1. For comparison, see al-Baqarah 2:47-59; al-A‘raf 7:100~41; Yunus 10:75-92; Hid 11:96-109; Bani Isra’il 17:101—11; Maryam 19:51-3; Ta Ha 20:1-89; al-Mu'minun 23:45-9; al-Shu‘ara’ 26:10-68; al-Naml 27:7-14: al- ‘Ankabut 29:39-40; al-Mu'min 40:23-50; al-Zukhruf 43:46-56; al-Dukhan 44:17-33; al-Dhariyat 51:38—40, and al-Nazi ‘at 79:15—26.

2. This Book will be of benefit to those who are inclined to consider the call to the Truth with an open mind. For it would be futile to recite such verses to those who are unwilling to accept the Truth, to those who, by their sheer obduracy, have closed their minds to considering it with earnestness.

3. The words ‘ala fi al-ard mean that Pharaoh became vain and headstrong and began to transgress. (Ibn Manzur, Lisan al-‘Arab, q.v. ‘LA — Ed.) Not satisfied with his true position as a human being the position of a servant of God — he became haughty, virtually planting himself on God’s throne, opposing people and ruling over them with tyranny.

4. Pharaoh did not rule over his subjects with an even hand, giving equal rights to all; instead, he divided his subjects into various groups. He gave more rights and powers to some and enslaved, crushed and exploited others.

‘An objection can be raised at this point, viz. that even an Islamic state differentiates between Muslims and dhimmis, and does not grant both equal rights.

This, however, is an invalid objection because in the case of an Islamic state the distinction between the two groups is not on the basis of race, color, language or social status, but on the basis of worldview and principles. In the Islamic’ system of governance, there is no difference between Muslims and dhimmis as far as legal rights are concerned. The differences that there are pertain to political rights. The basic reason for this is that in an ideological state, leadership can only come from those who believe in the ideology of the state. All those who believe in that ideology qualify for vital leadership positions and those who do not accept that ideology are not part of the group that provides leadership.

There is no similarity, therefore, between that which obtains in the Islamic state and that which prevailed in Pharaoh’s system. In the latter system, no member of the enslaved groups could ever aspire to join the ruling classes. Instead, human beings were permanently divided into the rulers and the ruled; a system in which some were not granted even basic human, let alone political and legal, rights. In fact, some were even denied the right to live! In that system there were no guarantees for the enslaved: all benefits and privileges, all material favors, all ranks were set apart for the ruling class, not because of any merit but simply on grounds of their birth.

5. The Bible explains this as follows: Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. And he said to his people, “Behold, the people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us. Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and, if war befalls us, they join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land.” Therefore, they set taskmasters over them to inflict them with heavy burdens; and they built for Pharaoh store-cities, Pithom and Raam’ses. But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad. And the Egyptians were in dread of the people of Israel. So they made the people of Israel serve with rigor, and made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and brick, and in all kinds of work in the field; in all their work they made them serve with rigor.

Then the king pf Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiph’ rah and the other Pu’ah, “When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the birth stool, if it is a son, you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, she shall live.” But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. (Exodus 1:8-17.) This shows that after the time of the Prophet Joseph (peace be on him) a nationalist revolution took place in Egypt and the Copts regained power and their government had recourse to all possible means to suppress the Israelites.

They did not limit their tyranny to assigning humiliating tasks to the Israelites and subjecting them to a state of ignominy and disgrace, but also devised a scheme to reduce their population by killing their male children while sparing their females. In the course of time, these female children would be married to Copts and the children born out of such marriages would thereby be Copts. According to the Talmud, this revolution took place a little over a century after Joseph’s death.

The Talmud narrates, in detail, how the new government deprived the Israelites of their fertile lands, their dwellings and other properties and how it removed them from all government positions. But the tyranny of the Coptic rulers did not end there. Whenever they felt that the Israelites and their co-religionist Egyptians were gaining strength, they would humiliate them, employ them in hard labor on minimum wages, and sometimes even make them work without any wages. This is the explanation of the Qur’anic statement about Pharaoh's policy towards the people of Egypt’ “One group of them he humiliated ...” (verse 4).

As for the attitude of the Pharaonites to the Israelites, the Qur'an tells us the following: “[they] afflicted you with dreadful suffering, slaying your males and sparing your females ...” (al-Baqarah 2:49). But neither the Bible nor the Qur’an mentions that Pharaoh had been told by some astrologer that a boy would be born among the Israelites who would overthrow him and, hence, why he killed the male infants born to the Israelites. There is also no mention of Pharaoh’s dream which was interpreted with exactly the same import. Qur’anic commentators have, however, taken over this legend from Talmudic and other Israelite traditions. (See The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, p. 47. See also The Talmud Selections, pp. 123-4 — Ed.)

6. That is, God would endow them with the position of world leadership.

7. That is, God would bestow upon them inheritance of the land and make them rulers.

8. Western Orientalists have heaped a mountain of criticism ‘on this verse.

They emphatically state that Ham4n was a courtier of the Persian King Xerxes. * (For an account of Haman by Western Orientalists, see S.D. Goitein, Studies in Islamic History and Institutions, pp. 17-18. It should also be borne in mind that

* The name as mentioned in the Bible is King Ahasue’rus. also known as Xerxes, who lived in.

the 5th century B.C. - Ed.

all the criticism on this verse is based on “The Book of Esther”, the 17th book of the Old Testament. For an account of the historical worth of the story of this book see art. “Purim” The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, Vol. 10, pp. 505-7). It is known that Xerxes ruled over Persia several centuries after Moses, between 486 and 465 B.C. They insist on this despite the fact that the Qur’an makes him Pharaoh’s vizier. Now, if these Orientalists were not blinded with prejudice, they would have realized that their contention implied that before the said courtier of Xerxes no person by the name of Haman ever existed in the world! Do they have any historical evidence to support such a contention? If any Orientalist has found any authentic list detailing the ministers, nobles and courtiers of the Pharaoh who is so mentioned here, why, then, is such a list not published? If they have such information, it would surely help establish the point they are trying to make and could be used quite potently against the Qur’an, but clearly it is not something which they possess.

9. It is not explicitly stated here that under these circumstances, a son was born to an Israeli who was to be known by the name of Moses. According to the Bible and the Talmud, the family concerned descended from Levi, son of the Prophet Jacob (peace be on him), and that the name of Moses’ (peace be on him) father, according to both was Amram, called ‘Imran in the Qur’an. The family already had two children before Moses’s, birth: a daughter named Miriam (who is mentioned in the following Qur’anic verses), and a son called Aaron (Harun).

(See H. Polano, The Talmud Selections, pp. 122-5 — Ed.) Aaron was probably born before the decree to kill all the male infants of Israel had come into effect and so he survived. The third child was born after the promulgation of this draconian decree.

10. It was not God's command that the child be cast into the river immediately after birth. Instead, until there was a real threat to the child’s life, he was to be suckled by his mother. Only when she feared that Moses’ birth was known to. the enemy, either by his crying or through some Israeli informer, was she to put the child into a chest and cast it into the river, and thereafter, to have no fear or worry. According to the Bible, Moses’ mother kept the birth of her baby secret for three months. (See Exodus 2:2 — Ed.) The Talmud adds that Pharaoh’s government employed female spies who visited Israelite homes with their own small offspring. Once in the house, they would make their own babies cry so that any baby in the house would follow suit.

Moses’ mother was afraid that this new means of spying would lead to the disclosure of her secret and, therefore, she cast Moses into the river three months after his birth. Up to this point, the Biblical and Talmudic narrations are similar to the Qur’anic account. The mention of the way the child was cast into the river is also identical in all three sources: “Put him into a chest and then throw him in the river” (Ta Ha 20:39), According to the Bible and the Talmud, Moses’ mother made a chest of reeds and covered it with mud and pitch to make it waterproof.

She laid the child in the chest and cast it into the Nile. (See Exodus 2:3. See also H. Polano, The Talmud Selections, p. 126.) But the most important detail mentioned in the Qur’an is absent from Israelite traditions: that Moses’ mother did this at the behest of God, for she had been assured that by doing so she would not expose the baby to any danger, that God would restore her baby to her and that he would later become a Prophet.

11. This, obviously, was not what they aimed at; it was their fate. They were simply picking up a baby without knowing that he was destined to be their undoing.

12. It becomes clear from this statement that the chest was carried by the river to the area where Pharaoh’s palaces were located, Pharaoh’s servants, therefore, picked up the chest and took it to Pharaoh and his wife. It is possible, however, that the King and Queen were themselves strolling along the river ‘and that they, themselves, spotted the chest and ordered that it be pulled from the river. The chest was travelling along the river from the direction of the Israelite quarters so it was easy for them to conclude that the child was an Israelite whose male infants were then being put to the sword. So it stood to reason that an Israelite had secretly brought up their baby and hoping that it would survive had then cast it into the river.

Presumably for these reasons, some of Pharaoh's slaves, who were possibly more royal than he, asked Pharaoh to kill the baby in order that he might not prove to be the young of a serpent who, after growing up, would bite the very hand that had fed it. But to Pharaoh’s wife who probably had no children of her own, the baby was extraordinarily attractive, as God Himself tells Moses: “And I spread My love over you in order that you might be reared in My sight” (Ta Ha 20:39). That is, God had made him so charming that whoever saw him was filled with love for him. Therefore, Pharaoh’s wife could not resist asking the King that-he adopt him. She thought that once he had been made their son, he would never know that he was an Israelite; he would consider himself to belong to the Pharaonic nation, and that his abilities would then be devoted to strengthening the Pharaonites rather than the Israelites. According to the Bible and the Talmud, the woman who said this was Pharaoh’s daughter. (See Exodus 2:5—-10. See also H. Polano, The Talmud Selections, p. 126.) The Qur’an, however, calls her Imra’atu Fir‘awn (Pharaoh’s wife) in unambiguous terms. It is obvious that God’s own words are far more authentic than the traditions which were recorded hundreds of years after the event. Thus, there is no justification to translate Imra’atu Fir‘awn as “a woman of Pharaoh’s family” merely in order to bring the Qur’anic statement into conformity with the Israelite traditions in disregard of Arabic idiom and linguistic usage.

13. The girl kept an eye on the chest. She did so while walking along ‘the river bank, always keeping it in view without giving any hint that her walk along the bank had anything to do with the chest that was floating on the river.

According to Israelite traditions, Moses’ sister was about ten or twelve years of age at that time. Her high level of intelligence, however, can be gauged from the ' fact that she successfully traced her brother’s arrival to Pharaoh’s palace.

14. The baby would not take milk from any nurse called by the Queen to suckle him.

15. This shows that after her brother entered the palace, his sister did not go home but remained close by. Moreover, as soon as she found out that the baby was not suckling from anyone, and the Queen was in search of a nurse with whom the baby would feel at ease, she went straight to the palace and told then) that she knew a nurse who would bring up the child with care and compassion.

It should be remembered that in ancient times the nobles did not raise their children themselves but gave them over to nurses who would take them to their own homes and raise them. In the accounts of the Prophet’s life, mention is made from time to time of women who would come to Makka from outside in order to have suitable children from noble families that they would nurse. This was a service which brought them very handsome compensation. The Prophet (peace be on him), himself, was raised by Halimah Sa ‘diyah outside the city, in the open expanses of the desert. The same custom prevailed in Egypt at the time of Moses. Hence why Moses’ sister did not say that she would bring a good nurse but simply said that she could direct them to a competent nurse who would do a good job of looking after the child, bringing him up with care and compassion.

16. According to the Bible and the Talmud,'the boy was given the name of Moses in Pharaoh's house. It is not a Hebrew but rather a Coptic word and means: “I drew him out of water”. In ancient Egyptian, mo means “water” and oshe means the one who has been rescued. (See A Bible Commentary for Today, General Editor, G.C.D. Howley, p.!78. See also The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, tr, William Winston, Philadelphia, The John C. Winston Co., n.d. — Ed.)

17. The result of God’s wholesome scheme was that Moses did not become a Pharaonic prince in the true sense of the expression. Rather, he was brought up by his own parents, in his own house, among his own kith and kin. He, therefore, gained the consciousness of his own identity, family and lineage. This upbringing made him grow into an Israelite rather than as a member of the Pharaonic nation.

