1. Like other abbreviated letters that feature in the Qur’an, it is hard to ascertain the exact meaning of the letter Sad that occurs at the surah’s beginning. Nonetheless, the opinion of Ibn ‘Abbas and Dahhak seems plausible that Sad here amounts to affirming the Prophet's truthfulness.
(Baghawi, Ma‘alim al-Tanzil, comments on Sarah Sad 38: 1; see also Ibn ‘Abbas, Tanwir al-Miqyas min Tafsir Ibn ‘Abbas, comments on Surah Sad 38: 1.) Thus, ص here symbolizes the following: Muhammad is truthful in his statement or Muhammad spoke the truth.
2. The Qur’an has been described as dhi al-Dhikr. This admits the following two meanings: (i) That the Qur’an is noble and majestic; and (ii) that the Qur’an is full of exhortation in so far as it reminds man of the forgotten truth, and rouses him to wake from his heedlessness.
3. Were we to accept the meaning of Sad as given by Ibn ‘Abbas and Dahhak, it would mean swearing by the glorious Qur’an, or the Qur’an overflowing with judicious exhortation and good counsel, that it bears testimony that whatever the Prophet (peace be on him) was teaching was true. As for those who are adamant in rejecting it, they are ‘steeped in arrogance and stubborn defiance’.
On the other hand, should the letter Sad be taken as one of those abbreviated letters whose meaning cannot be determined, the opening statement would mean the following: The unbelievers do not reject Islam because it is marred by any flaw or because the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) has failed to fully explain it. On the contrary, it is their foolish arrogance and obstinacy that accounts for their unbelief. This is borne out by the Qur’an itself which, being full of exhortation, has left out nothing that is needed to direct people to the truth.
4. This was the height of the Makkan unbelievers’ folly. When a person belonging to their own ethnic group, their nation and their community, one whom they knew perfectly well, was designated by God to warn them and direct them to the truth, they found it quite strange and bizarre.
One simply wonders at their way of looking at things. One would think, on the contrary, that it would have been strange and bizarre if some alien belonging to an altogether different species or a total stranger began asking them to affirm his Prophet hood. In such a scenario, these people would have been justified in branding this as strange. For how could a non-human serve as a guide to human beings when he has no appreciation of their situation, their emotional predilections and natural dispositions? Likewise, if a stranger suddenly appeared in their midst, how could they judge his veracity, how could they determine whether he was trustworthy or not?
5. The unbelievers branded the Prophet (peace be on him) a sorcerer in the sense that he had cast a spell over people so that they blindly followed him, and did so notwithstanding public criticism and social boycott. These believers were so convinced of the truth of their faith that for its sake they did not flinch from forsaking their near and dear ones, and even leaving their hearths and homes. In this respect, they willingly endured all manner of hardship ranging from loss of business to physical torment and ostracisation. (For further details, see al-Anbiya’ 21, n. 5, Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. V, pp. 250-2.)
6. The allusion here is to the Quraysh chiefs who left Abu Talib’s assembly on hearing the Prophet's response.
7. Reference is made here to the Prophet’s assertion that if the Makkans were to embrace Islam’s basic creedal statement, ‘There is none worthy of worship other than God’, both Arabs and non-Arabs would follow them.
8. The unbelievers were excessively biased against Islam’s basic message. Hence they suggested that the message ought not to be taken at its face value. Its true purpose, far from being altruistic, w' as simply to establish the Prophet’s hegemony.
9. The Makkan unbelievers contended that neither their own ancestors, nor the Christians and Jews of Arabia and neighboring countries, nor the Magians of Persia, Iraq and eastern Arabia ever preached that man should exclusively devote himself to the One True God as the sole Lord of the ‘universe. Indeed, they found it hard to believe that man should confine his devotion to just one God to the exclusion of those that were held dear by the Supreme God. They drew attention to the rampant idolatry and polytheism in their own land: how men and women zealously invoked a host of gods and goddesses, visiting their shrines, making offerings at altars and addressing their prayers to idols. They visited the so-called sacred precincts expecting that they would be granted children and abundant wherewithal for these idols had the power to help them. Given this, the Prophet’s insistence on uncompromising monotheism sounded as totally outlandish to them. It was beyond them to believe that none of these gods and goddesses had any share in God’s Godhead and that He alone was single-handedly the Lord of His entire realm.
10. In other words, God tells the Makkan unbelievers that they were in fact rejecting Him rather than rejecting the Prophet (peace be on him).
As far as the Prophet (peace be on him) is concerned, they had never entertained any doubt about his veracity and integrity. It is stressed that the skepticism being expressed by the Makkan unbelievers was on account of the ‘Exhortation’ that God had revealed. It is only when the Prophet (peace be on him) began to teach the Book embodying Exhortation that they began to cast aspersions on one whose veracity was once held as absolutely beyond every doubt. The same observation was made in surah al-An‘am 6: 33. (See Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. II, 6: 33, n. 21, pp. 226-7.)
11. This is a rejoinder to the Makkan unbelievers’ statement casting doubts about God’s Messenger: ‘Has this Exhortation been sent down among us only to him, to the exclusion of all others?’ In response to this God makes it plain that it is for Him and for none else to choose whomsoever He wants to appoint as His Prophet. Others can only make such decisions if they can scale to the heights of God’s Throne and thereby determine who should and who should not receive the revelation. This point is made at several places in the Qur’an in response to the Quraysh unbelievers’ query: why was Muhammad (peace be on him) rather than one from among the noted chiefs of the Quraysh designated as God’s Prophet? (See Bani Isra’il 17: 100 and al-Zukhruf 43: 31-2 below.)
12. The word ‘here’ in the verse refers to Makkah. It is being said that right in Makkah, where Islam’s opponents delivered such hostile nonsense, they will be worsted and will eat dust. The time is not far off when they will stand as sorry figures before the man whom they dismissed as too humble for Prophetic office.
13, Pharaoh has been called as one of the ‘tent-pegs’. This expression is being used either to denote that Pharaoh’s empire was firmly established .as though its pegs were deeply rooted into the earth, or to denote that he had a very large army and wherever that army was stationed the area became full of tents secured by pegs. It is also possible that the allusion _ here is to the fact that Pharaoh also used to punish those who angered him and did so by having pegs hammered into their bodies. Moreover, it is also possible that the pegs might allude to the pyramids that were deeply rooted in the earth, as are pegs.
14. A single blast will suffice to obliterate them and there will be no.
need for the second. This might also mean that once God’s chastisement suddenly strikes them, there will be no occasion for any further respite, not even the time that is needed for a she-camel’s udders to be filled with milk after milk has been drained from them.
15. On the one hand is the graveness of God’s punishment as depicted in the preceding verse. On the other hand, is the utter folly of those who asked the Prophet (peace be on him) to have their punishment hastened!
16. This alludes to the foolish utterance of the Makkan unbelievers about the Prophet (peace be on him): that he was a magician and a liar; their sarcastic statement that God had none other than Muhammad to endow with Prophet hood, assuring that the Prophet had an axe to grind by calling people to monotheism.
17. This can be translated either as: ‘Recall [the story of] Our servant, David,’ or ‘Call to mind Our servant David.’ Taken in the former sense, the point brought home is that there is a lesson for people in this story. Were we, however, to follow the latter meaning, it implies that the recounting | of this story will help them persevere. Both aspects are intended in the narration. Accordingly, the words used here lend themselves to both meanings. (For a detailed account of the Prophet David's story see ‘al-" Baqarah 2, n. 273, Towards Understanding the Qur’an, vol. I, p. 193; Bani Isra’il 17, nn. 7 and 63; and al-Anbiya’ 21, nn. 70-2, vol. V, pp. 53 and 282-5; al-Naml 27, nn. 18-20, vol. VIL, pp. 144-5; and Saba’ 34, nn. 14-16, vol. IX, p. 158).
18. Dha al-aydi is a metaphor of authority. Used with reference to the Prophet David (peace be on him), it stresses his power and authority.
Indeed, it might refer to many aspects of his power. One aspect of this was that he had been endowed with exceptional physical prowess, which was demonstrated in the violent encounter between him and Goliath.
It might also refer to his military and political might, which enabled him to inflict defeat upon the polytheistic communities of neighboring countries, and as a result of which a vast Islamic state was established.
