, vol. IV, al-Shūrā 42, n. 20.

118. This statement further elaborates the point we identified in n. 117 above in explaining the preceding verse.

119. For a better understanding of the nexus between the contents of the present paragraph and the present discourse, one should recall verses 55-7 of the present surah.

120. None of the Scriptures specifically state that God associated others with Him in His Godhead, and that consequently such others should also be worshipped beside God. Nor have any of those who are considered to be God's partners been able to know from any truly authentic source that they are indeed God's partners. Hence, the whole pantheon of false deities, the myriad of different notions and inventions about their attributes and powers, the diverse forms of worship, acts of devotion and various Prayers that are addressed to them, the offerings and Pilgrimages performed in order to please them, none has any sanction. Those who engage in such things do no more than follow the baseless fancies of the ignorant.

121. These foolish people think that their false deities will help them in this world and in the Next. In point of fact, they have none to help them. So far as the false deities are concerned, they will be unable to assist for they are absolutely helpless. Nor will God help them for they have rebelled against Him. Hence, they are harming only themselves by engaging in this folly.

122. The unbelievers fly into a bitter rage when they hear God's Messages. The unbelievers also subject those who rehearse God's Message to the worst kind of maltreatment. Such people are here told that they should look forward to a retribution for their deeds that is much more severe than the treatment they have meted out to those who are righteous. Essentially, they should look forward to God's awesome punishment.

123. One who turns to a powerful being for help does so because of a realization of his own weakness. But the false gods whose help people are invoking are themselves absolutely weak, so much so that at times they are weaker than flies. Those who invoke other than God for help are themselves utterly weak and helpless. Furthermore, they pin all their hopes and reliance on those who are devoid of even a morsel of power.

124. The most superior among those creatures whom the polytheists recognized as deities, were either angels or Prophets. But even those are no more than a means to communicate God's commands, i.e. those whom He chooses for that task. The function which they perform neither elevates them to the position of God, nor makes them His partners.

125. This expression is frequently used in the Qur'an to refute the polytheistic version of intercession. Viewed in this context, it implies that the worship of angels, Prophets and saints is wrong regardless of whether it is performed under the impression that they are independently capable of relieving the people's distress or of fulfilling their needs, or because of belief that those false gods will effectively intercede with God. All this is wrong because it is God alone Who both sees and hears everything, Who knows all the aspects of every person's life, both public and private, Whose wisdom embraces all the wisdom that there is, be it explicit or hidden. No creature knows, not even angels and Prophets, which actions are propitious and which are not. Hence God has not bestowed upon any of His creatures, not even upon those closest to Him, the absolute right of intercession with Him, let alone the assurance that He will accept every intercession of theirs.

126. All matters pertaining to the universe are disposed of by God. It is He alone to Whom all such matters, large or small, are referred for decision. Hence, there is none else than Him to whom people should turn for help. It is pointless to invoke beings who themselves are devoid of the power to fulfil their own needs, let alone those of others.

127. This is the way, the only way through which one may expect to achieve true success. However, even those who follow this way should be wary of arrogance, complacency and belief that because of their religious devotion and righteous conduct they are bound to attain true success. Instead, they should seek God's bounty and focus all their hopes on His Grace and Mercy. No person can achieve true success unless God bestows it upon him, for no one has the power to achieve success by dint of his own power.

لعلكم تفلحون The expression used in this verse

literally means 'perhaps you will prosper'. The statement made here though does not mean that the attainment of prosperity and success is subject to any doubt. This expression can be better appreciated if we regard it as being part of a royal, majestic discourse. Suppose a king were to say to any of his servants: 'Do this and you might be given a good position. This seemingly non-committal statement suffices to fill that person with utmost joy and makes him celebrate the event. This because the statement hints at a favour, even if that favour is not couched in categorical terms. For it cannot even be conceived that a benevolent and gracious master would raise certain expectations in his servants and then disappoint them.