According to a tradition: “Whoever works to earn his livelihood and is mindful of God’s pleasure in his work, is like Moses’ mother who fed her own child and was paid for it.” Although such a person works to feed himself and his children, he becomes eligible for God’s reward. This, provided he is mindful of God’s pleasure, is honest in his dealings, and considers the raising of his children and providing for them as an act of God’s worship. (See Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, ‘comments on Surah al-Qasas 28:13. See also Abu al-Hasan al- ‘Iraqi, Tanzih al- Shari‘ah al-Marfu‘ah ‘an al-Ahadith al-Shani‘ah al-Mawdu ‘ah, Vol. 2, p. 174. See also ‘Ala’ al-Din al-Hindi, Kanz al-‘Ummal fi Sunan al-Aqwal, Vol. 5, p. 124, hadith no. 12335 — Ed.)*

18. That is, when he had attained to his full mental and physical development.

Different ages have been mentioned in the Israelite traditions: some say 18 years, others 20, and still others 40, According to the New Testament, he was forty years old at the time (Acts 7:23). As for the Qur’an, it does not mention any age.

The purpose for which this story is narrated here does not require the mention of any specific age. It is enough to know that the event took place at a time when Moses had reached full maturity.

19. Hukm means wisdom, understanding, the power of discernment and judgement. As for ‘ilm, it denotes both worldly and religious knowledge. Through his parents, Moses had come to have substantial information about the lives of his forefathers — Joseph, Jacob, Isaac and Abraham (peace be on them). Also, thanks to his upbringing as a prince, he had acquired all the worldly knowledge then imparted in Egypt. It would be pertinent to point out that Audw and ‘im, in the present context, do not signify Prophethood. Moses was endowed with

* Iraqi and Hindi have narrated a slightly different version of this hadith. The text is as follows: “Whoever performs Hajj (pilgrimage) from among my people, for my people is like Moses’ mother who fed her own child and was paid for it.” ‘Iraqi’s comment on the hadith is that according to Dhahabi, the isnad (chain) of the tradition is sound, and it should not be classified as a mawdu (fabricated)~ Ed.

Prophet hood several years later, as will be mentioned in the subsequent verses and as has been mentioned in Surah al-Shu‘ara’ (26:21). As regards Moses’ training as a prince, the Bible states: “Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in words and deeds” (Acts 7:22). According to the Talmud, Moses grew up in the palace of the King.

A handsome young man, clad in princely dress, he lived a royal lifestyle and was honored and respected by people. He often went to the land of Goshen where the Israelites lived and he himself saw the harsh treatment meted out to them by the Coptic government officials. It was as a result of his efforts that Pharaoh granted the Israelites a day of rest. He had told Pharaoh that if they worked every day, their strength would fail them and that this would eventually work against the interests of the state. Hence a day of respite was a necessity. He did many other good things using his wisdom and these acts made him very popular in Egypt. (H. Polano, The Talmud Selections, pp. 128-9.)

20. It might have been early in the morning, or midday in summer, or night time in winter. In any case, what is suggested here is that it was a time when the roads were deserted.

The words “entered the city” seem to suggest that the royal palaces were outside the city. Since Moses lived in one of these palaces, it was thus appropriate to say that he “entered the city”.

21. The word wakaza could mean “he slapped” or “he struck with a fist”. Since it is hard to imagine someone dying merely from a slap we have. therefore, translated it as “struck him with his fist”.

22. One can imagine the state of remorse and perturbation in which Moses would have uttered these words when he saw the Egyptian fall down and breathe his last. He had no intention of killing him, the blow had not been struck for that purpose. Hence why Moses exclaimed that this must be Satan’s act, Satan had planned the mischief which had prompted him to act so. Satan’s purpose being to raise a storm of enmity against Moses, the latter having killed a Copt in the course of helping an Israelite. This storm was not only directed against Moses, but against all the Israelites.

The Biblical account of this event varies from the Qur’anic one. The Bible accuses Moses of intentionally killing the Egyptian. It says that when Moses saw an Israelite and an Egyptian engaged in a fight, “He looked this way and that, and seeing no one he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.” (Exodus 2:12 - Ed.) The Talmud says the same. (The Talmud does not mention whether he killed him intentionally or not. The words are: “... he saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, and he killed the Egyptian and fled from Egypt, as the occurrence is related in the Bible.” H. Polano, The Talmud Selections, p. 129 - Ed.)

Everyone can see how the Israelites stigmatized the characters of their elders and how the Qur’an exonerated them from the charges so levelled against them. Common sense also dictates that he who was about to become a great Prophet, and who was going to hand over a great code of justice to humanity would be a very wise, discreet and sober person. He could not have been such a blind racist that on seeing a member of his own community fighting with the member of another, he would become so infuriated that he would deliberately kill that person. Obviously, it was not lawful to deliberately kill an Egyptian in order to rescue an Israelite.

23. The word maghfirah means to indulge, to forgive as well as to conceal. What Moses (peace be on him) means by this Prayer is that God may forgive him his sin which, as He knew, he had not committed intentionally, that He may hide it from others so that his enemies would not be able to trace it.

24. This has two meanings and both are intended here. God, indeed, forgave Moses for his action and also hid it from others. This happened because at that time no Copt or government functionary was in the area so the Copts did not come to know about the incident. Moses was, therefore, able to leave the place unobserved.

25. The favor alluded to here consists of God concealing Moses’ act of killing and of His enabling him to escape.

26. Moses’ pledge is couched in very broad terms. It not only means that he would never lend any assistance to the guilty, but also that his help and assistance would never be for the perpetrators of injustice and tyranny. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari and many other Qur’anic commentators have taken these words to mean that, on that very day, Moses decided to sever his relations with Pharaoh and his government because it was a tyrannical government which had established an unjust rule over God’s land. A just person could not be a cog in such machinery of government nor could a just person be instrumental in augmenting its power and majesty. (Surprisingly, Tabari does not say anything to-this effect. But one can trace this line of thought in Zamakhshari’s Kashshaf. See his comments on Sarah al-Shu‘ara’ 26: verse t7-Ed.)

Muslim scholars have deduced from Moses’ pledge that a believer should shun helping a tyrant, regardless of whether that tyrant is a person, a group, or a government. Someone asked ‘Ata’ ibn Abi Rabah, a well-known Successor (Tabi’i): “My brother is a scribe to the governor of Kifah under the Umayyads. Though he does not judge the disputes of people, the judgements are written by his pen. If he does not have this job, he will become penniless.” ‘Ata’ at this point recited this verse, saying: “It is better for your brother to throw away his pen for it is God Who provides livelihood.” Another scribe asked ‘Amir al-Sha‘bi: “O ‘Amir, I am only responsible for writing the orders and sending them, I do not make any decision myself. Is the livelihood thus earned lawful for me?” He said: “Maybe the decision will be to kill an innocent person and your pen will be used to write that order. Maybe it will be decided that someone’s possessions should be taken away unlawfully, or someone’s house should be demolished, and your pen will write that decree.” Then Sha‘bi recited this verse upon which the scribe said: “After this day, my pen will not be used to write the decrees of the Umayyads.” Thereafter, Sha ‘bi said: “God will not leave you without sustenance.” To take another instance, ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Muslim asked Dahhak to go to Bukhara and to distribute salaries to the officials there, but he declined to do so. His friends asked him about his reasoning. He said that he did not want to assist the tyrants in anything. All these incidents have been mentioned by Alusi.

See Alusi, Ruh al-Ma‘ani, Vol. 20, pp. 56-7.

All biographers of Abu Hanifah, including al-Muwaffaq al-Makki, Ibn al- Bazzaz al-Kardari and Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari have related that Hasan ibn Qahtubah, Mansur’s commander-in-chief, tendered his resignation on his instruction, saying: “Whatever I have done to support your kingdom so far would suffice for me if it was in the cause of God; but if it was in the cause of injustice and tyranny, then I do not want to add anything to my sins in the scroll of my deeds.” See Muhammad ibn Muhammad, popularly known as Ibn al-Bazzaz al-Kardari, Manaqib al-Imam al-A‘zam Abu Hanifah, Vol. 2, p. 22.

27. When Moses saw the same person engaged in two fights, he became convinced that he was a quarrelsome character who regularly picked on others. A day earlier he had quarreled with one person, and the next day he was quarrelling with another.

28. The Biblical account of this is different from the Qur’anic one. According to the former, the fight on the next day was between two Israelites. The Qur'an, however, mentions that it was between an Israelite and an Egyptian. (See Exodus 2:13 - Ed.) The Qur’anic version seems more plausible because the manner in which the secret of the first day’s murder — which is narrated in the following verses — was made known would only have been possible if it were an Egyptian who had found it out. An Israelite would not have divulged a prince’s secret to Pharaoh's officials when that prince, in fact, belonged to his own people.

29. The person who cried out was the same Israelite whom Moses had helped the day earlier. After scolding him, when Moses turned to strike the Egyptian, the Israelite thought he was going to hit him and so he cried out and foolishly divulged the secret.

30. This second incident ted to the disclosure of a secret that had hitherto ‘remained unknown, i.e. Moses’ involvement in the killing. It first became known to the Copt involved in this particular quarrel, and he then disclosed it to others.

The event mentioned here was a direct sequel of that disclosure.

31. Here the Biblical account is in agreement with the Qur’anic one in that both state that after leaving Egypt, Moses proceeded to Midian. The Talmud, however, relates the absurd story of Moses fleeing to Abyssinia and becoming a great favorite of the king there. After the death of that king, Moses took over his mantle and was further given the hand of the late king’s widow in marriage. Moses ruled there for 40 years but never consummated his marriage with the king’s widow.

After 40 years, she complained to her nobles that Moses had not had conjugal relations with her and that he did not worship their gods. Upon this the nobles dethroned him and sent him away honorably with a great many presents and an abundance of wealth. Moses then proceeded to Midian from Abyssinia where after the events narrated in the following verses took place. Moses was then 67 years old. (See H. Polano, The Talmud Selection 8, pp. 129-33. But the Talmud does not mention his age. See also The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, p. 48.)* The absurdity of this account is evident by virtue of the fact that it mentions that Assyria (northern Iraq) at that time was under the suzerainty of Abyssinia.

* The learned author probably worked out the age in the light of the Jewish tradition which says that Moses was in Jethro’s captivity for 10 years and when Jethro released him (Moses) his age _ was 77 - Ed.

It also mentions that both Moses and the King of Assyria prior to Moses’s, kingship carried out military campaigns to suppress the rebellious Assyrians.

Now anyone who has even a smattering conversance with history or geography can look at the map and see that Abyssinian rule over Assyria and military campaigns by the Abyssinians against Assyria were only possible if Ethiopia also ruled over Egypt, Palestine and Syria, or if the whole of Arabia was under their dominion; or else, if the Abyssinian navy was so powerful that it could cross the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf to conquer Iraq. History, however, does not tell us that this was the case at all.

- The Abyssinians never controlled these countries and their navy was never so powerful. This only shows how distorted and inaccurate. the Israelites’ knowledge of their own history really was. The Qur’an corrects their mistakes and presents the true picture of things. Notwithstanding this, Christian and Jewish Orientalists do not hesitate to claim that the Qur’an took its historical accounts from Israelite traditions.

32. That is, the path that would safely take him to Midian. In those days, Midian was not a part of Pharaoh’s kingdom. Egypt did not have control | over the entire Sinai Peninsula but only over its western and southern parts.

The eastern and western shores of the Gulf of ‘Aqabah, where the Midianites lived, were not under Egyptian control. Hence why Moses (peace be on him) headed towards Midian, which was the nearest territory independent of Egyptian control. But to get there, he had to pass through Egyptian territory and cross various police and military check posts. He, therefore, prayed to Allah to lead him to the path which would safely take him to Midian.

33. According to Arab traditions, the place where Moses (peace be on him) arrived was a few miles to the south of Maqni on the western coast of the Gulf of ‘Aqabah. It is presently called al-Bad, which is a small town. I visited it in December 1959 on my way to ‘Aqabah from Tabuk. The residents of the town told me that they had heard from their elders that this is where ancient Midian was located. All modern and ancient explorers and geographers from Josephus to Burton also agree that this is the place where Midian was located. (The only person worthy of being called a historian by the name of Josephus is Josephus Flavius. See, art. “Josephus Flavius”, The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropaedia, Vol. 6, pp. 623-4.) (See also art “Sir Richard (Francis) Burton”, ibid, Vol. 2, pp. 667-9 — Ed.) Nearby is a place presently called Magha’i r Shu‘ayb or Magharat Shu‘ayb where there are a few monuments in the Thamudic style of architecture. About a mile or a mile and a half away, there are a few ruins among which we saw two dry wells. The locals told us, though with some uncertainty, that one of the two wells was located at the spot where Moses (peace be on him) had watered the goats. Abu al-Fida’ (d. 732 A.H./1331 C.E.) in his Taqwim al-Buldan and Yaqut al-Hamawi (d. 626 A.H./1229 C.E.) in his Mu‘jam al-Buldan have written on the authority of Abu Zayd al-Ansari (d. 216 A.H./831 C.E.), that the locals do identify the place where Moses’ well was located. (See Abu al-Fida’, Taqwim al-Buldan, p. 87. See also Yaqut al-Hamawi, Mu ‘jam al-Buldan, Vol. 5, pp. 77-8 — Ed.) This indicates that the tradition about the well was transmitted across the centuries and, therefore, one can say, with a reasonable degree of confidence, that this is the place mentioned in the Qur’an.

