1. This means that the Day of Resurrection is near. The Day is not far away when people will be made to appear before God to render an account of themselves. The advent of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) has ushered in the last phase of human history; as compared to earlier phases, mankind is now closer to its eventual end. The Prophet (peace be on him) himself confirmed this. According to one hadith, he pointed to two of his fingers and said: ‘I and the Hour are [close to each other] like these two fingers.’ The statement implies that there would be no further divine revelation between Muhammad (peace be on him) and the Day of Resurrection; people were closer to the Last Day than ever before. It was, thus, time for people to heed Muhammad’s (peace be on him) call as no other guide, warner and announcer of good news would be raised for mankind.

2. People do not take heed of God’s warning. They are so immersed in this heedlessness that they are incapable of thinking seriously about what their end ‘will be let alone paying attention to the Messenger who has come to warn them.

3. Each new surah of the Qur’an, revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) and recited to the people, represents a piece of good counsel and admonition.

4. The words used here may be interpreted in more than one way. We have opted for the interpretation to be found in the above translation, wherein we take ‘jest’ to refer to life as a whole. Hence, the verse means that because of the unbelievers’ indifference to God and the Hereafter, they treat their lives merely as sport and jest rather than as a serious affair. Alternatively, the verse means that people do not listen to the Qur’an with the serious attention that it deserves; they rather take it as a jest.

5. This verse may be translated in either the present or the future tense, and both translations would be correct. It is the chiefs of the Quraysh who whisper among themselves for they are driven by a passionate concern to somehow counter the Prophet’s mission. They rejected outright his claim to be a Prophet.

They did so on the grounds that he was like any other human being: he ate and drank and went about the markets, and had a family of his own. They wondered what was so different about him that he stood out from others and merited a special relationship with God. They were cognizant, however, of the fact that the Prophet — by means of his personality and teachings — had a spellbinding effect on people. Whoever listened attentively to what he said, or had a chance to be close to him, immediately lost his heart to him. They, therefore, held that it was wise not to have any interaction with the Prophet (peace be on him), for getting close to him amounted to falling under his spell.

Ibn Ishaq (d. 152), the earliest biographer of the Prophet (peace be on him), _ mentions several incidents where the unbelievers accused the Prophet (peace be on him) of sorcery. ‘Utbah ibn Rabi‘ah the father-in-law of Abu Sufyan and the father of Hind, approached the Quraysh chiefs, saying: “Should you like, I will call on Muhammad and try to persuade him.’ This happened after Hamzah embraced Islam and when the number of the Prophet’s Companions continued to rise, a development which seriously perturbed the Quraysh chiefs. They, the - Quraysh chiefs, agreed that ‘Utbah should try to dissuade Muhammad from his course for they had full confidence in him. Accordingly, ‘Utbah visited the Prophet (peace be on him) and said to him: “O my nephew! You know well the _ position you enjoy among us. In terms of pedigree you come from a noble family. So why have you brought down such a calamity on your people? You have caused division in the whole community. You speak ill of their faith and their deities. You brand our deceased ancestors with unbelief and error.