This statement might also be an allusion to David's moral strength, which lay in his simple ascetic ways notwithstanding his kingship. For David was a devout and God-fearing person and despite his preoccupation with the affairs of a huge state he spent most of his time worshipping God. According to Bukhari and Muslim, he fasted every alternate day and devoted one-third of the night to Prayer. (Muslim, Kitab al-Sawm, Bab al-Nahy ‘an Sawm al-Dahr...; Bukhari, Kitab al-Sawm, Bab Sawm al-Dahr.) Bukhari narrates on the authority of Abu al-Darda’ that whenever the Prophet David (peace be on him) was mentioned, the Prophet (peace be on him) used to remark: ‘He was God’s most devout servant’ (verse 17). (Bukhari, Kitab al-Ta’rikh al-Kabir, Bab al-Alif min Tarajim Baqiyyat Muhammadiyin, Bab Sin.)
19. For further details, see al-Anbiya’ 21, n. 71, Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. V, pp. 282-5.
20. David’s speech was not marred by ambiguity or equivocation that might cause people to feel confused about what he meant. He was exceptionally articulate so that whenever he spoke about something it became absolutely clear to his audience. He had the ability to bring to the fore all such questions that called for decision and solution. This ability requires an abundance of intelligence, understanding and eloquence.
21. The main objective of mentioning the Prophet David (peace be on him) is to narrate this aspect of his story, which commences here. The narrative is prefaced with an account of his excellent attributes in order to underscore his exalted rank.
22. What frightened David (peace be on him) was that two people suddenly barged into his private apartment despite his being the ruler of the realm. Furthermore, they did so by scaling the wall.
23. The expression ‘my brother’ here does not signify a blood relationship; it rather signifies the tie of brotherhood in faith or nationhood.
24. It is noteworthy that the plaintiff did not contend that the person had forcibly appropriated his ewe from him and had mixed it up with his own lot. Rather, he claimed that the other party asked him to hand over that ewe to him and that he had overwhelmed him in argument. While the other party was influential and powerful, the plaintiff was poor and resource less and thus unable to refuse his demand.
25. This should not give rise to the misunderstanding that the Prophet David (peace be on him) pronounced his judgement after giving hearing to only one party. However, since the defendant did-not Say a single word to clear his position, this amounted to an admission of guilt. David, therefore, took the other party’s version as true.
26. There is some disagreement as to whether one is required to prostrate oneself when one recites these words. Imam Shafi’ does not consider it wajib (obligatory) to do so as there is reference here to the repentance of a Prophet. (Razi, al-Tafsir al-Kabir, comments on Surah Sad 38: 24.) However, Imam Abu Hanifah is of the opinion that it is obligatory to prostrate. (Khattabi, Ma‘alim al-Sunan, Kitab al-Salah, Wa min Bab al- Sujud fi Sad.) Three reports on this issue are on record on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas. ‘Ikrimah states that Ibn ‘Abbas said: ‘It is not one of those Qur’anic verses whose recitation entails sajdah (prostration). However, I saw the Prophet (peace be on him) performing sajdah (prostration) while reciting it.’ (Bukhari, Kitab al-Jumu‘ah, Bab Sajdat Sad; Abu Da’aid, Kitab al-Salah, Bab al-Sujud fi Sad; Tirmidhi, Kitab al-Jumu‘ah ‘an Rasul Allah Salla Allah ‘alayhi wa Sallam; Bab ma Ja’a fi al-Sajdah fi Sad; Nasa’i, al-Sunan al-Kubra, Kitab al-Tafsir, Bab Qawlihi Ta‘ala: Ula’ik al-Ladhina Hada Allah...; and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, narrated by Ibn ‘Abbas.) Sa’id ibn Jubayr also quotes Ibn ‘Abbas as follows: ‘Insofar as this verse of Surah Sad is concerned, the Prophet (peace be on him) performed sajdah, saying: “The Prophet David (peace be on him) prostrated as part of his seeking repentance. We, however, perform sajdah while reciting this verse as a token of our gratitude to God that He graciously accepted his [to wit, David’s] repentance,” (Nasa‘i, Kitab al-Iftitah, Bab Sujud al-Qur’an, al-Sujud fi Sad.) Mujahid recounts that Ibn ‘Abbas said: ‘God commands the Prophet (peace be on him): “(O Muhammad), those are the ones God guided to the Right Way. Follow, then, their way,” (al-An‘am 6: 90.) Since David (peace be on him), who was a Prophet, had performed sajdah, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) also performed it in emulation of his example,’ (Bukhari, Kitab Tafsir al-Qur’an, Surah Sad.) These three traditions have come down from Ibn ‘Abbas. We also have the following tradition from Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri: ‘Once, while delivering asermon, the Prophet (peace be on him) recited this particular verse, then he got down from the pulpit and performed prostration and all those present did the same. On another occasion when he recited the same verse, those present got ready to perform prostration. On noting this the Prophet (peace be on him) said to them: “This is a Prophet’s repentance and I see you ready to perform sajdah”. After so saying the Prophet (peace be on him) came down from the pulpit and prostrated, and all those present did the same’ (Abu Daud, Kitab al-Salah, Bab al-Sujud fi al-Salah.) True, these traditions do not conclusively establish the obligation for prostration while reciting this verse. They do, however, establish that when the Prophet (peace be on him) recited it, he often prostrated and that prostrating while reciting this verse is therefore better than not doing so. In point of fact the above-cited narration from ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas in Bukhari turns the scale in favor of its obligatoriness.
Another point that emerges from the verse under discussion is that the Qur’an speaks of the Prophet David (peace be on him) in the following words: ‘He fell down, bowing’ (verse 24). All Quranic commentators unanimously take this to mean David's falling into prostration.
Accordingly, Imam Abu Hanifah and his disciples are of the opinion that, as regards those Qur’anic verses whose recitation or hearing requires sajdah, that obligation is fulfilled either by prostrating or even by bowing.
(Muhammad ‘Ala’ al-Din al-Haskafi, al-Durr al-Mukhtar, Kitab al-Salah, Bab Sujud al-Tilawah.) In other words, ruku’ (bowing) may be taken as a substitute for sajdah, as is implicit in this verse: Among Shafi’i jurists, Imam Khattabi holds the same opinion. While this opinion is doubtlessly sound and plausible, we do not find any record that the Prophet (peace be on him) or his Companions ever performed ruku’ in place of sajdah.
Therefore, one should have recourse to ruku’ only in situations when there is some constraint in performing sajdah. Even Imam Abu Hanifah and his disciples did not prescribe ruku’ as the normal practice. At most, they regarded this practice as valid but not that one should follow it routinely.
27. One thus learns that the Prophet David (peace be on him) had committed some lapse. However, it was a lapse that resembled in certain respects the case above in which one of the litigants laid claim to the other party’s ewes. Therefore, while pronouncing his judgement, it suddenly struck David that he was being tested. His lapse, however, was not of a - serious nature. God clarifies that as he fell down bowing and penitently turned to Him he was forgiven. Thus, this lapse did not have any bearing on his exalted status either in this world or the Next.
28. This represents the warning God delivered to the Prophet David (peace be on him) at the time when He accepted the latter’s repentance and gave him the glad tiding of granting him the exalted position “vicegerency. This implies that David was prompted by his base self to commit a lapse, that it was linked to an inappropriate exercise of his political authority. It was essentially an act involving the use of his authority in a manner that did not be hove a just ruler.
Thus, one is faced here with three questions: (i) What lapse was committed by David? (ii) Why did God make an oblique reference to it, instead of clearly spelling it out? (iii) Why has this lapse been referred to in this particular context? "Those who have studied the Bible know that it squarely charges the Prophet David with committing illicit sex with the wife of Uriah the Hittite and with having her husband deliberately killed in a war so that he could then take his wife in marriage. The Bible even states that the same woman gave birth to the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him). This account appears in detail in 2 Samuel, 11-12. Being part of the Bible, this account was known to the Jews and Christians. Indeed, it was the Bible that circulated this outrageous story. Even to this day, all works on the history of the Israelites and Judaism resonate the same charge against the Prophet David (peace be on him). Just consider the following Biblical passage which is illustrative: And the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him, and said to him, ‘There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. The rich man had very many flocks and herds; but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his morsel, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him. Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb, and prepared it for the man who had come to him.’ Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, ‘As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.’