34. Those women told Moses that being women they could not be aggressive with the shepherds in securing water for their animals. Furthermore. their father was too old to water the animals and there was no male member in the family who could do so. Hence, women, willy-nilly, had to undertake that task, obliged as they were to wait until the shepherds had left before they could water their animals. All this was stated very succinctly, and is indicative of the customary female modesty which prevented them from saying much to a male stranger. They said all this in order to prevent the stranger from forming an ill opinion of their family, as one in which the menfolk stayed at home and sent their womenfolk outdoors different errands.

" There are many popular traditions which identify the father of these women with the Prophet Shu‘ayb (peace be on him). However, there is nothing in the Qur'an. directly or indirectly, which would justify such an identification. Shu ‘ayb (peace be on him) for sure is mentioned many times in the Qur’an. Now, had the father of these women been Shu'ayb, there is no reason why he should not have been mentioned here as such. True we find his name used in connection with this verse in some ahadith. But both Ibn Jarir al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir concur that none of those ahadith is sound.

(Ibn Kathir categorically states that the traditions which mention Shu ‘ayb in Prophet Musa’s story are not sound: As for Tabari, he merely mentions that the traditions are so diverse that his personal Opinion is that one should go by the famous saying that their father was Prophet Shu ‘ayb. (peace be on him) until one comes across any evidence that would prompt him to forsake this opinion — Ed.) Hence why the Qur’anic commentators of the stature of ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas, Hasan al-Basri, Abu ‘Ubaydah and Sa ‘id ibn Jubayr have mentioned, in this regard the names of those used in the Talmud and other Israelite sources. Had the Prophet (peace be on him) clearly mentioned Shu ‘ayb’s (peace be on him) name, these eminent scholars could not have mentioned any other names.

The Bible calls this person Reu’el at one place, and Jethro at another (Exodus 2:16—18; 3:1; 18:5) and states that he was the priest of Midian. In the Talmud he is variously called Re’uel, Jethro and Hobab. The opinion of contemporary Jewish scholars is that Jethro was a synonym for “his excellency”, and that the real name of these women’s father was Re’ uel or Hobab. Likewise, there is disagreement about the meaning of “Kohen Midian”; some say it means priest, while others contend that it means prince. See The Jewish Encyclopaedia, Vol. 7, pp. 173-4,

According to the Talmud, Re’ uel used to visit Pharaoh from time to time before Moses* birth, and Pharaoh had confidence in his knowledge. When the royal council started its deliberations about how to suppress the Israelites and it was decided to kill new-born male babies, Re’uel tried to prevent Pharaoh from doing so. He warned him against the consequences of such an evil deed and suggested that, if he felt that the Israelites were such a burden to him, then he should let them go to Canaan, the land of their ancestors. This infuriated Pharaoh to the extent that he turned Re‘uel out in disgrace. As a result, Re’uel returned to his homeland Midian, and settled there.

As for Re‘uel’s religion, the commonly held belief is that, like Moses, he was a follower of Abraham’s Faith. For exactly like Moses, who was a descendant of Isaac (peace be on him), Re’uel was a descendant of Midyan, the son of Abraham (peace be on him). Perhaps it was because of this lineage - that Re’uel tried to prevent Pharaoh killing the Israelites and so provoked his wrath. Nizam al-Din al-Hasan ibn Husayn al-Qummi al-Nisabiari (d. 728 A.H./1328 C.E.) quoting Hasan al-Basri, says the following about Re’uel: “He was a Muslim; he had embraced the Religion of the Prophet Shu ‘ayb.” (See Nizam al-Din al-Nisaburi, Tafsir Ghara'‘ib al-Qur’an wa Raghda’ib al- Furqan, See comments on Surah al-Shu‘ara’, Vol. 23. Beirut, Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah. Vol. 5, p. 338 — Ed.) The Talmud says that Re’uel used to publicly condemn the idolatry of the Midianites and it was for this reason that they turned against him.

35. ‘Umar explained this sentence in the following manner: “She came, walking modestly, with her face covered with a part of her outer garment, unlike immodest women who are prone to loiter at night, who unabashedly find their way everywhere, and who are ever ready to go out.” See Alusi, Ruh al-Ma‘ani, his comments on Surah al-Qasas 28: verse 25. Several traditions, which say substantively the same, have been quoted by Sa ‘id ibn al-Mansur, Ibn Jarir al- Tabari, Ibn Abi Hatim, and Ibn al-Mundhir on the authority of ‘Umar and are supported by authentic chains of transmission. This throws light on the Islamic concept of modesty, which was derived by the Companions of the Prophet (peace be on him) from the teachings of the Qur’an, and from the training and instruction they had received at the hands of the Prophet (peace be on him). This concept of modesty was opposed to a woman’s exposure of her face before men who were unrelated: to her. It was also opposed to the unabashed wandering around of women in public. Significantly, ‘Urmar's words clearly link modesty with women’s covering of their face and immodesty with exposing it.

36. She also said this out of modesty. It seems that she considered it necessary to explain why she came alone to an unrelated male. Otherwise, if a gentleman had helped a woman in distress, it was not at all appropriate for her to offer him a reward. But the willingness to follow her by a man of Moses’s stature even after hearing about the promised reward, throws light on another aspect of the situation. It shows Moses’ state of desperation at that time. He had left Egypt suddenly and without any provisions. It must also have taken him eight days to get to Midian. He would, therefore, have been hungry, thirsty and quite worn out. He must also have been quite concerned about finding shelter in a city where he was a stranger.He must also have been in need of a compassionate and sympathetic person who would provide him with protection. Hence why Moses did not hesitate to go to that lady’s father even after hearing that he would receive some reward for the little service that he had rendered. He might have thought that this offer of reward was, in fact, in answer to his supplication to God a little while previously and that if he did not accept the invitation merely so as to make a show of his self-respect, this would essentially amount to turning down a God-sent hospitality.

37. The girl did not necessarily say this to her father during the first meeting between him and Moses. Most probably, her father would have asked the stranger to stay with them for a day or two and it was possibly during this stay that the daughter suggested this to her father. The suggestion meant that because of their father’s old age, the womenfolk had to go out on various errands as they had no brother who could relieve them. The hint to the father was that he should employ Moses because he was strong and hardworking as well as trustworthy and honest. It was obviously out of his goodness that Moses had helped them earlier, and while he did so he kept his gaze away from them.

38. It is also not necessary that the father would have said this to Moses immediately after hearing his daughter’s suggestion. Most probably he would have thought about it for some time and eventually have arrived at the conclusion that although he might be a person of good character, it was not appropriate to keep him in the house where his grown-up daughters were living. If he was an upright, cultured and educated person who hailed from a known and respectable family and he must have inferred this from Moses’ story why should he not stay and become his son-in-law? After arriving at this conclusion, he must have talked to Moses at some appropriate moment.

Here again the Israelites have done woeful injustice to their most illustrious Prophet, their greatest benefactor and hero. The Talmud says: “And Moses lived with Re’uel, and he looked with favor upon Zipporah, the daughter of his host, and married her.” See H. Polano, The Talmud Selections, p.133. According to another Jewish tradition, mentioned in The Jewish Encyclopedia: On his arrival at Midian Moses told his whole story to Jethro, who recognized him as the man destined to destroy the Egyptians. He therefore took Moses prisoner in order to deliver him to Pharoah ... Moses was imprisoned in a deep dungeon in Jethro’s house, and received as food only small portions of bread and water. He would have died of hunger had not Zipporah, to whom Moses had before this captivity made an offer of marriage by the well, devised a plan by which she no longer went out to pasture the sheep, but remained at home to attend to the household, being thereby enabled to supply Moses with food without her father’s knowledge.

After ten (or seven) years Zipporah reminded her father that he had at one time cast a man into the dungeon who must have died long ago, but if he were still living he must be a just man whom God had kept alive by a miracle. Jethro went to the dungeon and called Moses, who answered immediately. As Jethro found Moses praying, he really believed that he had been saved by a miracle, and liberated him. ... and gave him the virtuous Zipporah as his wife. The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 9, pp. 48-9.

The question one inevitably asks then is: Are the Western Orientalists, who are ever on the look-out for Qur’anic “sources” blind to the vast difference between the Qur’anic and Israelite narrations of this incident?

39. Some scholars have interpreted this conversation between Moses and his would-be father-in-law as an offer and acceptance of a marriage contract. They have also initiated a meaningless debate about whether rendering service to the father-in-law could be considered as the dower for his daughter's marriage and whether or not such conditions could legitimately form part of the marriage contract.

The fact, however, is that the Qur’anic verses in question are quite clear that this was not a marriage contract. It was rather an initial discussion, the type that takes place anywhere in the world in connection with a marriage proposal. How could it be a marriage contract when it had not been decided which one of the two daughters was to be given in marriage? The gist of the conversation is that the father expressed his readiness to ‘give one of -his daughters in marriage to Moses on condition that Moses lived with him and helped him with his household duties. This for eight or ten years because the father was an old man without any male issue who ‘could manage his affairs. All that he had were his daughters whom he had to send outdoors to manage his various affairs. He desired. therefore. that Moses should become his son-in-law and his right hand. If Moses could undertake this responsibility and affirm that he had no plans to depart with his wife immediately after the marriage, then Re‘uel would be willing to give one of his daughters in marriage. Moses, in need of refuge, accepted the suggestion.

It is quite obvious that this was a premarital agreement between the two parties. Thereafter. the real marriage contract would have been worked out according to the prevailing customs and in which there would have been.

some provision for a dower. There is, thus, no reason to conclude that Moses was prepared to stay in his service as a part of the dower contract.

40. Hasan ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib says: “Moses completed ten instead of eight years.” “Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas says that, according to the Prophet (peace _ be on him), “Moses completed the longer of the two terms and the one that was more agreeable to his father-in-law.” (See Bukhari. 'K. al-Shahadat’, Bab Man Amara bi Injaz al-Wa‘d. But in this tradition instead of the word atammaha, aktharaha is used. See also. Alusi, Ruh al-Ma‘ani, comments on Surah al-Qasas 28: verse 29.

41. Since the direction of the journey was towards Mount Sinai, which lies on the road to Egypt from Midian, it seems that Moses wanted to return to Egypt. He may have thought that after these ten years the Pharaoh from whom he had fled, would already be dead. So if he went back to his family quietly, no one would know about it.

The sequence of events in the Biblical account differs totally from that in the Qur’anic account. It says: “Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led his flock to the west side of the wilderness, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush; and he looked and lo, the bush was burning and yet it was not consumed” (Exodus 3:1-2). The Biblical account goes on to state that after appointing him as a Prophet, God spoke to Moses and asked him to go to Egypt. Then Moses took leave of his” father-in-law and went to Egypt with his family. (See Exodus 4:18.) On the contrary, the Qur’an says that Moses completed his term and then left Midian with his family and it was during this journey that God spoke to him and appointed him as His Prophet. Both the Bible and the Talmud state that during Moses’ stay in Midian, the Pharaoh in whose palace Moses had been raised, had died and a different Pharaoh now ruled over Egypt. (See, Exodus 2:23. See also H. Polano, The Talmud ~ Selections, pp. 133-4 — Ed.)

42. The side of the valley which was to Moses’ right hand.

43. “Hallowed ground”. that is, the land which was luminous with Divine Light.

* Literally, the command was: “O Moses. come back.” The author has changed the imperative into “go forward” because Moses had “turned back in retreat’. Moses’ compliance with the order would have meant that he should retrace his steps and return to where he had stood before in order to proceed ahead. - Ed.

44. Moses was exposed to these two miracles in order to convince him that it was indeed the Lord of the Universe Who had spoken to him. Another purpose in exposing Moses to these miracles was to assure him that if he was being sent by God on a difficult and dangerous mission to Pharaoh, he would not be left to his own strength to face this might; instead, he would be fully armed with the two miracles mentioned here.