Nephew! If you seek your supremacy in the world through all this, we will raise money and give you such an amount that you will become the wealthiest person. If you are keen to acquire chiefdom, we will make you our chief. If you seek kingship, we will appoint you our ruler. And if you suffer from some malady, we will arrange the best physician to treat you.’ While ‘Utbah made these offers, the Prophet (peace be on him) listened silently. When he had finished his long list of offers, the Prophet (peace be on him) said: ‘Abu al-Walid! Have you finished or do you have something else to say?’ To this he replied in the affirmative, confirming that he had spoken his mind in full. Then the Prophet (peace be on him) said: ‘Listen to me now. In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Ha Mim. This is the revelation from the Compassionate, the Merciful.’ He then went on to recite some verses from Surah Ha Mim al-Sajdah and ‘Utbah listened to the Prophet (peace be on him) in rapt attention. When the Prophet (peace be on him) recited verse 38 of this surah, he prostrated himself, saying to ‘Utbah: ‘O Abu al-Walid, you have listened to what I have to say. Now it is up to you to do what pleases you.’ “Utbah took his leave of the Prophet and returned to the Quraysh chiefs. As he approached them, they exclaimed: ‘By God! Abu al-Walid’s countenance is totally changed. This is not the one he went to meet Muhammad with.” When “Utbah joined them they asked: ‘O Abu al-Walid! What were you able to do?’ To this he replied: ‘By God! Today I have listened to something I have never heard before. By God, it is neither poetry, nor magic, nor soothsaying. Leaders of the Quraysh! Listen to me and let him alone. Whatever I have heard from him is bound to come about. If the Arabs defeat him, you will not be held guilty of his murder for others will be responsible for it. However, if he establishes his dominance over Arabia, his dominion will be your dominion, his prestige will mean your prestige.’ They replied: ‘Abu al-Walid! You too have fallen prey to his spell!’ (Ibn Hisham, Sirah, vol. 1, pp. 293-4 — Ed.) In the reports brought together by Bayhaqi regarding this event, there is some additional information. When the Prophet (peace be on him) was reciting Ha Mim al-Sajdah and reached the verse: ‘But if they turn away, say: ‘‘I have warned you of a thunder like the thunder that overtook ‘Ad and Thamud” (Ha Mim al-Sajdah 41: 13), ‘Utbah put his hand upon the Prophet’s mouth, pleading mercy for his people.

Another incident reported by Ibn Ishaq is as follows: Once a member of the Arash tribe came to Makka with some camels, Abu Jahl purchased the camels but when he asked for the price, Abu Jahl tried to evade the issue. Irked by this, the Arashi went to the Ka‘bah and invoked the help of the Quraysh chiefs. The Prophet (peace be on him) was sitting in a corner of the sanctuary. The Quraysh told the Arashi: ‘We are helpless. Tell the man sitting in the corner about your plight. He will help you recover your money.’ As the Arashi proceeded towards the Prophet (peace be on him), the Quraysh chiefs said to each other: ‘We will have real fun to-day.’ The Arashi conveyed his grievance to the Prophet (peace be on him), who immediately rose and took him to Abu Jahl’s house and knocked at his door. He asked: ‘Who is there?’ He replied: ‘Muhammad’.

Amazed, Abu Jahl came out. The Prophet (peace be on him) asked him: ‘Give him his due.’ Abu Jahl did not resist; he simply went in and brought back the money he owed the Arashi. The informer rushed to the Ka‘bah and apprised the chiefs of all that had happened. He said: ‘By God, today I came across what I have never seen before. As Hakam ibn Hisham (Abu Jahl) came out of his house, his countenance changed on seeing Muhammad; and when Muhammad asked him to pay the amount, Abu Jahl appeared almost lifeless and enervated.’ (Ibn Hisham, vol. 2, pp. 389-90 -- Ed.)

This surah demonstrates the impact of the Prophet’s personality and conduct, and such was the spell of his speech that the unbelievers branded it as sorcery. Hence, they tried to keep people, who were not very mature at arm's length from the Prophet (peace be on him) lest they too were influenced by him.

6. The Prophet (peace be on him) did not respond to this false propaganda nor to the vicious whispering campaign against him, except in so far as to say: ‘God hears and knows all that you say, both what you say loudly and what you say in whispers.’ Never did the Prophet (peace be on him) stoop to the level of his enemies, hurling at his enemies the evils they hurled at him.

7. This piece of propaganda should be viewed against the situational background pertaining at that time. The Prophet’s sphere of influence continued to expand and this prompted the Makkan leaders to mutual consultation so as to decide the lines along which a propaganda campaign could be launched against him. It was decided that the venue for this campaign should be Makka.