Nathan said to David, ‘You are the man... You have smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the Ammonites.’ (2 Samuel 12: 1-7 and 9.) Since the story was commonly known, there was hardly any need to repeat it in detail in the Qur’an. Even otherwise God does not expatiate on such matters in His Book. Accordingly, only a few oblique references have been made to the story, pointing out what actually happened and how it was altogether misrepresented and distorted by the People of the Book.
The actual event as it emerges from the Qur’anic account is that the Prophet David (peace be on him) had asked Uriah (or whatever that person’s name was) to divorce his wife. Now since this desire had been expressed to a commoner by a great ruler and a person of immense religious stature, the person concerned found it hard to refuse the request though no coercion was exercised to obtain his consent. However, before that person could actually carry out David's wish, two righteous people from the Prophet David’s community suddenly barged into his presence and presented a hypothetical case to him for judgement. David considered it to be an actual case of litigation and gave his judgement. However, no sooner had David pronounced his verdict than he realized the parallel between this case and the other case involving him and the person whom he had asked to divorce his wife. David’s conscience alerted him that what he had branded as an act of injustice in this case was equally applicable to him with regard to the earlier case. Upon realizing this, David fell into prostration, repented profusely to God and refrained from proceeding any further in that particular matter.
Even a little reflection over this Biblical narrative reveals that the Prophet David (peace be on him) had somehow come to know the exceptional qualities of this woman and it occurred to him that such a gifted woman should better be a queen rather than the wife of a petty official. Swayed by this thought, David simply asked Uriah (or whatever that person’s name war) to divorce his wife. In so doing, he did not feel any qualm of conscience because this kind of divorce and remarriage was fairly common among the Israelites at the time. None was offended by sue requests for divorce, which would enable another man to remarry the divorced woman. Indeed, close friends often divorced their wives in order to facilitate their friends’ marriage to them. However, in making this request the Prophet David (peace be on him) had become oblivious of his high position. For a word from him to this effect could be taken as a command. When the same point was pressed home through the parable of the ewes, he immediately gave up the idea of taking this woman as his wife, for it would have amounted to coercion. This, then, is how the matter ended. However, at a later date, Uriah was slain in battle. The Prophet David (peace be on him) had no part in his death. It was only after Uriah’s death that he married his widow. However, all this led perverse Jewish minds to fabricate the heinous charge against David as described above.
This fabrication grew in malice when a group of Jews took to opposing the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him). They circulated this outrageous story, adding further odious material. by their own accord to increase its outrageousness. (For further details see al-Naml 16, n. 56, Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. VII, p. 164.) Prompted by ulterior motives, they fabricated the story that the Prophet David (peace be on him) a caught a glimpse of Uriah’s wife from the roof of his palace when she was naked, taking a bath. Thereupon he summoned her and had illicit sex with her, as a result of which she became pregnant. Then, he deputed Uriah to fight against the Ammonites, directing his commander, Joab, to post him to a position that would ultimately cause his death in battle. Once he had been so slain, David then married his widow. It was she wo bore him Solomon.
These wicked people interpolated all this scandalous material into their Scripture in order to misguide their coming generations. They are guilty of calumniating against their two greatest benefactors, the Prophets David and Solomon (peace be on them) even though they were next only to the Prophet Moses (peace be on him) in their beneficence to the Israelites.
Some Qur’anic commentators have almost unquestioningly accepted these reports of Israelite origin. Indeed, they have discounted only that part of the narrative which charges the Prophet David (peace be on him) with indulgence in illicit sex and making Uriah’s wife pregnant. Another group of commentators, however, rejects such reports out of hand. They deny the occurrence of any such incident involving the Prophet David (peace be on him) which has any resemblance with the parable of the 99 ewes. While so doing, they offer far-fetched interpretations. Indeed, it is not only that the version of the incident offered by them does not fit in with the Qur’anic context but is also not corroborated by any authentic source.
Nevertheless, some scholars have duly grasped the true import of the parable as presented in the verse and have taken the right cues from the Qur’anic account. Consider the following which is illustrative. Both Masruq and Sa‘id ibn Jubayr cite Ibn ‘Abbas as follows: ‘The Prophet David (peace be on him) had only asked Uriah to divorce his wife so that he could marry her.’ (Tabari, Tafsir, comments on Surah Sad 38: 23.) Zamakhshari maintains in al-Kashshaf: ‘It clearly emerges from the Qur’anic account that the Prophet David (peace be on him) had suggested to Uriah that he divorce his wife for him.’ (Zamakhshari, al- Kashshaf, comments on Surah Sad 38: 21.) Abu Bakr al-Jassas, however, is of the view that this woman was not Uriah’s wife, but rather his fiancé. The Prophet David (peace be on him) also proposed to her, something which incurred God’s displeasure for he had thus tried to supersede the marriage proposal of a brother in faith at a time when he already had several wives in wedlock. (Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur’an, comments on Surah Sad 38: 23.) Some other Tafsir scholars also subscribe to the same view, (See Qurtubi, al-Jami’ li Ahkam al-Qur’an, comments on Surah Sad 38: 24.) Nonetheless, this version is not fully in line with the Qur’anic narrative. For the plaintiff in the Qur’anic narrative contends: ‘I have only one ewe. And yet he said: “Give her into my charge””’ (verse 23.) In his judgement, too, the Prophet David (peace be on him) pressed home the same point: ‘He has certainly wronged you in seeking to add your ewe to his ewes,’ (verse 24.) This parable is applicable to David and Uriah only if that woman was Uriah’s wife. Had the situation only involved a marriage proposal with Uriah’s fiancé, the wording would have been different.
While discussing this issue at length in his Ahkam al-Qur’an, Abi Bakr ibn al- “Arabi writes: ‘This is the main point of the story: that the Prophet David (peace be on him) had asked one of his men to divorce his wife for him, and had asked for this seriously... The Qur’an does not mention that the person concerned parted with his wife, or that David (peace be on him) actually married that woman, or that Solomon was born of her womb. What brought God’s censure upon him was that he had asked Uriah to divorce his wife for him... This act may, in itself, be all right as such but it was unbecoming of a Prophet to do so. Hence he was reminded about it and was censured and admonished,’ (Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur’an, comments on Surah Sad 38: 23, 26.) This interpretation seems consistent with the context in which the story has been narrated in the Qur’an. Were we to carefully consider the discourse in connection with which this story has been narrated, it will become absolutely clear that the narration aims to emphasize two points: One, it aims at urging the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) to remain patient in the face of offensive statements people were making about him. He is, therefore, told: ‘(O Prophet), bear with patience what they say, and call to mind Our servant David...’ (verse 17). That is, while the Prophet Muhammad’s detractors charged him with sorcery and lying, David was charged with something even more outrageous — adultery and killing by guile. In view of what befell David the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) is asked to endure with equanimity and patience the storm of false accusations made against him.
The other purpose of this narration was to impress upon the unbelievers that they were strutting around committing all kinds of excesses without the least fear of being called to account. They were told that God, in Whose dominion they were committing those iniquities, spares none from holding them to account, not even those whom He particularly likes and favors with the grant of His proximity. Whenever a slight lapse occurs, God rigorously takes such favored ones to task.
It is in this regard that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) was asked to narrate the story of David: David was full of excellent qualities, but when he did something that did not befit him, God did not spare admonishing him.
It is also being pertinent at this point to clarify a misgiving. In the parable the plaintiff claimed that while the other party had 99 ewes, he still wanted him to hand over the only one ewe he had. This apparently gives rise to the suspicion that what it hints at is that although David (peace be on him) had 99 wives, he wanted to add another wife to reach the figure 100. However, there is no reason to believe that every little detail of the parable should be literally applicable to David or Uriah the Hittite.
The number mentioned in the parable should be seen in the context of the known linguistic practice of mentioning figures mainly to stress numerousness rather than to indicate an exact number. The plaintiff sought to draw the Prophet David’s attention to the fact that he already had quite a few wives yet he wanted to have someone else’s wife as well.