45. If Moses was ever confronted with a truly dangerous situation, all he had to do was to fold back his arm into himself. This would strengthen his heart and release him from fear. “Arm” probably means the right arm because when the word “hand” is used without qualifying it, it means “the right hand”. Now, the arm can be “folded back” in two ways: by aligning the arm with the side of the body and by putting the hand of one arm under the armpit of the other. Perhaps, here, it is the former that is meant because this would not indicate to anyone else that the other person’s action was intended to overcome his fear.

Moses (peace be on him) was so instructed because he was being sent against a tyrant with neither an army or any other material resources to support his case. He was going to have to face situations in which even a courageous Prophet might not remain totally immune from fear and perturbation. God instructed Moses to have recourse to this action on such fearful occasions; in this way, Pharaoh would not be able to weaken his heart, not even with all his power.

46. The words used here suggest that Moses (peace ‘be on him) must go to Pharaoh with these miraculous signs and to present himself as the ' Messenger of God. He was to call Pharaoh and his nobles to the service and obedience of the Lord of the Universe. Hence why Moses’ appointment is not specified here. It was, however, detailed in another verse: “And go to Pharaoh now for he has transgressed all bounds.” (Ta Ha 20:24 and al-Naziat 79:17.) It was also stated elsewhere that: “... when your Lord called Moses: ‘Go to the wrong-doing people, the people of Pharaoh’ ...” (al-Shuara 26:10—11).

47. This does not mean that Moses was hesitant out of fear. Rather, it means that he asked God to make the necessary arrangements so that the Pharaonites would not arrest him on a murder charge immediately upon his arrival and before he had spoken to them about his Prophet hood. For, if that were to happen, his mission would remain unaccomplished. The subsequent verses clearly indicate that Moses did not want to refuse the office of Prophet hood nor did fear cause him to decline undertaking his mission.

48. This encounter between the Prophet Moses (peace be on him) and God is described in greater detail in Sarah Ta Ha (see verses 9-48). Anyone who compares this Qur’4nic account with the Biblical version given in Exodus 3 and 4 can see for himself which of the two books is from God and which is a set of stories narrated by human beings. Further, he can also ascertain whether the Qur’anic account is merely a plagiarisation of the Biblical and Israeli traditions, as alleged by some scholars, or whether it is God Himself Who narrates this incident. The same God Who summoned Moses and had honored him with a unique personal encounter. (For more detail see Towards Understanding the Qur’an, Vol. V, Ta Ha 20: n. 19, pp. 191-2.)

49. Sihrun muftara means fabricated or forged magic. Taken in the sense of a lie, it would mean that in Pharaoh’s view the staff changing into a serpent and the shining hand were not real transformations but merely illusions which Moses tried to pass off as miracles. If the expression is taken to denote a forgery, it would mean that Moses had somehow contrived to make a thing which looked like a staff move around like a serpent when thrown to the ground, and that Moses had rubbed something on his hand, so that when he took it out of his armpit it was radiant. According to Pharaoh, all that Moses had done was to contrive some magical tricks which he then presented as miracles from God.

50. This refers to the teachings of Moses (peace be on him) which formed part of his Prophetic Message. The Qur’an gives details of these in other Surahs.

Surah al-Nazi‘at mentions Moses as saying: “Are you ready to adopt the purified way? Would you have fear of Allah if I guided you to Him?” (79: 18-19), And in Surah Ta Ha, the Qur’an states: “‘We have come to you with a sign from your Lord; and peace shall be for him. who follows the true guidance? It has been revealed to us that chastisement awaits those who called the lie to. the truth and turned away from it” (20:47-8). Elsewhere, the Qur’4n mentions that Moses made the following statement: “The Lord of the Universe has sent us that you let the Children of Israel go with us” (al-Shu‘ara’ 26:16~17). It was about these teachings that Pharaoh, in effect, said: “Even our forefathers had not heard that there is any Being above the Pharaoh of Egypt who can command him and punish him or send someone to his court with any direction and who would urge the King to fear that Being. These are strange things that we hear from the tongue of this person.” (See verses 38—9 — Ed.)

51. Moses countered Pharaoh’s accusation of his being a magician and of forging lies, by pointing out that everything about Moses was already known, and that it was clear what kind of person God had appointed as His Messenger.

And the Ultimate Judgement, in any case, lay with Him. Moses contended that if he was a liar, he would meet an evil end; and if Pharaoh was lying, then his end too would be an evil one. One thing, however, was absolutely clear: a wicked person never meets with true success. A person who is not a Messenger of God but who pretends to be so in order to gain material advantages, is engulfed in injustice and iniquity and will not meet with true success. In like manner, whoever accuses a true Messenger of God of being a liar, and whoever has recourse to deceptive means to suppress the Truth is also guilty of injustice and iniquity and will never meet with true success.

52. By saying so Pharaoh obviously did not mean that he was their creator and the creator of the heavens and the earth. For obviously only a lunatic would make such a claim. Nor did it mean that they worshipped no other God beside Pharaoh because it is well known that the Egyptians worshipped many gods and that Pharaoh, himself, had been raised to the status of godhead in his capacity as _ the incarnation of Ra, the sun-god. The Qur’an, itself, provides a definite testimony in this regard, for it mentions that Pharaoh worshipped many gods: “The elders of Pharaoh’s people said: ‘Will you leave alone Moses and his people to spread mischief in the land, and forsake you and your gods?’ Pharaoh replied: ‘We will kill their male children and spare their female ones. For indeed we hold irresistible sway over them’ (al-A ‘raf 7:127). o Hence the word “god” used here by Pharaoh for himself was not so as to claim that he was their creator and their sole object of worship. He rather used this word in the sense that he was the lord and master of Egypt where his command was executed; where he was considered to have full authority, and where people considered themselves bound to obey him; where he was the absolute sovereign whose orders were carried out, and where he ‘was in a position to decide what was good and what was evil, and where no one else had the authority to issue any command. In this context, Pharaoh wondered what the locus standi of Moses was. This was a man who claimed to be the Messenger of the Lord of the Universe and who addressed him as though he, Moses, was the real sovereign and he, Pharaoh, was his subject. This is why, addressing his courtiers, Pharaoh said: “O my people, is not the dominion of Egypt mine, and are these rivers not flowing underneath me?” (al-Zukhruf 43:51) It is, again, for this very reason that Phararaoh repeatedly — said to Moses: “Have you come to turn us away from the way of our forefathers that the two of you might become supreme in the land? We shall never accept what the two of you say” (Yunus 10:78); “Have you come to us to drive us out of our land by your sorcery?” (7a Ha 20:57) and “I am afraid that he will change your religion or will cause mischief to appear in the land” (al-Mu’min 40:26).

Pharaoh’s position was no different from the stand taken by those states which claim political and legal sovereignty independent of the Divine Law brought by the Prophets. Their position remains the same regardless of whether they recognize a king or the collective will of a nation as the source of aw, as the authority entitled to determine the do’s and don’ts. As long as they adhere to the standpoint that it is their own law rather than the law of God and His Messenger that prevails, their position is no different from that of Pharaoh’s. It is, however, quite another matter that ignorant people curse Pharaoh while legitimizing the authority of those. who rule independently of God’s Guidance. Those who know the Truth will not merely consider the words, but will take into account the meaning and the spirit. It makes no difference that Pharaoh used the word ilah for himself whereas these states use the term “sovereignty” to denote the same thing. (For further details see Towards Understanding the Qur’an, Vol. V, Ta Ha 20: n. 21, pp. 192-3).

53. This mindset is similar to that of the Communists of the former Soviet Union. They launched sputniks and lunics and then glibly claimed that their spaceships had found no God up there in the sky. Obviously, that silly cosmonaut wanted to peep at God from a high tower! This only shows that the reasoning of ignorant people has not changed over the last 3,500 years. What idiocy to believe that God is sitting somewhere up there in the sky waiting to be observed by anyone who can soar high enough. What idiocy to believe that if He cannot be so found, this is proof enough that He does not exist.

The Qur’an ‘does not say that Pharaoh had constructed such a tower and that he climbed it to see God. The Qur’an simply quotes what Pharaoh said, and whereby it would appear that he was merely trying to fool people by such specious talk. It is also not clear whether Pharaoh was an atheist or whether he was merely saying things in a mood of blasphemous impertinence. His words exhibit the same confused state of mind as one finds among former Soviet Communists. At times, Pharaoh talked about going up to the sky to see for himself so that he would tell people that he could not find Moses’ God there.

At other times, he said that had Moses been sent by God then “why were not bracelets of gold sent down on him or why do not angels accompany him as attendants?” (al-Zukhruf 43:53). This is not much different from what Khruschev, a former Prime Minister of Russia, used to say. * Sometimes he would deny the existence of God, at other times he would repeatedly mention His Name, sometimes even swearing by Him.

* To be accurate, Khruschev was the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the USSR — Ed.

In our opinion, after the Prophet Joseph and his successors’ time, when the Copts obtained power in Egypt and Coptic nationalism gained strength, a political revolution inspired by racist and nationalistic feelings took place.

Under the influence of this revolution, the new leaders even rebelled against the One True God in Whom the Prophet Joseph (peace be on him) and his followers, both Israelite and Egyptian Muslims, believed and in Whom they invited others to believe. The Copts thought that they could not remain immune from the influence of the culture promoted by Joseph (peace be on him), and that if that culture remained intact, their political authority would be threatened. They were of the opinion that there was a direct nexus between belief in God and Muslim political power. Hence, they were compelled to deny God’s existence even though it was extremely difficult for them to purge their hearts of the conviction that God exists.

54. True greatness is only for God, the Lord of the Universe, but Pharaoh and his armed forces, considered themselves to be invested with greatness just because they had acquired a little dominion over a small piece of land.

55. They thought that they were not answerable to anyone. Acting upon this assumption, they behaved as though they were absolutely free to do whatever they pleased.

56. In these words, God depicts their worthlessness and insignificance. They thought they were big, but when the respite granted by God to mend themselves ended, they were thrown into the sea like rubbish.

57. They left behind a precedent of how one can perpetrate injustice, how one can obstinately persist in denying the Truth, clinging to their posture till the very end. Having led others to this terrible path, they had disappeared from the scene to face their woeful destiny, their weapons in opposition to the Truth of no avail to them. Their successors, however, still followed in their footsteps, speedily heading towards the same dire end.

58. The words of the text say that “on the Day of Resurrection, they will be among the maqbuhin”. (Ibn Manzur, Lisan al-‘Arab, q.v. Q B H ~ Ed.) This expression contains several meanings: (i) that they will stand rejected and repudiated; (ii) that they will be deprived of God’s Mercy; and (iii) that they will be reduced to a grotesque shape, their faces becoming severely distorted.

59. After previous generations had met with the evil consequences of turning away from the teachings of the Prophets and had been subjected to the tragedy that befell Pharaoh and his army, God bestowed His Book on Moses in order that humanity could embark on a new era in the light of Divine Guidance.

60. The “western side” here signifies Mount Sinai where Moses was given the Torah. Mount Sinai lies to the west of Hijaz.

61. This alludes to the 70 elders of Israel who were summoned along with Moses for the Covenant. (This is mentioned in Sarah al-A ‘raf 7:155 as well as in Exodus 24.)

62. The Prophet (peace be on him) had no direct means of obtaining this information. These events which had taken place two thousand years earlier are now being narrated in the Qur’an as though they were eyewitness accounts. There could be no other source for all this information except God’s Revelation.

63. Moses arrived in Midian and spent ten years there during which period a number of important events took place, and then he departed. Now, as we know well, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) was born much later. Hence, it was out of the question for him to know firsthand what had happened. His narration of these events with such vividness was not on the basis of his personal observation. Rather, it was based entirely on the information he received through Revelation.

64. These three things are presented by way of proof of Muhammad’s Prophet hood. At the time of the revelation of these verses, the unbelievers, in general, and the leaders of Makka, in particular, were bent upon proving that Muhammad (peace be on him) was a false claimant to Prophet hood. In this vicious campaign they enjoyed the support of Jewish scholars and Christian monks who lived in various parts of Hijaz. At the same time, the fact was that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) had not suddenly appeared among them as if from nowhere. He was a resident of the same city, and the Makkans knew about each and every aspect of his life.

For this reason, when these three proofs of his Prophet hood were presented with an open challenge to any detractors, no one from Makka, Hijaz or the rest of the Arabian Peninsula stood up to level the vile charge that is presently being made by Orientalists. True, the unbelievers then showed little reluctance in inventing lies and false accusations. But how could they fabricate such a stupid lie that would not even stand the test of critical scrutiny for a single day? How could they say that Muhammad (peace be on him) had obtained all his information from this or that Jewish scholar or such and such a monk when they would have been unable to identify a single person in that regard? For as soon as they mentioned anyone specifically, it would be immediately apparent to all that they were lying. Nor could they have accused Muhammad of owning a library of ancient books which he consulted and which were the source of his discourse.