Shafi'i, Aḥmad ibn Hanbal, 'Abd Allah ibn Mubarak and Ishaq ibn Rähawayh consider this to be one of those verses of recitation whereby it is obligatory for the person to prostrate. That it is obligatory both for him who recites it as for him who listens to it. Abu Hanifah, Malik, Ḥasan al-Başrī, Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab, Saïd ibn Jubayr, Ibrāhīm al-Nakha'i and Sufyan al-Thawri, however, do not accept this opinion. What follows is a summary of the arguments advanced by the two groups.

The first group bases its opinion on the apparent command to prostrate. Another piece of evidence from which they derive support for their views is the following tradition narrated by 'Uqbah ibn 'Amir as recorded in the Musnad of Aḥmad ibn Hanbal and in the Ḥadith collections of Abū Da'ūd, Tirmidhi, Ibn Marduwayh and Bayhaqi: 'I asked, "O Messenger of God! Has Surah al-Hajj been made superior to all other surahs by virtue of having two verses of prostration in it?" The Prophet (peace be on him) replied: "Yes; he who does not prostrate himself after reciting those verses should better not recite it." (See Abū Dā'ūd, K. al-Ṣalāh, ‘Bāb Tafrī‘Abwäb al-Sujud' and Tirmidhī, 'Abwäb al-Jumu'ah, 'Bāb mā jā' fï al-Sajdah wa fi al-Hajj' - Ed.) The third argument advanced in support of this view is the tradition found in the works of Abu Dā'ūd and Ibn Majah on the authority of 'Amr ibn al-'As that the Prophet (peace be on him) directed him to prostrate himself twice while reciting Surah al- Ḥajj. (See Abū Dǎ'ūd, K. al-Ṣaläh, 'Bāb Tafrī'Abwāb al-Sujud' - Ed.) The fourth argument consists of the tradition from 'Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, 'Uthman ibn 'Affan, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbās, Abū al- Dardā', Abū Mūsā al-Ash'arī and 'Ammar ibn Yasir in which it has been claimed that there are two places in this surah which require prostration.

The second group, on the other hand, contends that the verse under discussion does not specifically lay down the command to prostrate. Instead, the verse simply mentions ruku' and prostration together, and whenever such an expression is used in the Qur'an, it signifies Prayer as such. Moreover, the combination of ruku' and prostration is specifically restricted to Prayer. These scholars also call into question 'Uqbah ibn 'Amir's tradition on the grounds of its weak chain of narrators. This tradition was narrated by Ibn Lahi'ah on the authority of Abū al-Muş'ab who was among those who mounted an attack by catapult on the Ka'bah along with Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi. They also reject the tradition from 'Amr ibn al-'As as untrustworthy, arguing that it was narrated by Sa'id al- 'Itqi from 'Abd Allah ibn Munayn al-Kilābi. Both are considered majhūl for it is not known who they are nor what level of trustworthiness they command. As for the traditions of the Companions cited in support of this view, it is contended that 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas explained the statement concerning the two prostrations as follows: "The first is for obligatory; the second is for the purpose of instruction.' (See Jaṣṣāṣ, vol. 3, p. 225-Ed.)

128. Jihad does not simply mean fighting and war. The word denotes: 'to strive, to exert to the utmost'. The words jihād and mujāhid imply the existence of forces of resistance against whom it is necessary to wage a struggle. Moreover, the stipulation that jihad should be fi sabil Allah (in the way of God) makes it clear that there are forces of resistance which obstruct people from serving God and pursuing His good pleasure, and that it is necessary to engage in strife and struggle to overcome them.

As for the purpose of jihad it is to remove the forces obstructing man from following the Way of God so that one may be able to serve God in an adequate manner, exalt His Word, and subdue unbelief and rebellion against Him. The first and foremost target of this struggle should be one's own self which always prompts one to rebel against God's commands and distracts one from belief and obedience. Unless one conquers one's own self within, one cannot fight against the forces without. It is against this background that once the Prophet (peace be on him) told those who were returning home after waging a jihād: 'You have now come from a smaller jihad to a larger jihad.' Asked what was meant by larger jihad, the Prophet (peace be on him) said: 'A man's striving against his own self. After one has waged this jihad, one finds oneself in a battlefield spread the world over. One finds the world full of those who have rebelled against God and who incite others to rebellion. To strive against these forces and to devote all the power of one's mind, heart and body in this connection is what is required of man. The present verse embodies this requirement.