Their campaign was expected to yield good results: the aim being to prejudice the minds of those pilgrims who were visiting the city so that they would not pay any attention to the Prophet’s Message. A number of people were assigned to visit the pilgrims’ camps to poison these visitors’ ears against the Prophet (peace be on him). A variety of notions were put before these pilgrims. At times they were told that the Prophet (peace be on him) was a " sorcerer. At times they were told that the Qur’an had in fact been composed by Muhammad himself and was falsely attributed to God. At times the Qur’an was dismissed as a series of insane outbursts, as a conglomerate of incoherent ideas. On other occasions the Qur’an was condemned as a piece of poetic imagination, a collection of rhymed discourses falsely ascribed to God.

In short, a variety of things were said but with just one purpose in mind — to mislead people about Islam. The Quraysh were not the least bit concerned with considerations of truth or veracity and “hence they made no attempt to formulate and express a well-considered and definitive opinion on any matter.

All this false propaganda, however, had one redeeming effect — it carried the name of the Prophet (peace be on him) to all parts of Arabia and made him known far and wide. The Muslims would not have been able to give the Prophet (peace be on him) and Islam the same amount of publicity as the hostile propaganda campaign launched by the Quraysh generated in a very short span of time.

For, as a result of the campaign everyone asked himself who this man was against whom such a storm had been let loose. Many who were disposed to thinking and reasoning, decided to make serious inquiries about what the Prophet’s teachings were. They were not children, or at least so they told themselves, who could be misled by merely acquainting themselves with his teachings.

An interesting instance is provided in the story of Tufayl ibn ‘Amr al-Dawsi as narrated by Ibn Ishaq. Tufayl refers to himself as a poet of the Dawsi tribe who visited Makka in connection with his business. No sooner had he reached the city than some of the Quraysh contacted him and tried to poison his ears against the Prophet (peace be on him). As a result, he developed serious misgivings about the Prophet (peace be on him) and made up his mind always to remain at arm’s length from him. The very next day, however, when Tufayl visited the Ka‘bah he found the Prophet (peace be on him) praying there.

Overhearing some of the Prophet’s utterances, he suddenly realized his attraction to these. Tufayl said to himself that he was a poet, a youth, an intelligent person, not an immature child incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

Therefore, when the Prophet (peace be on him) finished his Prayer and was proceeding homewards, Tufayl followed him. He arrived at the Prophet’s house close behind the Prophet and said: ‘Your people have told me such things about you which prejudiced me against you to such an extent that I closed my ears lest I might hear what you say. But I like what I have just heard from you. Can you explain to me your message in some detail?’ In response, the Prophet (peace be on him) recited part of the Qur’an to Tufayl. The latter was so captivated by it that he immediately embraced Islam. On his return home he persuaded his father and wife also to accept Islam. From then onwards Tufayl continued to preach Islam among his tribe. By the time of the Battle of Khandaq, some 70 to 80 families belonging to his tribe had already become Muslims. (Ibn Hisham, vol.2, pp. 382-5 — Ed.) Another report narrated by Ibn Ishaq, indicates that the Quraysh leaders themselves conceded that their propaganda campaign against the Prophet (peace be on him) was totally false. According to Ibn Ishaq, Nadr ibn al-Harith once addressed the Quraysh, saying: ‘The way you have been trying to confront Muhammad will be of no avail. As a youth he was the best mannered among you. He was regarded as one most truthful and most trustworthy. Now that his hair is greying, you have taken to branding him as a magician, a soothsayer, a poet and a lunatic. By God, he is not a magician. We have seen magicians and we are fully conversant with their craft. By God, he is not a soothsayer. We have listened to their feigned utterances and their enigmatic sayings. By God, he is not a poet either. We are aware of all genres of poetry but his discourse does not fall into any of those categories. By God, he is not a mad person either. Are we not aware of the condition of a mad person, and of the stupid things he says? O leaders of the Quraysh, think again. What confronts you today is far too serious to be met by recourse to false propaganda; this will certainly not overcome him.’ Nadr later on suggested that legendary stories from Persian folklore, such as those of Rustam and Isfandiyar, should be circulated throughout Arabia so that people might become engrossed in those legends and so lose sight of the Qur’an. It is interesting to note that Nadr did indeed resort to relating such tales. (Ibn Hisham, Sirah, vol 1, pp. 299-300 — Ed.)