This insightful observation was made by al-Hasan al-Basri, as cited by Nisapuri in his Tafsir, ‘David did not have 99 wives. This statement is figurative.’ (Nisapuri, Tafsir, comments on Surah Sad 38: 24.) (We have also discussed this issue at length in another work of ours. Those interested in a detailed discussion of the matter should see Sayyid Abul A’la Mawdadi, | Tafhimat (Urdu), 17th ed., Lahore: Islamic Publications Ltd., 1995, vol. II, | pp. 39-58.)
29. God did not create the heavens and the earth in sport so that His creation would be devoid of wisdom and purpose, justice and fairness. Nor is His creation an act of futility so that regardless of whether one’s acts are good or bad, they would lead to no consequence.
This statement represents the core of the previous discourse and is a prelude to the forthcoming one. The present statement aims to drive home to the audience that man has not been left in the world as an unbridled animal to wander around at will nor is this world a realm of chaos and arbitrariness wherein a person may go about with impunity, free from any thought of accountability.
As a prelude to the discourse that follows, it is stressed that whoever does not believe in ultimate reward and punishment suffers from the illusion that the end of everyone, whether good or bad, is the same: all will be reduced to dust after death without facing any consequence of their deeds. Such people think that the Creator has indulged in an act of utter futility by creating man in the first place. The same point is made at several other places in the Qur’an. Some instances in point are the following: - Did you imagine that We created you without any purpose, and that you will not be brought back to Us? (al-Mu’minun 23: 115).
It was not in idle sport that We created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. We did not create them except in Truth. But most of them do not know. The Day of Final Decision is the appointed time for all (al-Dukhan 44: 38-40).
30. The unbelievers are asked whether they find it reasonable that both good and evil should ultimately come to the same end. How can it possibly satisfy them, for example, that a pious person should be left unrewarded for his righteousness and a wicked person be left unpunished for his evil? Denial of the Hereafter, of Divine recompense, of Hell and Paradise amounts to denying the Divine attributes of wisdom and justice.
Furthermore, this denial also divests the entire system underlying the universe of all meaning. Should the line of thinking which underlies the denial of the Hereafter be taken seriously, there remains no incentive to do good or to refrain from evil. If God’s realm is indeed so arbitrary and chaotic, then whoever lives righteously and endures pain for the sake of righteousness and seeks to bring about reform in the lives of God’s creatures is no better than a fool. By the same token, whoever accumulates all possible advantages, legitimate or otherwise, and thereby enjoys a life of illicit pleasures is indeed a smart fellow!
31. Barakah signifies the growth of goodness and felicity. That the Qur’an is a blessed Book underscores that it is of immense benefit to man. Contained in it are the best directives to mend and improve his life. One’s adherence to the Qur’an ensures nothing but goodness, discounting all possibility of loss or harm.
32. An account of the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) also features in al-Baqarah 2, n. 104, Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. I, p. 96; Surah Bani Isra’il 17, n. 7, vol. V, pp. 12-16; Surah al-Anbiya’ 21, nn. 70-5, vol. V, pp. 282-7; Surah al-Naml 27, nn. 18-56, vol. VIL, pp. 144-64; and Surah Saba’ 34: 12-14, nn. 17-24, vol. IX, pp. 159-72.
33. The actual words are which refer to the horses that maintain poise while standing and that are also known for their speedy gallop.
34. The word used is khayr. It denotes abundant wealth and is also used figuratively for horses. Since the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) had consecrated these horses for jihad in God’s cause, they are here described as khayr.
35. The Qur’anic commentators disagree in their understanding and interpretation of these verses. According to some scholars, the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) was so absorbed in watching the horses and observing their gallop that he either missed the ‘Asr Prayer or forgot to recite the supplications he used to recite between ‘Asr and Maghrib Prayers. He remained so occupied with watching the horses until the sun set. It was then that Solomon (peace be on him) ordered that the horses be brought back to him. When they came, he began to cut them into pieces; or to put it differently, he began to sacrifice them as an offering to God. He did so because they had made him oblivious of God’s remembrance, (Qurtubi, al-Jami’ li Ahkam al-Qur‘an, comments on Surah Sdd 38: 33.) Taken in this sense, some scholars translate the above verses thus: ‘He said: “I was so overcome by the love of these horses that I missed my Lord’s remembrance [‘Asr Prayer or recitation of the usual supplications].” After the sunset, he recalled these horses and slashed their necks and shanks (with sword).’ Although this interpretation has been offered by some leading Qur’anic scholars, it is nonetheless not persuasive. This because in order to make this interpretation acceptable, these scholars have had to add three points of their own accord, none of which has any basis in any of the relevant sources. The points they have added are the following: (i) It is assumed that the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) missed his ‘Asr Prayer, or the supplications which he used to recite at that hour, because of his preoccupation with the horses. In this regard, it is pertinent to point out that the Qur’anic words are no more than the following be BS e313, ‘Lo! [have come to love this wealth to the extent of becoming headless to the remembrance of my Lord’ (verse 32.) These words, at most, can be construed to mean that so intense was Solomon’s love of the wealth [to wit, the horses] that it made him negligent of God’s remembrance. However, the Qur’anic narrative does not mention that Solomon missed the ‘Asr Prayer or some particular supplications that he used to recite. Moreover, these scholars tend to suppose that the sun set. However, when one reads the words one is instantly reminded of (well-trained and running horses) in the preceding verse. Hence the words simply mean that the § horses disappeared from sight.
(ii) These scholars further assume that the Prophet Solomon (peace] be on him) did not simply pat the horses’ shanks and necks; they rather think that he began to slash them with his sword or, to put it differently, he began to sacrifice them in God's cause because the love of these horses’ had made him heedless to the Prayer. (iii) These scholars also assume that q Solomon struck the horses with the sword although there is no mention of a sword; what is mentioned is that Solomon ‘struck their shanks and necks.’ Not only there is no explicit mention of striking with the sword, but the context too does not lend itself to believing that Solomon would have struck these horses with a sword.
We are, in principle, opposed to this kind of interpretation of the Qur’an. In our opinion, any addition to the content of a Quranic statement is valid in no more than the following four cases: (a) either there should be some contextual indication in the text of the Qur’an itself to support that addition; (b) or there should be some reference of allusion to that addition somewhere else in the Qur’an; (c) or that it is an explanation of a mujmal (unexplained) statement of the Qur’an by a hadith; or (d) that there is some other reliable source to support the addition: if F it is a historical matter, then a historical source should explain it; and if it relates to the natural phenomena, then it should be explained by reliable scientific data; and if the matter relates to fiqh, then it should be explained by any of the recognized works of fiqh.
In the absence of any of the above, it is altogether unjustified for people to weave a story out of their imagination and then pass it off as a plausible explanation of a Qur’anic narrative.
Another group of scholars offers a slightly different explanation. For them, the word as well as refer to the sun. In other words, the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) prayed that the sun be sent back in time so that he might offer ‘Asr Prayer. Accordingly, the sun reappeared and he performed the Prayer, (Qurtubi, al-Jami’ li Ahkam al- Quran, comments on Surah Sad 38: 33.) However, this explanation is even less acceptable than the one above, for the Qur’anic verse in question does not say a word about the sun or its return. We do not say so on the grounds that God does not have the power to send the sun back in time if He so wills. We rather say so because had that happened, it would have been an event of such dazzling importance that it would necessarily have found a place in the historical sources.
These scholars also refer to some hadith to show that the sun’s reappearance occurred not simply once but on several occasions. It is mentioned that this took place on the occasion of the Prophet's Ascension.
(Al-Qadi Abu al-Fadl ‘Iyad al-Yahsubi, al-Shifa bi Ta’rif Huquq al-Mustafa, al-Bab al-Rabt’ fima Azharahu Allah ‘ala Yadayhi min al-Mu ‘jizat, Fasl Inshiqaq al-Qamar wa Habs al-Shams.)