129. Of all mankind, the believers were chosen for the task mentioned in the present verse. The same point is also made at other places in the Qur'an: 'We appointed you to be the community of the middle way...' (al-Baqarah 2: 143). 'You are now the best of people brought forth for mankind' (Äl 'Imrän 3: 110).

It is perhaps pertinent to point out here that this is one of several verses which establish the excellence of the Prophet's Companions. The verse also shows how wrong are those who are prone to launch attacks on the Companions. For it is quite obvious this verse directly identifies the Companions as those chosen by God, and further that it extols other members of the Ummah indirectly.

130. This proclaims that the believers are free from all the unjust shackles forged by the theologians, priests, and lawyers of previous religious communities. It is declared here that no longer are there any restrictions that obstruct intellectual progress, nor any restraints in the practical affairs of man's life which impede the growth of culture and civilization. This because they have been provided with a set of simple, straightforward beliefs and a body of practicable laws. While adhering to this one may make as much progress as one wants. The point mentioned here in a positive manner has elsewhere been couched in negative terms, as follows: 'He [the Prophet] enjoins upon them what is good and forbids them what is evil. He makes the clean things lawful to them and prohibits all corrupt things, and removes from them their burdens and the shackles that were upon them' (al-A'raf 7: 157).

131. Although Islam can be described as the faith of Noah, Moses and Jesus (peace be on them), it can also be described as the faith of Abraham. The Qur'an repeatedly calls it 'the faith of Abraham'. It also calls upon others to follow it. There are three main reasons for this. First, because the immediate addressees of the Qur'an were Arabs and they were more familiar with Abraham than with any other Prophet. The towering figure of Abraham dominated their history, traditions and religious life. Second, the Jews and Christians, the polytheists of Arabia and the Sabaeans of the Middle East were all agreed on recognizing Abraham as their patriarch. No Prophet enjoyed this position. Third, Abraham came before the emergence of Judaism, Christianity and Sabaeanism. Insofar as Arab polytheists are concerned, they conceded that idolatry was introduced among them by 'Amr ibn Luhayy, a chief of Banu Khuza'ah who brought the idol of Hubal from Moab. 'Amr ibn Luhayy lived in the fifth or sixth century B.C. In other words, polytheism had gained currency several centuries after Abraham. It is also implied that if Abraham was in the right and did not profess any of their distorted beliefs and practices, then it is his faith that should be embraced. Now the Message of the Prophet Muḥammad (peace be on him) was clear and simple: 'Follow the faith of Abraham.' For further details see Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. I, al-Baqarah 2, nn. 134-5, pp. 115-17 and Al 'Imran 3, nn. 58 and 79, pp. 263 and 273-4 and vol. IV, al-Nahl 16, n. 120, p. 374.

132. The word 'you' in the statement ‘. . . and named you Muslims' does not only refer to the believers at the time of revelation of this verse, nor only to those who subsequently joined the fold of Islam. It rather refers to all those who, since the beginning of human history, have believed in monotheism, in the After-Life, in the institution of Prophethood and in the Scriptures. The thrust of the statement is that the believers of the past were not named after the Prophets they followed, i.e. they were not called Noahites, Abrahamites, or Mosites, etc. Rather, they were simply called 'Muslims' since their basic characteristic of life was their submission to God. In like manner, believers of today are known as Muslims, rather than Muhammadans. This has presented something of a puzzle to those who wondered which Scripture before the advent of the Prophet Muḥammad (peace be on him) mentions his followers as Muslims.

133. For a detailed discussion see Towards Understanding the Qur'ān, vol. I, al-Baqarah 2, n. 44, p. 62. This point is discussed in greater detail in the present author's monograph Shahādat-i Ḥaqq. (This is now available in English translation as Witnesses Unto Mankind, Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1985 - Ed.)