8. The reply to the unbelievers’ demand for miraculous signs made in the above verse consists of three points. First, they are told that although they seek signs of the kind bestowed upon previous Prophets, they forget that people are often too stubborn as man’s past record only too clearly bears out — to embrace the true faith even after witnessing such signs. Second, they do not fully appreciate the grave risk they are exposing themselves to by asking for these signs. For a people who refuse to believe in the truth once they have witnessed God’s miraculous signs are not spared: they are simply annihilated.

Third. they do not realize it is a result of God’s mercy that He does not send them miraculous signs in response to their demands. For although they have persistently rejected the truth, God has still not meted out His punishment to them. It is nothing more than folly for such people to ask for miraculous signs when this amounts to their asking for that scourge which overtook earlier nations when they would not believe even after witnessing God’s miraculous signs.

9. This is in response to the unbelievers’ question: ‘Is he (the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) no more than a man like ourselves?’ (verse 3 above). They considered the Prophet’s humanity to be inconsistent with his claim to prophet hood. This is countered by reference to the unbelievers’ own recognition of the humanity of those whom they considered to be Prophets in earlier times. The distinction between Prophets and other people consists in the fact that although they were all human beings, the Prophets additionally received their revelations from God. (For further details, see Ya Sin 36, n. 11.

10. The Makkan unbelievers should ask the Jews, who had joined hands with them in their hostility to Islam and who were guiding them in their machinations against Islam, about Moses and other Prophets of Israel: were they human beings or did they belong to any other species?

11. We learn from history not only that the earlier Prophets were human beings, but also that God fulfilled all the promises He made to effectively aid His Prophets and destroy their opponents. The result being that all those nations which sought to humiliate the Prophets were, one by one, annihilated. Did all this then not require that the Makkan unbelievers should reconsider the consequences of their conduct?

12. This is a response to the various and mutually inconsistent, contentions made by the Makkan unbelievers against the Qur’an and the Prophet (peace be on him) to the effect that the Qur’an was either mere poetry, a kind of talisman, a set of incoherent dreams, or merely a medley of fairy tales. What was, so exotic about the Qur’an which drove its opponents to hold such a collection of mutually conflicting opinions about it? The Qur’an should have been familiar material to them for its discourse centered on the human psyche and on human affairs; on man’s nature, man’s beginning and his end. Additionally, the Qur’anic discourse is replete with signs which are drawn from man’s own environment and which point to the truth. The Qur’an also concerns itself with elucidating the difference between good and evil in human beings, and the human conscience bears ample testimony to the truth of that distinction. There — is nothing enigmatic or complicated in the Qur’an that would make it incomprehensible to the human mind.

13. That is, when God’s punishment drew near so the unbelievers would clearly realize they were on the verge of doom.

14. This verse is rich in meaning and may be interpreted variously. It may, for instance, be taken to mean that the unbelievers are being urged to look carefully at the punishment so that they can describe it to others in the future.

According to a variant view, they are being told: ‘Revert to your life of pomp and ceremony for maybe your courtiers will still stand in awe of you and ask you for your orders. Maintain your councils and committees, for the world may possibly approach you, seeking to benefit from your wise counsels.’

15. This observation applies to the unbelievers’ entire way of life which thus far prevented them from heeding the Prophet’s call. They believe that man has been left free to live and do as he likes, and that none will be called to account for the same; all man has is his brief term of life which he can spend as he likes and thereafter he perishes. They did not believe there was any possibility of a Next Life where people will be rewarded or punished. All in all, this amounted to saying that the entire universe was created without serious purpose, that it was no more than sport and play for the unbelievers. It is ideas such as these which made people indifferent to the call of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him).

16. Had God intended creation to be merely for sport, surely, He Himself would have engaged in it. In which case, He would certainly not have brought into being a creature endowed with feeling, consciousness and a sense of responsibility. Nor would God have placed him in a state whereby he is engaged in a constant tug-of-war between right and wrong. God could have done much better if the purpose was merely to entertain Himself! God did not create this world to serve as a coliseum, to offer thrilling spectacles of blood sports where the spectators clap deliriously at the sight of humans being torn to pieces by ferocious beasts.