They could not have said so because they would not have been able to find a single scrap of paper around the unlettered Prophet (peace be on him).

Moreover, no one could contend that the Prophet (peace be on him) had obtained the services of translators specializing in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek works. Nor could even the most brazen liars among them have the temerity to accuse the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) of obtaining all his information during his journeys through Syria and Palestine. It was impossible for them to do so for the simple reason that on those journeys he was not alone; he was one among a large caravan.

Hence, if they brought such a charge against him, there would have been hundreds of first-hand witnesses — fellow travelers on those journeys —- who would have instantly refuted and dismissed their accusations as absolutely baseless.

Furthermore, we know that within two years of the Prophet’s death, Muslims were engaged in warfare against the Romans. Now, if there had been a Christian monk or a Jewish rabbi in Syria or Palestine with whom the Prophet (peace be on him) had had any interchange on the matters mentioned in these narratives, the Romans would have created a great fuss about this. They would have argued quite fiercely that Muhammad (peace be on him), who had visited their country during the earlier part of his life, had obtained information from several of their citizens. After obtaining this information, he then returned to Makka claiming to be a Prophet on the basis of the knowledge he had thus collected. At that time, the unbelievers were in dire need of refuting the challenge presented by the Qur’4n. Yet not a single person came forward with anything which proved that the Prophet (peace be on him) had drawn his information from any identifiable source other than that of Revelation.

It is also pertinent to point out that the Qur’an does not make this challenge in this verse alone; there are several other instances which contain similar statements. For instance, after narrating the story of the Prophet Zechariah (peace be on him) and Mary, the Qur’an says: (O Muhammad)! We reveal to you this account from a realm which lies beyond the reach of your perception for you were not with them when they drew lots with their pens about who should be Mary’s guardian, and you were not with them when they disputed about it (A/ ‘Imran 3:44).

After narrating the story of Joseph (peace be on him), the Qur'an says the following: (O Muhammad!) This. is some news from the unseen that We reveal to you for you were not present with them when Joseph’s brothers jointly resolved on a plot (Yusuf 12:102)?

Likewise, after narrating the story of Noah (peace be on him) in some detail, the Qur’an says: We reveal to you these accounts of matters that are beyond the reach of human perception. Neither you nor your people knew about them before this. Be, then, patient. Surely, the good end is for the God-fearing (Hud 11:49). M The fact that the Qur’an frequently returns to this theme shows that it is one of the major arguments continuing its Divine origin: that hundreds of years after these events occurred, an unlettered person was narrating them in detail. Obviously no source for that information was available to him except that of Revelation.

It will also be noted that this challenge — to identify any other source for this information other than Revelation - was one of the main reasons for Muhammad’s (peace be on him) acceptance by his contemporaries as a Prophet. They could appreciate that since there was no possible source from which the relevant information could have been drawn, the only possible explanation was Revelation.

Just imagine how important it would have been for the opponents of the Islamic Movement at that time to refute this Qur’anic contention. It stands to reason that they would have explored all possible avenues to challenge it. One can also understand that had there been any weakness in the Qur’an, it would not have been difficult for the Prophet’s contemporaries to prove it to be wrong.

65. A Prophet had not come to Arabia for about two thousand years, not since the days of Ishmael and Shu ‘ayb. During this long interregnum, the Arabs had heard about Moses, Solomon and Jesus (peace be on them), and about their Messages, delivered as they were outside Arabia, but during this time no Prophet was raised in their own land.

66. The Qur’an mentions this on several occasions as the reason behind the raising of the Prophets. It would be incorrect, however, to deduce from this that there must always be a Prophet in every land. As long as the means for the correct transmission of a Prophet’s Message are available, there is no need to raise a new Prophet. Not unless it is felt that something needs to be added to that previous Message, or that an altogether new Message needs to be delivered. There are times, however, when the teachings of the Prophets disappear altogether from the scene or become exceedingly distorted, lost in a heap of error and falsehood.

On such occasions they cease to have the potential to guide people. In such times, people may argue that since no one has explained to them the distinction between Truth and falsehood, it is not possible for them to be directed to the Right Path. It is on such occasions that God sends His Prophets to mitigate this excuse: thereafter, if anyone follows the wrong path, he will be held responsible for his wrong choice.

67. Their question was: Why was Muhammad (peace be on him) not given all the miracles which were given to Moses (peace be on him)? Like Moses, it should also have been possible for Muhammad (peace be on him) to demonstrate his staff turning into a serpent. His hand, too, like Moses’ hand should have become radiant like the sun. Those who denied him should have been struck with storms and plagues from the earth and the sky, and he too should have brought Commandments from God inscribed on stone tablets.

68. This answers those objections. People had failed to believe in Moses (peace be on him) despite the miracles given to him. What, then, was their justification for asking for more miracles? Many of those who questioned why Muhammad (peace be on him) had not been given miracles were the same people who had denied Moses or who followed a different path. In Surah Saba’, too, the Makkan unbelievers are mentioned as having said the following: “We will neither believe in this Qur’4n, nor in that which came before” (34:31).

69. That is, the Qur'an and the Torah.

70. The Prophet (peace be on him) had, in any case, to follow the True Guidance, as long as it truly constituted Revelation from God. If they had a Book of God better than the Qur’an and the Torah, then why were they hiding it? They ought to bring it out for all to see, and then the Prophet (peace be on him) would certainly follow it.

71. As far as exhorting people to follow the Truth was concerned, the Qur’an had done all that was needed. Only those who can eschew stubbornness and who are ready and willing to accept the Truth are guided by it.

72. This does not mean that all the People of the Book — the Jews and the Christians — in fact believe in it. This verse actually refers to a particular incident which took place at the time this surah was revealed and which was meant to jolt the Makkans into making their ingratitude known: God had done them a great favor by raising someone from amongst them as a Prophet. Their rejection of him was their shame. Conversely, those from far-off places outside Makka were making their way to the city, recognizing as they did the Prophet’s true worth from whom they derived immense benefit. _ Ibn Hisham, Bayhaqi and others reported this particular incident on the authority of Muhammad ibn Ishaq. After the Migration to Abyssinia when news about the Prophet (peace be on him) had spread to that land, a delegation of 20 Christians came to Makka and met with the Prophet (peace be on him) in the Holy Mosque. A crowd of the Quraysh stood around to witness the event. The delegation asked certain questions and the Prophet (peace be on him) answered them. Then, the Prophet (peace be on him) invited them to Islam and recited a few verses of the Qur’an. No sooner had they heard the recitation, than tears streamed from their eyes. They testified that it was the Word of God, and then they accepted Islam. After this incident, when they were leaving the Mosque, Abu Jahl and a few of his companions overtook them, refuting them severely, saying: “We have never seen a more foolish people than you. You were sent by your people to investigate about the life of this person so that you could inform them about the truth, but you came here, heard him [i.e. the Prophet] speak, and then you gave up your religion.” To this they replied: “Peace be upon you, brothers, we do not want to argue with you. Let us tread our path and you tread your path. We cannot remain blind to guidance and goodness.” (See Ibn Hisham, Sirah, Vol. 1, p. 392 and Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Vol. 3, p. 82.) (For more details see al-Shu‘ara’ 26: n. 123 above — Ed.)

73. That is, they already believed in the Prophets and Divine Books and, hence, their Religion could have been none other than Islam. Now when a Prophet had come with a Book from God — the Qur’an — they naturally believed in the new Prophet as well. Thus, there had been no change in their Religion. They were Muslims before and they were Muslims now.

This statement explains that Islam is not merely the name of the Religion brought by Muhammad (peace be on him), nor does the term “Muslim” denote only those who follow him. Rather, all the Prophets brought one and the same Religion and their followers have, at all times, been Muslims. However, if people refused to accept the Prophet who was raised after the one they initially followed, then, they ‘ceased to be Muslims. As for those who believed in the previous Prophets and who also accepted the new Prophet when he was raised, there was no interruption in their Faith; they were Muslims before and continued to be so after their believing in the new Prophet.

It is rather strange that some of the great scholars of Islam have missed this point, even though this verse is quite clear in its import. Jalal! al-Din al-Suyuti, for instance, has written a whole treatise on the subject in which he argues that the term “Muslim” can only be applied to the followers of Muhammad (peace be on him). When Suyuti came across the present verse, he was somewhat baffled.

However, he prayed to God to “open his heart” on this matter. Eventually, instead of revising his opinion, he stuck to his opinion even more firmly and explained away this verse by subjecting it to all kinds of meaningless interpretations.

One of his reasons for holding this opinion was that the words “inna kunna min qablihi muslimin” in the present verse mean according to him that they were already inclined to become Muslims even before the coming of the Qur’an.

This because they had received information through their own Scriptures that the Qur’an would be revealed and, hence, had decided that when the Qur’an was revealed, they would accept Islam.

Another argument advanced by Suyuti was that, the word bihi after the word Muslimin is omitted in this verse. Therefore, it actually means that they already believed in the Qur’4n because they were expecting it to be revealed; in other words, they had already put their Faith in it even before its Revelation. They were, therefore, Muslims not because they believed in the Torah and the Evangel, but because they believed in the Qur’an even prior to its Revelation.

A third argument was also put forward by Suyuti as follows: “We were destined to be Muslims; it was written in our fate that we will accept Muhammad (peace be on him) and the Qur’an as soon as they would come and, therefore, in reality, we were already Muslims.” None of these arguments, however, show any trace of the “opening of the heart” for which he had prayed! The fact of the matter is that the Qur’an enunciates this basic principle not only here but at several places: that the True Religion is only Islam (submission to God) (Al Imran 3:19), that from the very beginning, every Prophet brought the same Guidance, the same Religion, and the same Message and that all Prophets had always been Muslims and had always urged their followers to be Muslims.

In like manner, all those who accepted and followed them and who submitted to the command of the Almighty, were Muslims in all times. Here are a few examples in support of this in the Qur’4n itself: And whoever seeks a way other than this way of submission (Islam), will find that it will not be accepted from him and in the Life to Come he will be among the losers (Al ‘Imran 3:85). (Emphasis added.) Noah said: ... my reward lies only with Allah, and I am commanded to be of those who totally submit (to Allah) (Yunus 10:72). (Emphasis added.) Furthermore, God says of Abraham and his children: Such was Abraham that when his Lord said to him: “Submit”, he said: “I have submitted to the Lord of the Universe.” And Abraham enjoined the same upon his children, and so did Jacob: “My children! Behold, Allah has chosen this religion for you. Remain till death in submission (to Allah).” Why, were you witnesses when death came to Jacob? He asked his children: “Whom will you serve after me?” They said: ‘We shall serve your God, the God of your forefathers, Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, the One God, and unto Him do we submit (al-Baqarah 2:131-3). (Emphasis added.) Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian; he was a Muslim, wholly devoted to God ... (Al ‘Imran 3:67). (Emphasis added.) Abraham and Ishmael prayed to God as follows: Our Lord! Make us submissive to You and make out of our descendants a community that submits itself to You ... (al-Bagarah 2:128).