The same was also caused to happen on the occasion of the Battle of the Trench. It is also reported to have happened when ‘Ali lay asleep in the Prophet's lap, as a result of which he missed ‘Asr Prayer. The Prophet (peace be on him) is said to have prayed that the sun be made to reappear and this prayer of his was granted. (Al-Qadi Abu al-Fadl ‘Iyad al-Yahsubi, al-Shifa bi Ta‘rif Huquq al-Mustafa, al-Bab al-Rabi' fima Azharahu Allah ‘ala Yadayhi min al-Mu'‘jizat, Fasl Inshiqaq al-Qamar wa Habs al-Shams.) However, these reports are even less plausible than the explanation itself. Ibn Taymiyah has examined all the versions and chains of narrators in the tradition about the reappearance of the sun wherein ‘Ali has been mentioned and has shown the tradition to be spurious. (Taqi al-Din Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Halim ibn Taymiyah al-Harrani, Kitab Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyah fi Naqd Kalam al-Shi‘ah wa al-Qadariyah, Balaq: al- Matba’ah al-Kubra al-Amiriyah, 1322 AH, vol. IV, pp. 185-95.) Ahmad ibn Hanbal believes that these reports have no basis. (Muhammad Tahir ibn ‘Ali al-Hindi al-Fatni, Tadhkirat al-Mawdu‘at, Bab Fadl Sahabatih wa Ahl Baytih wa Uways wa Radd al-Shams ‘ala ‘Ali wa ‘Adhab Qatil al-Husayn wa Ta’rikh Qatlih.) Ibn al-Jawzi, too, dismisses them as false and fabricated reports, (Ibn Taymiyah, Kitab Minhaj al-Sunnah, vol. IV, p. 186.) Some scholars brand the reports about the reappearance of the sun during the Battle of Trench as weak and others as fabricated.
As to the traditions about the Prophet’s Ascension, it is worth clarifying that when the Prophet (peace be on him) recounted the details of his Ascension before the unbelievers, the latter asked him to produce some proof. In reply, he told them of an incident that took place on his way to Jerusalem. On being asked as to when that caravan would arrive in Makkah, he indicated the day of its arrival. On the appointed day, the Makkans waited for the caravan to arrive. As evening was about to fall, the Prophet (peace be on him) prayed to God that the sun may not set until the caravan’s arrival and the caravan did indeed arrive before sunset. (Al-Qadi Abu al-Fadl ‘Iyad al-Yahsubi, al-Shifa bi Tarif Huquq al- Mustafa, al-Bab al-Rabi’ fima Azharahu Allah ‘ala Yadayhi min al-Mu ‘jizat, Fasl Inshiqaq al-Qamar wa Habs al-Shams.) Some narrators, however, have recounted the same in a manner that leaves the impression that on that day the sun set an hour later than its appointed time. For them, the sun too waited until the caravan had arrived. Such reports do not constitute sufficient proof for an extraordinary event such as an hour’s long delay in the setting of the sun. Had this really happened, it would have been very widely reported and would not have been confined to some stray reports by a few individuals.
Another group of Qur’anic scholars, however, interprets these verses in a way that conforms to the understanding of those who read this verse without any pre-conceived notions. According to these scholars, what happened was the following: As some high quality horses were [ presented before the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) he remarked, that he did not love them out of any personal motive, but rather because of their effectiveness in exalting the Word of God. He directed that a race between these horses be held. As a result, the horses galloped and disappeared from his sight. According to ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas, when they returned to Solomon (peace be on him), he affectionately patted their necks and shanks. This version of the incident appears to us as the most plausible one.
Furthermore, it not only fits in with the wording of the Qur’anic text but is also not marred by any addition to the meaning of the relevant verses not endorsed by the Qur’an, authentic Hadith or Israelite history.
It is also pertinent to point out that at the conclusion of this narrative, God pays the following tributes to the Prophet Solomon (peace be on f him): ‘How excellent a servant (of Ours he was)! Indeed, he constantly turned to Us in devotion’ (verse 30.) These remarks make it quite clear that notwithstanding the abundant resources available to Solomon, he valued them only in so far as they were instrumental in serving God’s cause. Hence, when he inspected a splendid parade of high quality horses he remembered God and God’s favors instead of engaging in arrogant self-boasting.
36. In the sequence of the discourse, the real purpose of the narrative is to recount this very incident for which the preceding verse serves as a prelude. We have seen in the case of the Prophet David (peace be on him) that he was first praised and then a mention was made of his being subjected to a test which shows that God does not spare even His beloved servants from putting them to test. It was also shown that once David (peace be on him) was informed of his lapse, he repented submitting himself fully to God. In like manner, it is first mentioned in the context of the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) that his was an exalted position as a sincere and devoted servant of God. He too was tested as was David. When a body was cast upon his throne, Solomon instantly realized his lapse, sought forgiveness from God and recanted from what had necessitated that test. In other words, God brings home the following two truths through this story: (i) Even such distinguished and beloved Messengers of God such as the Prophets David and Solomon (peace be on them) were not spared being put to test. (ii) As soon as one realizes one’s lapse, one should humbly turn to the Lord. As the same attitude was displayed by both the Prophets, David and Solomon, God not only pardoned them, but showered further bounties upon them However, this also raises questions about the nature and details of the Prophet Solomon’s test and the significance of casting a body upon his throne. So let us ascertain the nature of the warning directed at Solomon upon which he was prompted to seek God's forgiveness.
The Qur’anic commentators offer four varying answers. One group relates an elaborate version of the story, some of the details of which are mutually divergent. Common to this version is the assertion that the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) had committed some lapse. Either one of his wives indulged in idolatry in his palace for forty days, something that he remained unaware of, or it is said that he stayed indoors for a few days, neglecting the petitions of his people. As punishment, his ring was taken away by a devil. This was the ring through which Solomon governed the jinn and men and established control over the winds. With its loss, Solomon (peace be on him) became deprived of his power and for 40 days ran from pillar to post looking for his lost ring. During this time, it was the devil who had stolen the ring, rather than he, who ruled over his kingdom, impersonating himself as Solomon. The reference here is to the same devil that had been cast upon his throne. Some reports go to the extent of stating that during this period even the king’s wives were not safe from that devil’s amorous encroachments.
Eventually, noticing the unusual. conduct of the devil, Solomon’s ministers and courtiers became suspicious and concluded that he could not be Solomon. Hence, they opened, in his presence, a copy of the Torah and subsequently the devil took to his heels. While fleeing, the ring fell into water and was swallowed by a fish. By sheer coincidence, the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) happened to catch that fish. When he cut open its belly to cook it, he recovered his lost ring. No sooner than this had happened, did all jinn and humans appear before him, renewing their pledge of service. (Qurtubi, al-Jami‘ li Ahkam al-Qur’an, comments on verse 34, Surah Sad 38: 34.) This whole story is full of superstitious tales, which some early converts to Islam uncritically took over from Judaic and Christian sources and spread among the larger body of Muslims. They had accepted this stuff from the Talmud and some other unauthentic popular Israelite sources.
What is intriguing is that some Muslims bought this story, mistaking it to be a part of the Qur’anic account. Unsuspectingly and uncritically they further transmitted this bizarre story. There is, however, no truth about the miraculous qualities of this ring. Nor did the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) owe his extraordinary power to that ring. Moreover, devils are not capable of impersonating a Messenger and thus of misguiding people. It is unthinkable that God would punish a Messenger of His in such a way as would let a devil go about under his identity, wreaking havoc within a whole nation.
It should be noted, first of all, that the Qur’anic account refutes this story outright. Furthermore, verses 36 and 37 of the Surah declare that the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) was subjected to this test and sought God’s forgiveness and God once again yoked the winds and the devils to Solomon’s service. In this respect, then, we observe how this story reverses the chronology of events by stating that, thanks to the magical ring, the devils had already been under Solomon’s control. Qur’anic commentators who narrate this story did not take note of the subsequent verses which are at odds with the content of this narration.
The second group of Qur’anic commentators expounds the following version: After 20 years of waiting, a son was born to the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him). This made the devils all the more apprehensive that even after Solomon’s death, they would still be subservient to his son.
They, therefore, resolved to kill his son. On learning about their evil design, the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) hid his son in the clouds.
This betrayed a serious lapse on Solomon’s part, for instead of reposing his trust in God, he had placed his faith in the clouds. As a punishment, his son died and his corpse fell on his own throne. (Zamakhshari, al- Kashshaf, comments on verse 34, Surah Sad 38:34.) This story is equally baseless and totally at variance with the Quranic account. It presupposes that the devils and winds had been subservient to the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) from the very outset of his designation as God’s Messenger. In contrast, the Qur’an clearly states that their subservience was ordered by God after the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) had successfully stood the test to which he was put.