17. God is far from being a magician; nor does it be hove Him to demonstrate tricks. God’s world is indeed a serious place where evil and falsehood cannot endure. Whenever falsehood raises its head, it inevitably comes into conflict with the truth; a conflict that eventually leads to the extirpation of falsehood. If one considers this world merely as an arena for sport and entertainment, or as a platform for working out false premises, one will end up destroying one’s own self. The study of human history, remember, is extremely instructive. All those nations which considered the world to be nothing more than amusing theatre, or an opportunity for self-indulgence, or who embraced other false doctrines in place of the truth expounded by the Prophets, have again and again been led to their doom. How unwise it is, then, for people to deride those who tender sincere advice, and then when they come face to face with God’s scourge, they cry: ‘Woe to us; surely we were wrong-doers’ (verse 14),

18. This marks the beginning of that part of the discourse which focuses on affirming the Oneness of God and refuting the association of others with Him in His divinity. This fundamental issue lay at the core of the dispute between the Prophet (peace be on him) and the Makkan polytheists. The advice now given to the unbelievers being something more than what they were just told.

They were told earlier that the universe in which they lived was not based on play and jest. On the contrary, it was a serious and purposeful order which is based on the truth. Hence, whenever falsehood clashes with the truth, it disintegrates into a multitude of fragments. The basic fact about the universe is that its Creator, Master and Lord is the One True God: It is not the case, as some believe, that the universe is the joint dominion of several gods, or that there is one predominantly supreme God with a variety of smaller gods sharing the authority of that Supreme God. There is only One True God.

19. This is a reference to the angels whom the polytheists of Arabia worshipped, mistaking them for God’s offspring or associating them with Him in His divinity.

20. Angels do not find it unpalatable at all to serve God. Serving Him is not a drudgery which they carry out with a heavy heart and which eventually wearies them. The actual words are the word istihsar signifying extreme fatigue and weariness. Here, the purpose is to denote the fatigue and weariness caused by doing something that is disagreeable.

21. The word used here is the verbal form of inshar, which means to raise something lifeless to life. It is generally employed in the Qur’an to denote life after death. Aside from: this, it also literally means to infuse life into a lifeless object. Considering the context of the present verse, we believe that it has been used here in this very sense. The thrust of the statement is that none of the beings which people made into gods, as objects of worship, is capable of infusing life into a lifeless object. Now since only God has this power —a fact which even the polytheists acknowledged— what justification is there for holding any others to be God?

22. This is a simple but, at the same time, very profound argument. The point is so simple that even a Bedouin, a simple villager and a man of meanest intelligence can easily grasp it. Even an ordinary household cannot function smoothly if it has two heads, not even for a few days. How much more so is this true for the universe? For, the entire universe, right from the deep layers of the earth to the farthest planets, is subject to a mammoth law. The order of the universe cannot endure even for a moment unless there is perfect balance, harmony and co-ordination, tying its limitless objects and innumerable forces into a unified system. And all this is inconceivable unless there is a set of immutable laws which compels these objects to work together in perfect unison.

If the universe were under the hegemony of several independent sovereigns, how could a unified set of regulations prevail in it? The very existence of an ordered system implies that it has no more than one sovereign who controls it.

The wide range of laws which control the universe are indicative of the fact that sovereignty, rather than being diffused, is concentrated in the One Supreme Being. (For further details see Bani Isra’il 17, n. 47, al-Mu'minun 23, n. 85.)

23. ‘Lord of the Throne’ means the Lord and Sovereign of the entire universe.

24. The two arguments cited above were rational. Now a third argument is introduced; an argument that is based on authoritative texts. The present argument contends that the unbelievers cannot produce even a shred of evidence from any Scripture, regardless of the country, nation and Prophet upon whom it was bestowed, which even remotely suggests that there is any god other than the One True God, or that anyone other than Him deserves to be served and worshipped. That being the case, what kind of religion have they fabricated, for it neither conforms to the dictates of reason nor can be corroborated by the Scriptures?