(Emphasis added.) In connection with Lot’s story, the Qur’an says: Except for one, we did not find any house of Muslims in the habitat of Lot (al-Dhariyat 51:36). (Emphasis added.) And Yusuf (peace be on him) prayed to His Lord: Cause me to die in submission (musliman) to You, and join me, in the end, with the righteous (Yusuf 12:101). (Emphasis added.) Moses also said to his people: My people! If you believe in Allah and are truly Muslims, then place your reliance on Him alone (Yunus 10:84). (Emphasis added.) Again, it was pointed out that the True Religion of Israel was not Judaism but Islam; everyone, whether friend or foe, knew this. Hence the last utterance of Pharaoh before he was drowned was: I believe that-there is no god but Allah in Whom the Children of Israel believe, and I am also one of those who submit to Allah’ (wa and min al- Muslimin) (Yanus 10:90). (Emphasis added.) The religion of all the Prophets of Israel was also Islam. Surely We revealed the Torah, wherein there is guidance and light. Thereby did Prophets - who had submitted themselves (to Allah) — judge for the Judaized folk ... (al-Ma’idah 5:44), (Emphasis added.) This was also the Religion of Solomon. When the Queen of Sheba accepted his Faith, she said: | oe Now I submit mfcelf with Solomon, to Allah, the Lord of the whole Universe (aN nl 27:44). (Emphasis added.) Islam was also the Religion of Jesus’ disciples: And recall when I revealed to the disciples to believe in Me and in My Messenger, they said, “We do believe, and we bear witness that we indeed are the ones who submit to Allah” (al-Ma’idah 5:11 1). (Emphasis added.) The contention that the Arabic words “Muslim” and “Islam” could not have been used in other languages is not a solid argument against these evidences. For what is being said here is not about these particular Arabic words, per se, but rather about what they mean. What is being said in the Qur’ an is this: The True Religion prescribed by God is neither “Christianity”, not “Mosaism”, nor “Muhammadanism”; rather, it is the Religion of surrender and submission to the command of God communicated through the Prophets and the Scriptures. All those who adopt this attitude, at whatever time it might be, are followers of the same universal, primordial Religion of Truth. For those who correctly and sincerely accepted this Religion and believed in Jesus after Moses and in Muhammad after Jesus did not change their Religion. It was a natural and logical corollary of their commitment to follow the True Faith. Distinguishable from these sincere believers were those who had thoughtlessly entered into the fold of some Prophet or other or who were simply born into it without giving any serious thought to the matter. For them racial, national or tribal considerations were no less important than sincere religious affinity. Such people ended up becoming mere “Christians” or “Jews”. The advent of Muhammad (peace be on him) _ exposed their inadequacies when they refused to accept him as God’s final Prophet. Their refusal only underlined the fact that they had not truly submitted to God; rather, they were either infatuated with the personality of one or other Prophet, or they had made a religion of blindly following their forefathers.

74. They would receive double reward: one for their believing in Jesus (peace be on him) and the other for believing in Muhammad (peace be on him). The same was stated in a hadith reported in Bukhari and Muslim on the authority of Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari, whereby the Prophet (peace be on him) said: “Three persons will receive double reward: one of them is he who is from among the People of the Book and who believed in his own Prophet and then believed in Muhammad.” (See Bukhari, ‘K. al- ‘Iim’, ‘Bab Ta‘lim al-Rajul Amatahu wa Ahlahu’. See also Muslim, ‘K. al-iman’, ‘Bab Wujub al-Iman bi Risalat Nabiyyina Muhammad ... wa Naskh al-Milal bi Millah’ - Ed.)

75. Those people will receive double reward because they followed the True Religion and kept themselves above national, racial and tribal prejudices. Later, when the new Prophet (peace be on him) came onto the scene they faced a serious test regarding their fidelity to God. They proved themselves to be truly worshippers of God, rather than worshippers of Christ.

Hence when a new Prophet came after Jesus with the same Islam which had earlier been expounded by Jesus, they followed the Guidance of the new Prophet. They did not hesitate to accept it and chose to abandon the path of those who clung to Christianity.

76. One of their characteristics is that they do not return evil with evil; they return it with good. They do not return a lie with another lie, but with truth. They do not act with injustice in response to injustice, but with justice and fairness. They do not respond to meanness with meanness, but rather with magnanimity.

77. Another characteristic of theirs is that they make monetary sacrifices in the cause of Truth. Possibly, this also alludes to the fact that when they heard about the advent of a new Prophet, they travelled all the way from Abyssinia to Makka, spending their money, time and effort for no other purpose than to seek the Truth. In doing so, they were animated by the idea that if they found him to be a genuine Prophet they would affirm their belief in him so that they were not deprived of True Faith and Right Guidance.

78. This alludes to the mean behavior of Abu Jahl and his companions mentioned in n.72 above.

79. This sentence occurs after mentioning the acceptance of Islam by the Abyssinian Christians. Although the statement is ostensibly addressed to the Prophet (peace be on him), it is actually meant for the Makkan unbelievers. It exposes their folly and virtually tells them: “See, how unfortunate you are! Others are coming from distant lands to receive the benefit of True Guidance from the spiritual stream which is flowing in your own land, and yet you remain deprived of it.” But the manner in which it has been said is as follows: “O Muhammad, you wish that your people, your kith and kin, your fellow-tribesmen should benefit from this spring of life; but your wishes do not matter for Guidance ultimately rests with God and He grants it only to those who are worthy of receiving it. If your relatives are not worthy of that Guidance, how can they receive it?” According to Bukhari and Muslim, this verse was revealed with regard to Abu Talib, the Prophet’s (peace be on him) uncle. When his last moment came, the Prophet (peace be on him) tried his best to persuade him to pronounce the shahadah, “There is no god but Allah”, so that his end might be good. But Abu Talib preferred to die with the religion of his ancestor, ‘Abd al-Muttalib. It was in this context that God revealed the present verse: “You cannot grant Guidance to whom you please. It is Allah Who guides those whom He wills.” (See Bukhari, ‘K. al-Tafsir’, ‘Bab “Innaka la Tahdi man Ahbabta wa lakinna Allah Yahdi man Yasha’ ”, Muslim, ‘K. al-Iman', ‘Bab al-Dalil ‘ala Sihhat Islam man Hadarahu al-Mawt ... wa la Yunqidhuhu min dhalik Shay’ min al-Wasa’il’ — Ed.)

As we know, traditionists and Qur’anic commentators are wont to mention the specific events in the Prophet’s (peace be on him) life to which a Qur’anic verse applies as the “occasion” of its Revelation. It is in this light that we should view ‘the above tradition as also other traditions on the same subject in Tirmidhi and Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s Musnad on the authority of Companions such as Abu Hurayrah, ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas, “Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar and others. (See Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, Vol. 5, p. 433. Also see Tirmidhi, ‘K. Tafsir al-Qur’an’, ‘Bab Surah al-Qasas’ ~ Ed.) If we bear this in mind, there is reason to feel sure, on the grounds of these traditions, that the present verse was necessarily revealed at the time of Abu Talib’s death. All that we can be sure about is that the significance of this verse was felt most intensely on that occasion. The Prophet (peace be on him) was desirous that everyone should become a believer and, thus, his efforts in this regard were directed towards all. But if someone’s death in a state of non-acceptance of True Faith would agonize him most, it would be Abu Talib’s. This because of the Prophet's intense personal attachment to his uncle. If the Prophet (peace be on him) did not even have the power to make his uncle accept God’s Guidance, then obviously he did not have this power with regard to anyone else. Enabling someone to believe lies entirely in Allah’s Hand, it is He Who dispenses this grace not on the grounds of any kinship or other affiliation, but in consideration of a person's capacity to appreciate, and because of his sincere readiness to accept the Truth.

80. This is what the Qurayshite unbelievers used to say as an excuse for not accepting Islam. When we reflect on this, we realize that this was indeed the main reason for their denial. In order to appreciate this fully, we should bear in mind the position of the Quraysh in those times, a position which they felt would be undermined if they were to accept Islam.

What initially lent eminence to the Quraysh in Arabia was their descent from Ishmael (peace be on him). There was no doubt, according to Arab genealogists, in this. When, thanks to the sagacity of Qusayy ibn Kilab, the Quraysh became the custodians of the Ka ‘bah and settled down in Makka, their importance grew.

This because they were now responsible for the upkeep of the most sacred shrine in all Arabia and were seen as the religious guides for all the tribes. Further, on account of the rites of Hajj, there was no tribe which did not have any relations with them. The Quraysh used their eminence to gradually bolster their position through trade and commerce. They were able to make good use of the political rivalry then obtaining between the Romans and the Persians, which further enhanced their importance in the field of international trade. In those days, all trade caravan routes between Rome, Greece, Egypt, Syria, China, India, Indonesia and East Africa had. been blocked by the Persians. The only route left was by way of the Red Sea which was also blocked after the Persian occupation of Yemen.

Thus, only one option was left: that the Arab traders carry the merchandise stemming from the Roman territories to the ports of the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf and carry the merchandise stemming from the eastern lands to the territories under Roman control.

This made Makka a very important center for international trade and the Quraysh enjoyed a virtual monopoly over it. But the lawlessness which prevailed in Arabia at that time made it necessary for the Quraysh to establish good relations with the tribes through whose territories they had to travel in connection with this trade. The Quraysh leaders did not merely rely on their religious position for this purpose, but also concluded agreements of safe-passage with those tribes.

The Quraysh also passed on a portion of their profit to these tribes and kept their leaders and chieftains happy with gifts. Moreover, they had built up a network of usurious money-lending chains which embraced the traders and chieftains of almost all the neighboring tribes. In these circumstances, when the Prophet (peace be on him) invited the Quraysh to Islam, they felt doubly threatened: their ancestral religion was under threat as were their worldly interests. Even if it were logically more appealing for them to accept tawhid, it would be disastrous to do so because this would give rise to large-scale opposition throughout Arabia. As a result, they would be deprived of their privilege as custodians of the Ka ‘bah and their good relations with idolatrous tribes would come to an end, jeopardizing the safety of their trade caravans. Thus, they feared that their religious eminence as well as their material prosperity would vanish. It was also possible that, in such circumstances, the other tribes of Arabia might even expel them from Makka. One sees here a strange lack of foresight on the part of people who become obsessed with their material interests. The Prophet (peace be on him) assured the Quraysh, over and over again, that if they accepted this Religion, they would have ascendancy over Arabia as well as beyond. They, however, could perceive in Islam nothing else but the potential for their utter destruction.

(For further details see Tafhim al-Qur’an, Vol. 4, pp. 316-17.) They thought that, contrary to what the Prophet (peace be on him) said, they would be deprived of their wealth and influence; that as soon as they accepted Islam, they would be left helpless and vulnerable. They could not visualize that within a few years, the whole of Arabia would be united under a central government with the Prophet (peace be on him) as its head; that within the life-span of their own generation, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Egypt would become parts of that government and within a century, the descendants of the Quraysh would rule over vast territories stretching from Sindh to Spain and from the Caucasus to the coasts of Yemen.

81. This is God’s first answer to the excuse they offered. This response amounted to saying: “Because of whom has peace and order come to prevail in the sacred territory? Because of whom does their sanctuary enjoy that eminence which is attracting merchandise from all parts of the world? Who has brought this about, you or God? Two thousand_ five hundred years ago, a servant of God arrived in this barren land with his wife and an infant child. He built a sanctuary with stones and mortar, proclaimed that God had made His House inviolable, and invited all to circumambulate it. Is it not because of God’s special blessing and favor that this place has come to enjoy peace and tranquility in the midst of the tumult and violence which - engulf the whole of Arabia? Is it not because of God’s special favor that it is looked upon with respect and veneration by all, and every year thousands of people come to it as pilgrims? It is thanks to this favor that you have become the leaders of Arabia and the major beneficiaries of the flourishing international trade of your time. Do you think that by rebelling against God Who, in the first place, bestowed this favor on you, you will prosper, and that you will be instantly destroyed if you follow God’s Religion?”

82. This is the second answer to-their excuse. It suggests that the wealth and prosperity, of which they were so proud and for the sake of which they cling to falsehood and turn away from the Truth, was at one time in the possession of the ‘Ad, the Thamud, the peoples of Saba’ and Midian and Lot. Did their wealth and prosperity save them from destruction? After all, the attainment of a higher standard of living is not the only pursuit available to man. It should not become the pursuit for the sake of which he disregards questions of Truth and falsehood. Nor should man decline to follow True Guidance because of some imaginary fear that material prosperity will be lost. Was there any guarantee that the Quraysh would be spared the destruction inflicted on those prosperous nations of the past which had succumbed to conceptual errors and moral corruption? Was there any guarantee that they would not meet a similar fate?

83. This is the third answer to their excuse. Those nations that had earlier been destroyed were steeped in injustice and iniquity. But before destroying them God sent His Messengers to warn them. However, when they did not give up their evil ways, they were totally annihilated. The - Makkans were now in the same predicament. They had become unjust and a Messenger was sent to warn them. If they still persisted in their rejection of the True Faith, what would happen would be contrary to their expectations. They would not be able to safeguard their prosperity; in fact, they would expose it to great risk. The Makkans had feared that a huge calamity would come upon them if they embraced the True Faith. Instead, the truth of the matter was the exact opposite: they would be seized by a great calamity for rejecting it.

84. This is the fourth answer to their excuse. In order to understand it fully, two things should be made quite clear: (i) The life of this world — which is of limited duration and lasts for just a few years — is merely a temporary halt in man’s total journey.