The third group of Qur’anic commentators adds the following details to the Qur’anic account. The Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) once vowed that he would have sex with his 70 wives in one night and that each one of them would give birth to a son who would strive in God’s cause.
However, he did not add to this assertion the customary formula, ‘if God so wills.’ Consequently, only one of his wives conceived and she had a still birth and the body of that child was cast upon Solomon’s throne. (Razi, al-Tafsir al-Kabir, comments on verse 34, Surah Sad 38: 34.) This version occurs in a hadith narrated by Abu Hurayrah on the Prophet's authority.
It has been recorded by Bukhari, Muslim and other Hadith scholars with "several chains of narration. (Bukhari, Kitab al-Jihad, Bab man Talab al-Walad li al-Jihad; Muslim, Kitab al-Ayman, Bab al-Istithna’ fi al-Yamin wa ghayriha.) The number of Solomon’s wives variously appears in these reports as 60, 70, 90 or 100. (Bukhari, Kitab al-Jihad, Bab man Talab al-Walad li al-Jihad; Kitab Ahadith al-Anbiya’, [Bab] Qawl Allah Ta‘ala: ‘wa Wahabna li Dawud Sulayman Ni’m al-‘Abd Innahu Awwab’; Kitab al-Nikah, Bab Qawl al-Rajul: ‘La’ atufann al-Laylah ‘ala Nisa’ i’; Kitab al-Ayman wa al-Nudhur, Bab kayfa Kanat Yamin al-Nabi Salla Allah ‘alayhi wa Sallam; Kitab al-Tawhid, Bab al- Mashi’ah wa al-Iradah.) As far as the chain of narrators is concerned, in case of most reports they are not flawed. Technically speaking, therefore, the report cannot be brushed aside. Nevertheless, the content of these reports altogether defies reason. One therefore has the distinct impression that this particular version could not have come from the Prophet (peace be on him); rather, he may have cited it as an instance of the weird reports circulated by the Jews. Any attempt to force people to believe these reports on the grounds of a sound chain of narrators amounts to reducing Islam to a laughing stock.
Let us now consider the content of the report: that Solomon had sex with all his wives in one night. The number of these wives was at least sixty. Supposing the reference here is to a night in winter at the time between ‘Isha’ and Fajr when even, the longest night is not more than ten or eleven hours. Now anyone can see whether it is at all possible for a person to have sex with all of his 60 wives. This means that he would have had uninterrupted sex throughout an eleven hour-long night, that he would be disposing of six wives in an hour. Is that credible stuff? How can we believe that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) would relate such a fantastic report as an actual fact? The hadith under discussion makes no reference to ‘a mere body that was cast upon the Prophet Solomon’s throne,’ (verse 34.) It is understandable that Solomon might have prayed to God for forgiveness on the occasion of this child’s birth. However, it is far from clear in the light of the above version, as to why Solomon prayed as follows: ‘Bestow upon me a kingdom such as none other after me will deserve,’ (verse 35.) We also encounter another interpretation, one preferred by Imam Razi. According to this interpretation, the incident was as follows: Once the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) was afflicted with some grave disease, or with anxiety on account of some serious danger he faced.
So absorbing was this anxiety that Solomon (peace be on him) became thoroughly emaciated. (Razi, al-Tafsir al-Kabir, comments on Surah Sad 38: 34.) The Qur’an says only this much: ‘Surely We put Solomon to the test and cast upon his throne a mere body. Thereupon he penitently turned (to Us),’ (verse 34.) Evidently, the body does not allude to that of the Prophet Solomon himself. What emerges from the reading of the verse is that the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) had committed some lapse and, in order to warn him, a body was cast upon his throne. When he realized his lapse, he penitently turned to God.: There is no doubt that this is one of the most difficult passages in the Qur’an, one for whose definitive explanation no textual material is available. However, the Prophet Solomon’s own supplication: ‘My Lord, forgive me and bestow upon me a kingdom such as none other after me will deserve’, seems to provide a clue. Studying the above verse in the light of Israelite history, it seems that perhaps the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) had desired that his son should succeed him and that kingship should remain in his line. God, however, considered this a test for Solomon. Solomon too realized that this was a test for him. When his son, Rehoboam, grew into a youth his ways betrayed his utter incapacity to succeed his grandfather and father, the Prophets David and Solomon (peace be on them). That a dead body was placed upon Solomon's throne indicates that the son whom he had wanted to succeed him was altogether unsuited for the task. He, therefore, recanted his wish, sought God’s pardon and prayed that his kingdom may end with his demise. In other words, he abandoned the idea of kingship continuing in his line. It is also evident from Israelite history that the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) did not name anyone as his successor. In just a short span of time after his death his ministers and the notables of the kingdom placed Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, on the throne. Within a short period, ten Israelite tribes broke away and set up their own kingdom in northern Palestine, leaving only the tribe of Judah loyal to the kingdom of Jerusalem.
37. This point is elucidated elsewhere (see al-Anbiya’ 21,n.74 Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. V, p. 285.) It is, nonetheless, pertinent to clarify that in Surah al-Anbiya’ it is stated that the winds were made subservient to Solomon (peace be on him). In the present verse, however, ‘itis pointedly said that the wind blew smoothly at his command. What this signifies is that the wind — forceful though it is and essential for the sailing of ships - was made subservient to the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) so that it facilitated the movement of his navy.
38. For further details see al-Anbiya’ 21, n. 75, Towards Understanding the Qur’an, vol. V, pp. 286-7; and al-Naml 27: 23, 28 and 45, vol. VIL, pp. 146, 149-51 and 158-9. The devils here refer to the jinn. As to the devils in fetters, the reference is to those devils who had been imprisoned for their misconduct. It rendered them incapable of fleeing or committing any other mischief.
39. This verse admits three meanings: (i) God’s bestowal of bounties is without measure. The Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) was authorized to grant out of these bounties to whomsoever he wished and deny them to whomsoever he wished. (ii) Solomon was not taken to task for granting or withholding bounties. (iii) The devils were placed under Solomon’s authority. He was free to release or detain them and was not subject to any accountability in this regard. (Razi, al-Tafsir al-Kabir, comments on Surah Sad 38: 39.)
40. The truth enunciated in this verse is that God detests pride and arrogance on man’s part and loves his humility. Both the Prophets David and Solomon (peace and be on them) were showered with His bounties as reward for their humility. The Prophet Solomon’s supplication following his prayer for God’s forgiveness was accepted and he was accordingly granted a kingdom unprecedented in the annals of history. Likewise, the bestowal of control over the wind and the jinn also makes Solomon (peace be on him) unique and distinctively more powerful than any ruler in history.
41. This is the fourth instance in the Qur’an where the Prophet Job (peace be on him) is mentioned. (For a detailed account about him see al-Anbiya’ 21, nn. 76-9, Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. V, pp. 287-90.)
42. This does not mean that Job’s complaint was that Satan had actually subjected him to hardship and suffering. Rather, his real complaint was about Satan’s evil promptings which hurt him more than his serious illness, his loss of wealth and the desertion of his family members. Satan tried his level best to make Job (peace be on him) lose all hope in God and prompted him to become an ungrateful servant of His. Satan thereby wanted that Job (peace be on him) should forego his perseverance.
The above interpretation of Job’s supplication is preferable to others on the following grounds: (i) According to the Qur’an, God has granted Satan only the ability to infuse some promptings; he does not have the power to afflict anyone with disease or physical pain. (ii) In Surah al- Anbiya’ (Surah 21) the Prophet Job (peace be on him) prays to God in which he simply says: ‘Behold, disease has struck me and you are the Most Merciful of those that are merciful’ (21: 83.) It is noted that here it has not been said that Satan caused him that disease.
43. As Job (peace be on him) stamped his foot on the ground, there gushed forth a spring by God’s. command. Its water cured the Prophet Job (peace be on him) as he drank and bathed in it. Presumably what Job (peace be on him) suffered from was some kind of severe skin disease.
The Bible states that his body, from the crown of his head to his soles, was afflicted with sores. According to the Bible: ‘So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord, and afflicted Job with loathsome sores from the sole of his feet to the crown of his head.’ (Job 2: 7.)