25. If the unbelievers turn away from the teaching of the Prophet (peace be on him), such an attitude is obviously based on ignorance rather than knowledge. Since the unbelievers are ignorant of the truth, they have no inclination to heed those who expound the truth to them.

26. Once again the same angels, who according to the belief of the polytheists of Arabia were God’s daughters, are mentioned. This becomes quite evident from the discourse that follows. (See also n. 19 above — Ed.)

27. The Arabian polytheists used to worship angels for two reasons. First, they believed them to be God’s offspring. Second, they wanted to ingratiate themselves with them by means of worship so that they might intercede for them with God: ‘They say: ‘‘These are our intercessors with God’’ (Yunus 10: 18). ‘But those who take for protectors’ others than God say: ‘‘We only serve them in order that they may bring us nearer to God” (al-Zumar 39: 3). The verses of this surah show that both reasons, however, are false.

It is also worth remembering that while refuting such polytheistic beliefs about intercession, the Qur’an also emphasizes that those who are regarded as intercessors do not have knowledge of the unseen whereas God knows everything, both that which is evident to them as well as that which is hidden.

This makes the unbelievers question whether they are justified in investing those people with the absolute and unconditional power of intercession when those same people are not even aware of the whole record of those in whose favor they intend to intercede. The right to intercede, whether by angels, Prophets or saints, is subject to the condition that God alone permits them to intercede on someone else’s behalf. No one is entitled to intercede of his own accord: all is contingent upon God’s permission. Since it is God’s exclusive prerogative to hear and accept a plea on someone else’s behalf, or indeed not to do so, there is no reason for people to bow down in humility before anyone. For all creatures, including those who may be allowed to intercede, are powerless before God. (For further details see Ta Ha 20, nn. 85-6.)

28. The two words used here are ratq and fatq. Ratq meaning to be together, to be conjoined, to be homogeneous and adjacent; fatq meaning to separate or to split apart. The verse seems to suggest that this universe was initially one huge mass which was later separated into different parts so that the earth and other heavenly bodies were given shape as separate entities. (For further details see al-Sajdah 32, nn. 13-15.)

29. It seems that God not only made water a means of life, but also its very basis from which He caused all life to originate in and from. The same point is made elsewhere in the Qur’an: ‘And God has created every living being from water’ (al-Nur 24: 45).

30. For an explanation of this see Towards Understanding the Qur’an, vol. IV, al-Nahl 16, n. 12, p. 317.

31. God placed passes between mountains and also made it possible for people to traverse mountainous regions and journey from one territory to another along rivers. Likewise, God has so constituted the earth that either there are pre-existing routes to travel from one area to another, or man is able to fashion alternatives for himself.

32. This statement has more than one meaning. The first means that these mountain passes are intended to help people find ways to traverse the earth. The second means that by observing the wisdom and dexterity of the well-ordered arrangement of things that sufficiently minister to man’s needs, people will be able to find their way to the ultimate truth.