The real life is the one to come; that is the Ever-lasting life. No matter how much wealth one accumulates, no matter how luxurious one’s worldly life is, it is all transient. Man leaves all his possessions behind when he departs from this world, and obviously everyone has to so depart. If the prosperity and comfort of this temporary life is achieved by courting never-ending affliction and misery in the Next Life, then no intelligent person would entertain such a bargain. Anyone with even elementary common sense would opt for the hardships of a few years, if that is necessary, in order to earn eternal prosperity in the Next Life.

(ii) The religion prescribed by God, however, does not require man to contemptuously spurn the provisions of this life. It only requires that the Next Life be preferred to the life of this world. This is because the life of this world will vanish while the Hereafter will endure forever; this because the enjoyments of this world are fleeting whilst those of the Next World will abide. Therefore, one should only desire those goods of this world which will help one prosper in the Hereafter, or at least which will not cause one to ° suffer any loss in the Hereafter. But whenever one has to choose between the two, both religious teachings and common sense require that one opt for the good of the Hereafter rather than the transient pleasures and enjoyments of this world. One should always avoid the path that will destroy the Hereafter.

With these two considerations in mind, let us now examine what God says to the Makkan unbelievers. God does not ask them to. give up their trade and become paupers as a consequence of accepting Muhammad (peace be on him) as His Messenger. Instead, God says that the riches of this world.

which greatly fascinated them, were meagre and their benefits short-lived.

In comparison, what God had for them was far better both qualitatively and quantitatively, let alone the fact that it would abide forever. Therefore, they would be making a foolish choice if they opted for the transient benefits of this world at the cost of the Everlasting benefits of the Next World. They should compare the two and decide for themselves as to who would prosper.

Would prosperity be the lot of those who serve God and, therefore, receive His blessings and rewards? Or would it be the lot of those who will appear in God’s court as criminals and have only a modicum of unlawful enjoyments before being brought to book?

85. This continues the above point and is linked with the last sentence of the preceding verse. It says that the insistence of those people on associating others with God in His Divinity, on idolatry and in denying Prophet hood merely for the sake of worldly gains will lead them to an evil end in the Hereafter. It also tells them that even if nothing happened to them in this world — if no calamity befell them and they continued to enjoy the pleasures of this life - they would still come to a grievous end in the Hereafter. They ought to think carefully what kind of bargain they were making: a bargain of profit or of loss?

86. This refers to the satans, jinns and human beings who were set up as associates of God in His Divinity and whose word they preferred to the Word of God and His Messengers. It is these for whose sake people had forsaken the Straight Path. Whether or not people explicitly called them god (ilah) and lord (rabb), they were still guilty of associating them with God if they unreservedly obeyed and followed them in a manner that only God should be obeyed and followed. (For further explanation see Towards Understanding the Qur’an, Vol. V, Surah al-Kahf, 18: n. 50, p. 113.)

87. Those whom the unbelievers had associated with God in His Divinity will disclaim their responsibility, contending that they had not forced anyone to choose the wrong path. They will argue that they had not taken away from anyone their sight, hearing, or ability to think. It was not that those people had wanted to follow the Straight Path and that these false gods had forcibly pulled them away from it. Rather, just as the proponents of erroneous doctrines had themselves willfully chosen the path of error, so did their followers. True, they had placed the wrong path before them, but then their followers had made the choice of their own accord. Hence, each was responsible for the choice-that he made.

There is also a subtle point to be noted here. Although God will ask this question of those who had set up partners with Him, even before they can answer, their gods will speak out against them. When ordinary unbelievers will be asked that question, their leaders will instantly surmise that their turn will soon follow because their supporters had identified them and blamed them for the error into which they had fallen. Therefore, their deities will be inclined to put forward all possible justifications before their followers accuse them of leading them astray.

88. In other words, they will contend that their followers were not truly worshippers of those gods. Rather, they worshipped their own carnal desires, and, hence, chose the wrong path.

89. They would be asked to call upon those whom they had associated with God in His Divinity to come to their aid. In the course of worldly life, they had rejected the way prescribed by God. They should now appeal to the false gods they had chosen to come to rescue them from punishment.

90. This, in fact, forms part of the discourse on the refutation of shirk.

The polytheists had chosen some of God’s creatures as their gods. They ascribed to them certain attributes and functions. God now tells them that only He has the right to confer on any of His creatures the attributes and the functions that He pleases, creating in them the ability to perform the tasks that God wills them to perform. But who gave the polytheists the right to proclaim that any part of God’s power and authority had been transferred to some of his creatures? Hence, how could anyone be regarded as “the remover of every distress”, or as the “bestowed of treasures”, or as having the power to answer the calls of the distressed? How can it be said about someone that ‘he can bring about rainfall, or that someone else can grant jobs or offspring to people, or afflict people with diseases or heal them? How can they make someone a partner with God in this or that affair? How can these polytheists delegate to anyone God’s powers over any part of God’s realm? Whether it. be an angel, a jinn, a Prophet or a saint, all are God’s creatures and He Alone can allocate the power, ability or authority on whomsoever He likes, and whatever power or ability anyone has, owes itself to God’s Bounty.

How can God's creatures be elevated from their present position to the Creator’s position? How can any other than God have the right to be worshipped? How can Prayer be directed to anyone other than God for help, for the fulfilment of needs and desires? How can anyone be considered to have the power to make or mar the destinies of others? In short, how can anyone be invested with God’s Attributes and Powers?

91. The reason why this is said in the present context is that a person or a group of people can claim that they chose the path for their life after due consideration, and that they were fully convinced about its being the right path on the grounds of very persuasive arguments. They could also say that the arguments which had been put forward against their opinion failed to convince them. They could also claim that they had made their choice with full sincerity and had not come across anything which would have made them change their standpoint.

Such arguments, however, will be of no avail before God. For God not only knows what is apparent, but also man’s innermost thoughts. For Him man’s mind and heart are like an open secret, He knows fully all man’s feelings, emotions, desires and intentions. God also knows to whom the Truth was conveyed, when and by what means. He also knows about each individual, how the falsity of erroneous doctrines was made clear to him and what his motives were for turning away from the Truth and adopting falsehood instead.

92. Such witnesses would either be the Prophet who had warned that nation, or one of the rightly-directed followers of the Prophets, who had communicated the Truth to others, or any other means that nation through which the Truth had reached

93. They were asked to come up with a strong argument in their defense.

They were required to prove that shirk, denial of the After-life and of Prophet hood, to which they had clung adamantly, were right and that they had chosen their path on solid grounds. Or, they should at least prove that God had made no arrangement to warn them nor to communicate the right Message to them.

94, This example is also given in response to the Makkan unbelievers’ excuses. In fact, this subject is continuously addressed from verse 57 onwards.

It is important to remember who opposed the Prophet (peace be on him), expressing the concern that the interests of the nation were at stake. They were, indeed, the wealthy traders, the rich money-lenders, and the capitalists of Makka.

These were the ones who had made large fortunes through, money-lending operations and their clever manipulation of international trade. These people were wholly convinced that the only worthwhile goal in life was to maximize their monetary earnings. They also believed that whatever obstructed that pursuit must be wrong and should be brushed aside.

The common people, on the other hand, looked up to the rich as their role models. All that they wished for was to become like them. In this materialistic milieu, there was great appeal in the argument that if they accepted the Prophet’s Message, they would not only lose their wealth but also their power and prestige.

Further, not only their international trade would come to a halt but their very existence be endangered.

95. Qarun, the Korah of the Bible and the Talmud, was Moses’ cousin.

According to his lineage given in Exodus (2:18-21), his father and Moses’ (peace be on him) father were brothers. Elsewhere: in the Qur’4n, it is mentioned that in spite of his being an Israelite, Korah had allied himself with Pharaoh and had become one of his close and trusted courtiers. In fact, he was one of the two most vocal opponents of Moses (peace be on him), that is after Pharaoh. “We sent Moses to Pharaoh and Haman and Korah with Our signs and a clear authority, but they said: “He is a magician, a big liar’” (al-Mu’min 40:23-4).

This clearly shows that Korah had deserted his own people, had become an agent of the enemy who wanted to destroy the Israelites. It was through © his treacherous desertion of his own people that Korah had attained a very high position in Pharaoh’s court. He was one of the two people to whom Moses (peace be on him) was specifically sent besides Pharaoh, the other being Pharaoh’s prime minister, Haman. The rest of Pharaoh’s courtiers were not so important and are not mentioned individually in the Qur’an. Reference to Korah’s extraordinary position is also made in Surah al- “‘Ankabut (29:39).

96. Korah’s story, as related in the Bible (Numbers:16), makes no mention of his wealth. But, according to rabbinical traditions, he was very wealthy. No less than three hundred mules were needed to carry the keys to his treasures (The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. VIl, p. 556). This is clearly hyperbolic but it indicates that, even according to Israelite traditions, he was very rich.

97. Innama utituhu ‘ala ‘ilmin ‘indi has two meanings. First, that he owed all of his attainments to his ability. Nothing of what he had was a bounty which he had undeservedly received as a favor from someone. Hence, he was not bound to. give thanks by giving away a part of his wealth to the have-nots who are devoid of. merit, or by spending it on charity, so that he might not be deprived of his wealth by God by way of punishment. Second, that God had given him that wealth because He fully knew his abilities. Had he not been a person whom God liked, He would have given him nothing. The fact that God had given him all those things was proof that God liked him and was pleased with his ways.

98. Korah went about proudly claiming to be knowledgeable, wise and well-informed.

He also thought very highly of himself. Did he not know that there had been people before him with much more wealth and much greater power?

and yet God had destroyed them? If it were only peoples’ abilities knowledge, power and skill which brought about their rise and advancement, then how is it they were severely punished despite those seeming assets and were eventually done away with? If worldly positions were any measure of God’s pleasure and approval, then why were those people subjected to such a grievous fate?

99. The wicked have always claimed to be good. They never admit to any evil. Their punishment does not depend on their admission that they were wicked People are only punished when they confess their sins.

100. This kind of character, this way of thinking, and this reward from God are only for those who steadfastly resist the temptation to use unlawful means to earn their livelihood, regardless of whether they obtain a pittance or make millions.

“Allah’s reward”, in this verse, means that clean and bounteous provision which comes to a man both in this world and in the Next as a reward for his efforts. As for the word “patience”, it means a whole range of things. It means exercising restraint against greed and covetousness. It means strict adherence to honesty and uprightness. It means the readiness to cheerfully endure losses that might accrue from following the dictates of honesty and to forego the gains that might be obtained by unlawful means. It means contentment with whatever is earned through lawful means, no matter how meagre it might be. It means not to be ruffled when one sees the opulence and pomp of those who have amassed their wealth through corrupt ways. It means not being envious of those who are materially better off. It means appreciating that a life of coarse and dreary purity accompanied with God's Mercy is better than shimmering slime.

The statement that “but none except those who are patient shall attain to this” signifies God’s reward. It also signifies that purity of thought by dint of which an upright person is able to remain honest, and is even willing to suffer hunger and starvation rather than become a dishonest and corrupt multi-millionaire.

101. The expansion and contraction of a man’s provisions is dependent on God’s Will. God’s Will, however, is linked to a number of beneficent considerations. When God grants affluence to someone, it does not necessarily mean that He is pleased with that person or that He has necessarily granted him that affluence by way of reward. At times, God confers an abundance of wealth on those who have aroused His wrath. In such cases, it is precisely because of their wealth that they incur God’s punishment. Likewise, if the provisions of some are reduced, it does not necessarily mean that God is angry with them, that He has reduced their provisions in order to punish them. Often, people of very good character are given meagre provisions and this paucity turns out to be the means by which they attain God’s Mercy. In short, it is actually they who are God’s favorites. It is a sheer lack of understanding of this basic reality that often leads people to. envy the rich and the affluent. Yet it is they who have ~ earned God’s wrath.

102. They mistakenly believed that worldly affluence and riches are identical to the attainment of true success. For this reason, they believed that Korah was immensely successful. Later, however, they came to know what true success was and that it could never be attained by unbelievers. This didactic aspect of Korah’s story is mentioned only in the Qur’an. It is not to be found in the Bible or in the Talmud. However, the story’s content, as mentioned in these Scriptures tells us that when the Israelites left Egypt, Korah also left along with his retinue. Furthermore, he conspired against Moses and Aaron (peace be on them) with the active support of 250 others. Eventually, Korah was seized by God’s wrath and he, his family, and his wealth were all swallowed up by the earth.

103.. This means Paradise, the seat of true success.

104. Success in the Next Life will be exclusively for those who do not seek to exalt and glorify themselves on this earth; those who are not defiant, rebellious and arrogant but those who live in submission to God and who do not try make God’s bondsmen into their own.