44, Reports suggest that all, except Job’s wife, deserted him during this sickness. God alludes to this by saying here that [after Job was cured], ‘We granted to him his family and also the like of them as a mercy from Us...’
45. There is a lesson in this for all people endowed with reason. The lesson is that neither one should forget God and become disobedient and rebellious to Him in a state of prosperity nor succumb to despair in adversity. Man’s prosperity and adversity lie entirely with God and none has any share in His power and authority. Were God to so will, He can transform a person’s adversity into prosperity and vice versa. Hence in all circumstances a wise person should repose His trust in God and pin all hopes and expectations in Him alone.
46. Reflection over these words makes it evident that during his illness the Prophet Job (peace be on him) had vowed to beat someone by striking them with a certain number of lashes. (There are reports which indicate that he had vowed to beat his own wife). Al Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur’an, comments on Surah Sad 38: 44.) When God restored his health and he was able to overcome the anger which had caused him to take this vow he felt disconcerted. For, if he were to fulfil the vow, he would be hurting an altogether innocent person without any justifiable reason.
On the other hand, if he were not to fulfil the vow, he would still be a sinner. Then God showed him a way out of the dilemma by directing him to take a bundle of rushes, and strike with it, the volume of rushes equating to the number of times he had vowed to strike. This would fulfil his vow without causing any pain to the person concerned.
Some jurists consider this to be a concession exclusively meant for the Prophet Job (peace be on him). Other jurists, however, believe that the directive is of a general nature and is meant for all. The former view is held, according to Ibn ‘Asakir, by ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas and according to al-Jassas, by Mujahid. As for the latter view, it is held by Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, Zufar and Shafi’. For them, if someone had vowed to punish a person, say his servant, with ten lashes, his vow will be deemed to have been fulfilled if he joined the whips together and struck the servant just once. (Jassas, Akkam al-Qur’an, comments on Surah Sad 38: 44.) Several ahadith stress that the Prophet (peace be on him) followed the same principle in punishing a sick or age-stricken culprit charged with illicit sex, who would not have survived had he been lashed a hundred times. Abu Bakr al-Jassas narrates, on the authority of Sa‘id ibn Sa‘d ibn ‘Ubadah, that a member of the Bani Sa’id had committed illicit sex. This person, however, was extremely frail and sick and had virtually been reduced to a skeleton. The Prophet (peace be on him), therefore, directed that he be lashed with a date trunk with a hundred branches. Thereby this would constitute the punishment of one hundred lashes for him. (Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur’an, comments on Surah Sad 38: 44.)
There are traditions in the Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, in Abu Da’ud, Nasa’i, Ibn Majah and al-Tabarani and the Musannaf of ‘Abd al-Razzaq and in other Hadith collections which support this. It is well established that the Prophet (peace be on him) prescribed this method for punishing sick and infirm culprits. (Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, narrated by Sa‘id ibn Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah; Abu Daud, Kitab al-Hudud, Bab fi lqamat al-Hadd ‘ala al-Marid; Nasa’i, al-Sunan al-Kubra, Kitab al-Rajm, Bab al-Darir fi al-Khilqah Yusib al-Hadd; Ibn Majah, Kitab al-Hudud, Bab al-Kabir wa al-Marid; Yajib ‘alayhi al-Hadd; Tabarani, al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir, narrated by Sa‘id ibn Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah; ‘Abd al-Razzaq, Musannaf, Kitab al-Ayman wa al-Nudhur, Bab Tahlil al-Darb.) Jurists, however, insist that every branch or rush should touch the culprit’s body, even if it be once, and that it should also cause him some pain. The point is that lash should not simply touch or brush the culprit’s body but should strike it. (Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur’an, comments on Surah Sad 38: 44.) Another question arising from this discussion is: what course of action should one take if one later realizes that one’s vow was inappropriate. A tradition states the Prophet's directive that in such an instance one should do only what is proper and this, in itself, constitutes the expiation for the unfulfilled vow, there is also another tradition which mentions that the Prophet (peace be on him) asked such a person to act fairly and that at the same time they should expiate for their vow as well. The verse under discussion seems to support this position. Had the avoidance of an, inappropriate vow by acting fairly alone been its expiation, God would not have asked the Prophet Job (peace be on him) to ‘Take in your hand a bundle of rushes and strike with it’ (verse 44), in order to fulfil the vow, he had made. It is evident that God did not thereby direct him not to fulfil his inappropriate vow. (For further details see al-Nur 24, n. 20, Towards Understanding the Qur’an, vol. VI, pp. 214-15.) Some scholars, however, consider this verse to provide proof in support of legitimate legal devices (hiyal). This because the Prophet Job (peace be on him) was obviously informed of a way out of his legal obligation.
However, this was not designed to enable him to avoid or evade a duty; rather, it was a means to avoid a wrong. Thus legitimate devices are only those to which one might resort to avoid a wrong, injustice, evil or sin.
If that is not the case, and one resorts to a legal device (hilah) to render something unlawful into lawful or to evade a religious duty or to avoid doing something good, this borders on sheer unbelief because through such devices one virtually tries to deceive God. For example, if one were to transfer-one’s assets before the expiry of the mandatory one-year period in order to evade the payment of zakah, one would be guilty not only of non-observance of a religious duty, but also of deluding oneself that the trick would deceive God and that He will absolve one of the duty to pay zakah. Jurists who have laid down legal devices in their works have done so not in order to encourage people to resort to them with the aim of substantively evading legal commands. The purpose of so doing is to indicate that judges and rulers need not object to those legal devices to which people might resort, providing they do so to avoid a sinful act.
What is crucial in such matters is a person’s intention, and judges and magistrates are hardly in a position to reproach people on the grounds that they had acted with bad intent. It is better that judgement regarding intention should be left to God.
47. The story of the Prophet Job (peace be on him) is narrated here to highlight the truth that when God’s pious servants are faced with hardships, they do not complain to their Lord. On the contrary, they patiently withstand the test to which they have been put by Him, while they invoke His help and look forward to His mercy and grace. Eventually, they are rewarded with God's favors and beneficence as is evident from the Prophet Job’s story. Even when under stress such people are caught in a moral dilemma, God Himself suggests a way out. This is again best illustrated by the Prophet Job’s story.
48. The sense of the words [those] endowed with great strength and vision’. To describe the Prophets as people of great strength means that they were pre-eminently men of action who had been granted tremendous strength and fortitude to carry out God’s command and to eschew sin and evil, and who strove vigorously to exalt the Word of God. Their additional characterization is that they are endowed with ‘vision’. This vision obviously refers to their ability to discern and perceive the truth; the vision here meaning the vision of the heart and the mind rather than of the eyes. The Prophets were so described for they had the ability to perceive truth and reality. Such people do not go around stumbling like the blind. Instead, they move along the Straight Way, with open eyes, in the light of knowledge and understanding.
Implicit in this is the subtle point that the wicked and the disobedient are devoid of power and insight. The really powerful are those who work for God’s cause. Likewise, the people of vision are those who can distinguish between the light of truth and the darkness of falsehood.
49. The Prophets attained great heights of success and achievement but did not hanker after the world, let alone worship it; instead, their thoughts and efforts were focused on the Hereafter. Hence God speaks of, the Hereafter here as ‘the real abode’ which underlines the truth that the world is not man’s true abode. It is only a passing resort, one from which man has to depart soon, man’s true abode, then, is the Hereafter. Those endowed with insight therefore work to improve their prospects in the Hereafter. God loves such people. As for those who indulge in such acts as to embellish their worldly lives, they will find that they destroy their prospects in the Hereafter; such people are naturally not of His liking.
50. Al-Yasa’ is mentioned twice in the Quran. (See also al-An‘am 6: 86.) At both places no further details are provided about him. He is simply -mentioned along with other Prophets. What we do know, however, is that he was a distinguished Israelite Prophet. He came from Abel Meholah, which is situated on the bank of the River Jordan. Jews and Christians speak of him as Elisha. When the Prophet Elijah (peace be on him) was stationed at the Sinai Peninsula, he was directed to return to Syria and Palestine to accomplish some important task. One of these was to prepare and train Elisha as his successor. When Elijah met him, he saw him ploughing his field with a yoke of twelve oxen before him. Later on, he abandoned farming, (1 Kings 19: 15-21.) For more than a decade Elisha was under the care of the Prophet Elijah (peace be on him) and succeeded him after his demise (2 Kings: 2.) A detailed account of him features in the Bible (see 2 Kings: 2-13.) One learns from it that it was he who inspired a prince to stand against the polytheism, idolatry and moral degeneracy that had overtaken the Israelite kingdom. It was he who put an end to Baal worship. He also put to death all members of such degenerate families. However, this reform movement could not extirpate all the evils that had made deep inroads in the society. After Elisha’s demise, these evils reached their zenith and were followed by the Assyrian incursions against Samaria. (For further details see al-Saffat 37, nn. 70-71, Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. IX, pp. 310-11.)