33. For details see Towards Understanding the Qur’ an, vol. IV, al-Hijr 15, nn, 8, 10-12, pp. 285-6.

34. Here reference is made to the signs God has placed in the heavens.

35. The words and used in this verse suggest that the reference is not only to the sun and the moon, but also to other heavenly bodies such as the stars and planets. This is borne out by the use of the verb in its plural rather than dual form. Another word used here is which is a familiar term in Arabic for sky. Since the verse says that each is floating in its falak, two points. clearly emerge. First, that all the heavenly bodies are not floating in one and the same orbit; rather each has its own orbit. Second, an orbit is not something static with a planet fixed on to it. It rather seems to be something fluid, something seemingly vacuous, like space where if any heavenly bodies move their movement gives the impression of floating. (For further details see Ya Sin 36, n. 37.) In ancient times, the concepts that people held about the heavens and the earth, about their being conjoined (ratq), separated (fatq), about every living being made from water, and heavenly bodies in their respective orbits (see verses 30 to 33) were quite different from what we now believe. Our present notions pertaining to those matters — thanks to advancements in physics, biology and astronomy — have greatly changed. It cannot be definitely said how the statements made on these matters by the Qur’an will be understood in the future for man’s expanding knowledge is bound to have a bearing on this. It is significant, however, that contemporary man finds these’ Qur’anic statements in verses 30 to 33 to fully conform with the latest scientific information on the subject. It should also be noted that whilst the discourse in verses 18 to 29 is concerned with a return to polytheism, that in verses 30 to 33 consists of advancing evidence in support of God’s unity. The core of the matter is that the very order of the universe negates even the faintest suggestion that anyone other than God has any role whatsoever in its workings. Is it possible that such a perfectly well-ordered universe could have come into existence and then functioned with such ease and smoothness had it been under the control of more than one god? Can any rational person even imagine that a universe which seems geared to achieve a myriad of good purposes has no other meaning than that afforded by a mere area? Is the universe no more than a set of playthings designed to entertain their Creator for a while only then to be discarded and reduced by Him to nothingness? Does it stand to reason that people can encounter all that we have mentioned above, and yet deny what the Prophet (peace be on him) taught them? Why when everything in the heavens and on earth bears testimony to the unity of God, do the unbelievers deny the call of the Prophet (peace be on him) which is after all a call to God’s unity? Why is it that despite all these signs, the unbelievers continue to ask him to come forward with some miraculous sign (see verse 5 above)? Are the countless signs which they have already insufficient to corroborate the veracity of the Prophet’s call to affirm the unity of God?

36. This marks the resumption of the discourse on the conflict between the Prophet (peace be on him) and his enemies at the time this surah was revealed...

37. This. is a succinct rejoinder to the threats, warnings, curses and conspiracies directed against the Prophet (peace be on him). In the first instance the Quraysh leaders had threatened the Prophet (peace be on him) with dire consequences if he continued to call people to his teachings; indeed, some had even hatched a conspiracy to end his life. Additionally, even though only one person in a family may have embraced Islam, the rest of that family usually became hostile towards that believer. The ladies of the family in particular would curse the Prophet (peace be on him). As for its male members, they too were not averse to threatening the Prophet (peace be on him).

After the migration to Abyssinia, the Makkans felt hard hit for there was scarcely a house in Makka that had not witnessed one of its member’s migration. For all this they blamed the Prophet (peace be on him) and they further charged him with ruining their lives. The verse in question responds to these allegations. Additionally, it urges the Prophet (peace be on him) to continue his mission, and to disregard the Makkans’ attitude.

38. Man is tested throughout all states of his being — in sorrow, poverty, affluence, victory, defeat, weakness, strength, health or sickness. This is done to establish whether or not prosperity and success makes a person arrogant and oppressive, oblivious to God and totally self-indulgent. Likewise, it tests whether or not adversity demoralizes man and makes him resort to unlawful and immoral means to improve his lot. An intelligent person makes no mistake in assessing these different states of his being. Whatever conditions he faces he should remember that he is being tested and that he should do his best to pass that test. Only a foolish and shallow person tums into a Pharaoh when he succeeds and becomes prosperous, but falls to the ground in utter disgrace when confronted with adversity.

39, That is, he speaks of their gods in unsavory terms. Note that this sentence does not contain the content of the unbelievers’ statements about the Prophet (peace be on him) when they tried to ridicule him. Rather than report the derisive words they used, the present sentence highlights the underlying reason for their derision of the Prophet (peace be on him). For obviously, the remark made here contains no element of derision or ridicule; alternative expressions of sarcasm and derision would have been chosen to mock the Prophet (peace be on him). We do know, however, from the present verse the reason behind the unbelievers’ venomous attacks on the Prophet (peace be on him) — his denial of the godhead of the deities they had contrived for themselves.