105. “Mischief” signifies the chaos and disorder in human life which inevitably results from transgression. Whatever one does by Faeroe f i" bounds set by God constitutes mischief. Amassing wealth through un aw means and spending it on unlawful purposes is also a kind of mischief.

106. That is, ultimate success awaits those who fear God and do not disobey Him.

107. That is, the Prophet (peace be on him) had been entrusted with the responsibility to carry thé Qur’an to people, to instruct them in it, and to reform the world according to its teachings.

108. Laradduka ila ma‘adin means “He is going to bring you back towards a ma‘ad.” The literal meaning of ma‘ad is the place to which one ultimately has to return. Use of this word as an indefinite noun automatically suggests that it is a place of eminence and glory. (Ibn Manzur, Lisan al- ‘Arab, qv. ‘WD — Ed.)

Some Qur'anic commentators have taken this to mean Paradise. There is no reason, however, to confine it to Paradise alone. Why not retain it in the unrestricted sense in which God Himself used it so that it embraces a promise meant for both this world and the Next? The context also seems to suggest that the promise of glory and eminence for the Prophet (peace be on him) was applicable to both worlds — the present and the Next.

Commencing at verse 57, the discourse consists of a response to the Makkan unbelievers who had reacted to the Prophet’s Message by saying that it would lead them to a miserable end. If they joined the Prophet (peace be on him) and accepted his Religion, they would be hard put to eke out their existence in any part of the Arabian Peninsula. By way of an answer, God told His Prophet that the Almighty, Who had made him the standard-bearer of the Qur’an, would not allow him to be ruined. Rather, God would place him in a position of eminence far beyond the imagination of his compatriots.

In fact, this is exactly what happened. Within a few years, God made the Prophet (peace be on him) too powerful a ruler to be challenged by anyone in the whole of Arabia. Likewise, no religion could maintain its hold in face of the Prophet’s Religion. There was no precedent in the whole of Arabia’s history where any single person had acquired such a level of eminence and power that none in Arabia could rival him. The Arabs had never gathered around one single individual; they had never accepted any single person as their sole political and religious authority.

Some Qur’anic commentators, have expressed the opinion that the present verse was revealed on the occasion of the Prophet’s (peace be on him) Hijrah, when he was on his way to Madina. Suyuti has recorded this view in his tafsir on the authority of Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn Mardawayh. (See Suyuti, al-Durr al- Manthur fi al-Tafsir bi al-Ma’ thur, Vol. 5, pp. 139-40 — Ed.) Through this verse, God promised: The Prophet (peace be on him) that He would bring him back to Makka. This, however, is implausible and there is nothing in the wording of the verse that justifies such an interpretation. For, in the first place, the word ma ‘ad does not necessarily mean Makka. Second, this Surah actually belongs to the period of migration to Abyssinia: This is borne out both by the internal evidence — that is, the subject of the discourse — as well as by authentic Traditions. Therefore, one fails to understand why this Particular verse, which was revealed several years later when the Prophet (peace be on him) was on his way-to Madina, was subsequently made a part of the present discourse. Third, the mention of the Prophet's (peace be on him) return to Makka, seen in the context of the Prophet’s Hijrah to Madina, seems out of place. Considered against this background, the ~ statement made here would not be a Persuasive response to the Quraysh; rather, it would lend strength to what the Makkans said. It would seem to be suggesting.

something as follows: “Surely, O you Makkans; you seem to be right. True, ° Muhammad is going to be expelled from the city of Makka. But he will not be expelled forever because We will bring him back. to Makka.” The Traditions reported by Bukhari, Nasa’i, Tabari and other traditionists which Support this view go back only to ‘Abd Allah ibn “Abbas, but not to the Prophet (peace be on him). The traditions in question could very well reflect Ibn ‘Abbas’ own personal opinion. In any case, it cannot be considered as authoritative as a tradition going back to. the Prophet (peace be on him). (See Tabari, Tafsir, his comments on Sarah al-Shu‘ara ’ 26: verse 85. See also Bukhari, K. al-Tafsir, ‘Bab “Inna alladhi Farada ‘alayka al-Qur’an”’ — Ed.)

109. This is presented as proof of Muhammad’s (peace be on him) Prophet hood. Just like Moses (peace be on him), he was totally unaware that he would be appointed as a Prophet and that he would be entrusted with a great mission. Nor had he desired or tried to become a Prophet, indeed the idea never even crossed his mind. In this respect, his situation was similar to Moses’. Moses was on his way to Egypt when he was suddenly summoned by God and appointed as a Prophet. So extraordinary were Moses’ accomplishments after assuming his Prophetic mission that no one who was familiar with the earlier part of his life would even have imagined them.

Something identical happened with the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him). The Makkans were familiar with his life till the time he came down from the Cave of Hira’ with a Message. They ‘knew about his occupational activities, his manner of discourse, the subjects on which he dwelt, and his interests and concerns. In fact, the whole of his life was an open book for them. It was a life replete with truthfulness, honesty, trustworthiness and chastity. It was a life characterized by a concern to keep his word and to discharge his obligations. It was a life conspicuous for its decency, for its service to God’s creatures, and for its compassion and. tenderness.

Nevertheless, there was nothing in it which foretold that this noble man would become a Prophet. Not even his close relatives, neighbors and friends could have said that he was engaged in preparations leading to his Prophet hood. No one had heard him speak about the subjects which later became the focal points of his discourse after that transforming moment in the Cave of Hira’. Until then, no one had ever heard him use such words and terms nor that special diction which they later heard from his lips the Qur’an. He had never risen to preach any idea, to espouse any cause, to support any movement. On the contrary, none of his activities gave the faintest idea that he was seized with a passion to solve societal problems, or that he was poised to initiate any activity aimed at religious or moral reform.

Until the day before this transforming moment, he was simply an honest trader who was engaged in earning his livelihood in a straightforward and lawful manner. He lived a normal, happy life with his family, helped the poor, was kind to his relatives and hospitable to his guests. He was a person who relished solitude so that he could concentrate on devotion and worship.

But lo and behold, this man suddenly rose with a world-shaking Message, started a revolutionary movement, came forth with a piece of literature that: had no parallel, expounded a fully-fledged philosophy of life, and set about promoting a system of ideas, morality and civilization. All this was far too big a change to be, psychologically speaking, the result of deliberate preparation and conscious effort, and it could not have been a product of his conscious mind. It was not possible for him to produce by himself a new philosophy of life, a new ideology, a new cultural and social system, and an altogether new kind of literature. The transformation that came about was so great that no amount of gradual preparation could have produced it. And if he was indeed preparing for this, how could he have concealed his preparations from those around him, from those among whom he spent his days and nights. Had his life gone through those stages of preparation, there would have been many in Makka who would have said: “See, did we not tell you, he was going to claim something big!” But history is a witness.

The Makkan unbelievers accused the Prophet (peace be on him) of many things, but none accused him of this.

It is evident that the Prophet (peace be on him) did not anticipate or seek to become a Prophet, and that his mission was suddenly entrusted to him. This is.

well established by Moses’ traditions which narrate the story of him receiving his first Revelation. After this initial encounter with Jibril and the Revelation of the first five verses of Surah al- ‘Alaq (Surah 96), the Prophet (peace be on him) came down the mountain, trembling and shivering. He went home and cried out: “Cover me, cover me.” After a while, when the initial fear diminished, he narrated the whole incident to his wife, Khadijah, saying: “I fear for my life.” But she said, “Not at all. God will never bring you to grief. You are mindful of the rights of your relatives, you support the helpless and the indigent, you are hospitable to your guests, you are ever ready to partake in all good works,” Then Khadijah took him to her cousin, Waraqah ibn Nawfal, who was a learned and noble man who belonged to the People of the Book. After hearing the details of the incident, Waraqah said: “He who came to you was the same Namus (angel with a special mission), who came to Moses. I wish I were younger and lived till the day when your people will expel you.” The Prophet (peace be on him) asked: “Will my people expel me?” He said: “Yes; no one has come with a Message of the kind that you have brought without arousing the enmity of his own people.” (See Bukhari, ‘K. Bad’ al-Wahy’, ‘Bab Kayf kana ‘Bad’ al-Wahy’.) (See also Muslim, ‘K. al-iman’, ‘Bab Bad’ al- Wahy ila Rasul Allah Sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam’ ~ Ed.) This report of the incident depicts the graphic impact that an extraordinary event naturally produces in a simple, straightforward person. Had Muhammad (peace be on him) been anxious to become a Prophet, had he been thinking that — he must somehow obtain that position, had he been deliberating and concentrating his thoughts in anticipation of an angel’s arrival, he would have gleefully jumped up and down when Jibril appeared in the Cave of Hira’. He would have come down the mountain with gusto, instantly proclaiming that he had been appointed a Prophet. But what happened was something totally different. Muhammad (peace be on him) was stunned by the incident: he was trembling; he was filled with fear. He went home, covered himself up and only after he had recovered a little did he tell his wife, ina hushed voice and with fear: “I fear for my life.” (See Bukhari, ‘K. al-Iman’, ‘Bab kayf kana Bad’ al-Wahy ila Rasul Allah Sallallahu ‘alayhi wa Sallam’ — Ed.) This surely was not a man who was looking forward to Prophet hood.

It also needs to be pointed out that no one is more knowledgeable about the mental state and thoughts of a husband than his wife. Had his wife Khadijah known that her husband was preparing himself to assume the role of a Prophet, that he was waiting for the Angel Jibril to come, she would not have said what she did: On the contrary, she would have said something like: “Why should you worry? You have received what you have been looking forward to for so long. Go out and proclaim that and work for a successful execution of the venture while I get ready to receive offerings from your would-be devotees.” But what Khadijah had seen during the 15 years of their companionship was enough to convince her that Satan would not approach a person of his character and nobility and that God would not subject a person like him to distress and suffering. She instantly knew, therefore, that what her husband had seen was true, that he had indeed been endowed with Prophet hood.

Waraqah ibn Nawfal’s reaction was the same. He was a relative of the Prophet (peace be on him), namely, his brother-in-law. As a pious and learned Christian, he could easily establish genuine Prophet hood and Scripture and Revelation from their counterfeit versions. He was much older than Muhammad (peace be on him) and had spent the whole of his life observing what happened around him. As soon as Waraqah heard the details of what had happened in the Cave, he said that Muhammad (peace be on him) had been visited by the same angel who brought Revelation to Moses (peace be on him). For him, the situation was similar to that of Moses’ (peace be on him): a simple and good-natured man who had never thought of Prophet hood had suddenly gone through that extraordinary experience which heralds such a mission. Hence why Waraqah ibn Nawfal did not hesitate to conclude that this had not come about by Satan’s spell, nor was it the outcome of the Prophet’s (peace be on him) chimerical play of his inner self.

What this truthful and honest man had experienced was a fact rather than a fantasy.

(See Bukhari, ‘K. al-Iman’, ‘Bab Kayf Kana Bad’ al-Wahy ila Rasul Allah Sallallahu ‘alayhi wa Sallam’ — Ed.)

This is an irrefutable proof of the Prophet hood of Muhammad (peace be on him) which no reasonable and fair-minded person can deny. Hence, the Qur’an mentions it as proof on various occasions: Tell them: “Had Allah so willed, I would not have recited the Qur'an to you, nor would Allah have informed you of it. I have spent a lifetime among you before this. Do you, then, not use your reason?” (Yunus 10:16).

O Prophet, you did not know at all what was the Book and what was the Faith but We made that Revelation a light by which We show the way to whom We will from among Our servants (al-Shura 42:52). (For further details see Towards Understanding the Qur'an, Vol. IV, Yunus 10: n. 21 PP. 19-21 and Tafhim al-Qur’an, Vol. 3, al-‘Ankabut 29: nn 88-92 ‘and ibid., Vol. 4, al-Shura 42, n. 84.)

110. God had granted His Book to the Prophet (peace be on him) without his ever asking for it. It was his duty, therefore, to devote all his efforts, abilities and energy into conveying it to others. If the Prophet (peace be on him) failed to do so, it would amount to helping those who denied the Truth. This does not mean that God had any fear that the Prophet (peace be on him) would fail to perform his duty. Rather, while these words were said with reference to the unbelievers, they were actually meant to tell the Prophet (peace be on him) not to be bothered by the hue and cry and the fierce opposition of his enemies and - instead to persist in his efforts. He was also asked not to worry about the fear which he entertained, the fear that his movement would ruin people’s national interests.

111. That is, to drive away from the task of conveying the Qur’anic to others and from acting upon them.

112. It may also mean that sovereignty should be considered exclusively God’s, for He alone has the right over it.