51. The Prophet Dhi al-Kifl is mentioned twice in the Qur’an, in this verse and in Sarah al-Anbiya’ 21: 85. (For details about him, see al-Anbiya' 21, n. 81, Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. V, pp. 291-2.)
52. The statement that ‘everlasting Gardens with gates wide open’ admits several meanings. One, that when the God-fearing enter Paradise, they will find its gates wide open merely by their desiring to enter Paradise. Two, that those whom God chooses for Paradise will have to make no effort to enter it; no sooner than they want to, its gates will be flung open. Three, that the angels appointed as keepers of Paradise will open its gates as soon as they observe any of the people of Paradise. This last aspect is mentioned more clearly in the following verse of the Qur’an: ‘Its gates will have already been thrown open when they arrive there. Its keepers will tell them: “Peace be upon you! You have done well. Herein you shall abide”, (al-Zumar 39: 73.)
53. This possibly means that the mates of the people of Paradise will ‘be of one and the same age. It can also mean, however, that the age of the mates will match the age of their spouses.
54. Lexicographers consider the word ghassaq to mean the following: (i) fluids of the body such as pus, blood and tears; (ii) intensely cold objects; (iii) objects with a foul, rotten smell. While it is correct to use the word to mean all of these, it is generally used to denote pus and blood.
55. In other words, the true believers, whom the unbelievers had treated with contempt and scorn in the world, will not be found in Hell.
To their astonishment, the unbelievers will find their own leaders in Hell.
However, they will not see there any of those they had condemned in the world and had mocked for talking about God, His Messenger, and the Hereafter.
56. From here on the theme that was broached in the opening part of the Surah is resumed. For a better understanding of the part that follows it is useful to read it in comparison with the opening verses of the Surah.
57. Inverse 4, it was stated that the Makkan unbelievers were amazed at the fact that ‘a warner had come to them from among themselves...’ Here the Prophet (peace be on hini) is apprising them that he is ‘a clear’ warner to them. In other words, his vocation was to preach and to admonish rather than to coerce people to believe. If they refuse to pay heed to him, they will have only themselves to blame. If they persist in heedlessness and error, they themselves will face its dire consequences.
58. This is a response to the unbelievers’ statement in verse 5 of this Surah: ‘Has he made the gods into one single God? This is truly astonishing.’ The unbelievers took serious exception to the monotheism propounded by the Prophet (peace be on him). He made it plain to them that he was informing them about something that is utterly true, to wit, monotheism.
The unbelievers greeted this with frown and scorn. However, their frown and scorn could not change reality. The unbelievers thought that God was simply one of several gods. Accordingly, they resented the Prophet’s insistence on monotheism. It is being asserted that God is the Only True God. He is Almighty, He is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, the Lord of all that exists. On the other hand, none of the unbelievers’ idols has any power or authority. These are simply created beings who are under God’s control. How can such objects that are utterly powerless and are owned in fact by God be regarded as partners in God’s Divinity? Also, by what logic can they be considered deities?
59. This indicates some details of the dispute mentioned in verse 69. The dispute consists of Satan's contention against God. Let us also clarify that the verse additionally speaks of the angels insofar as this exchange between God and Satan took place through the agency of some angel. The event discussed here also features at other places in the Qur’an. (See, for example, al-Baqarah 2: 30-39; al-A‘raf7: 11-24; al-Hijr 15: 28-43; Bani Isra’il 17: 61-5; al-Kahf 18: 47-50 and Ta Ha 20: 115-24; Towards Understanding the Qur’an, vol. 1, pp. 58-66; vol. II, pp. 7-16; vol. IV, pp. 288-90; vol. V, pp. 56-60, 112 and 231-40.)
60. Lexically, bashar denotes a dense body whose exterior is covered by something. It is used specifically for man when reference is made to him after his creation. In this pre-creation context, it means one who will be made of clay and will be devoid of feather and wings. In other words, unlike other creatures, man’s skin will not be covered with wool, fur or feathers.
61. For further details see al-Hijr 15, n. 19, Towards Understanding the Qur’an, vol. IV, pp. 289-90 and al-Sajdah 32, n. 16, vol. VUL pp. 164-5.
62. For further details see al~Baqarah 2, n. 45, Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. I, p. 62 and al-A’raf 7, n. 10, vol. IIL, pp. 7-10.
63. For further details see al-Baqarah 2, n. 47, Towards Understanding the Qur’an, vol. I, p. 63 and al-Kahf 18, n. 48, vol. V, p. 112.
64. This brings out man’s exalted status. That the Lord Himself accomplished man’s creation signifies the major importance of the task.
Had the task been of an ordinary nature, the Sovereign would have assigned it to His servants. On the contrary, when the Sovereign carries out a task himself, it shows that the task is of extraordinary importance.
Now, since God Himself created man, nothing should deter man from submitting to Him.
As to the expression ‘My Two Hands’, this probably underscores two important aspects of God’s creative power: one, that man was endowed with a body that links him to animals, and two, that the spirit was breathed into him, making him superior to all creatures on earth.
65. The reference is to Adam’s creation and the directive to the angels to prostrate themselves before him. Satan, however, disobeyed God.
66. Rajim denotes the one who is accursed or expelled. It is used for a person who falis from favour and stands humiliated and disgraced.
Almost the same point is made in Surah al-A’raf 7: 13 in which Satan is spoken of as follows: ‘Be gone. You will be among the humiliated’.
67. This does not mean that Satan will not be cursed after the Day of Resurrection. What is rather stressed is that he will be cursed till the Day of Judgement. At a later stage, he will face the punishment for the misdeeds he had committed since Adam’s creation till the Last Day.
68. The point being made is not that Satan will not try to mislead ‘the chosen ones’. The purpose of the statement is to stress that Satan will not be able to mislead them.
69. The address is directed to all devils, ie. Satan as well as his accomplices who are engaged in misleading mankind.
70. This story is narrated in response to the Quraysh chiefs’ sarcastic query: ‘Has this Exhortation been sent down among us only to him, to the exclusion of all others?’ This was partly addressed in verses 9-10 above: ‘Do they possess the treasures of your Lord, the Most Mighty, the Great Bestower? Or do they possess the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is in between them? If so, let them ascend to the heights of the realm of causation and see!’ In other words, they were told that they had no right to question who should be designated a Prophet and who should not.
The second response is articulated here. The Quraysh notables are being told that their jealousy towards the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) and their self-conceit and arrogance resemble Iblis’s jealousy and arrogance. Iblis had refused to recognize God's right to appoint Adam as His vicegerent. Following in his footsteps, the unbelieving Quraysh denied God His right to appoint anyone whom He pleases as His Messenger. Iblis had declined to prostrate himself before Adam and the Quraysh are guilty of refusing to obey the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him). The resemblance of the Quraysh with Iblis, does not end with being alike in iniquity. In fact, their ultimate end will also be the same. Like Iblis, they will remain accursed in this life and face Hellfire in the Next.
71. The Prophet (peace be on him) points out that he is a selfless person who has no axe to grind by preaching the truth.
72. The Prophet (peace be on him) is not one of those who make false claims in order to achieve eminence and glory. This was not merely a verbal assertion but the Prophet's entire life bore testimony to its truth.
He had lived for full 40 years in the midst of his people and every Makkan knew that he was not a fake. The entire body of Makkans was aware that the Prophet (peace be on him) had never uttered as much as a word that would give rise to the suspicion that he was hankering after power and glory.
73. What this meant is that those who will remain alive will see in a few years that what the Prophet (peace be on him) said will come to pass. As for those who die, no sooner than they enter the portal of death they too will realize that what the Prophet (peace be on him) had said was true.