40. The unbelievers felt no shame in taking their revenge on the Prophet (peace be on him) on account of his opposition to their deities. Nor did they feel shame at having become so averse and indifferent to God; indeed, the very mention of Him enraged them.

41. The words used here literally mean: ‘Man is created of haste.’ This, however, does not convey the true purpose of the statement. To understand this note: if one says in Arabic that someone is made of something, it amounts to saying that this particular trait is a part of his nature. The same idea is expressed elsewhere in the Qur’an as followes:

Man is given to hasty deeds (Bani Isra’il 17: 11).

42. The subsequent discourse provides a clue as to what is meant by the word ayat (‘signs’) in this verse (see verse 37). The unbelievers derided the very notion of God’s punishment, of the Hereafter, and of Hell. They accepted that the Prophet (peace be on him) had warned them that if they rejected his call, they would be seized by God’s punishment, would be called to account on the Day of Judgement and would suffer the agonies of His Hell-Fire. However, they contended that even though they had heard the Prophet’s warnings and had rejected his teachings, they nevertheless continued to flourish. God’s punishment, they argued, was not forthcoming nor did it appear as if the Day of Judgement was imminent. This verse then ‘is in response to such statements from the unbelievers.

43. The unbelievers are being invited to consider who would be mighty enough to ward off God’s scourge if He chose to smite them with it.

44. God’s bountifulness and compassion have led the unbelievers to the mistaken notion that whatever they have is because they are deserving of it, and that no one has the power to deprive them of it. They regard their prosperity and high position as things that will always endure. They are too intoxicated with power to remember God Who has the power to make or mar their fate.

45. This idea is also presented in al-Ra'd 13: 41, n. 60. (See Towards Understanding the Qur’ an, vol. IV, p. 248.) In the present context it carries the additional meaning of the innumerable manifestations of God’s power throughout the universe. Such manifestations include famines, epidemics, floods, earthquakes, and spells of severe cold and heat. From time to time any of these calamities can suddenly strike and can result in thousands, even hundreds of thousands of deaths, the devastation of whole towns, the destruction of flourishing crops, and the ruination of prosperous businesses. In short, material resources shrink, sometimes in one direction, sometimes in another; and the situation can become so bad that despite his best efforts, man is unable to prevent the losses caused by such disturbances. (For further details see al-Sajdah 32, n. 33.)

46. God has absolute control over the resources required by man, He causes to increase or decrease them as He pleases. In view of God’s overwhelming power, it is obvious that man is in no position to escape from His grip, let alone defeat Him. Do the signs which people observe in the universe suggest that their enjoyments will never end, that none is powerful enough to seize them and call them to account?

47. This refers to God’s punishment which the unbelievers sarcastically requested should strike them soon.

48. For further elaboration see Towards Understanding the Qur’an, vol. III, al-A‘raf7, nn. 8-9, pp. 6-7. It is difficult to say what the exact form and nature of the Balance will be. This much, however, is certain: that it will weigh good and bad deeds and thereby indicate precisely the moral worth of every person.

It will ascertain how good or bad a person was. God, therefore, uses a familiar word — balance — to explain this purpose for evaluation will be similar to the act of weighing in a balance. Another plausible interpretation is that since a _balance weighs things quite precisely and indicates the difference between the weight of one thing and another, so God’s just balance will also evaluate man’s record of life, definitively pronouncing what was predominant in it — whether goodness or evil.

49. From here on the Prophets form the subject matter of the discourse.

References — both cursory and detailed — are made to the lives of several of them. The context in which these references are made emphasizes the following points:

(1) That all Prophets were human beings, they did not belong to any other species. Hence, there are human beings — in this case Muhammad — who are also Prophets.

(2) That the earlier Prophets were also raised for the same purpose which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) was raised. The mission and teachings of all Prophets were substantially. the same.

(3) That God treated the Prophets in a special way in so far as they were subjected to great hardships for long periods of time. They not only suffered difficulties of a personal nature but also encountered difficulties created for them by their enemies. Eventually, however, God came to their rescue, blessed them with His grace and favor, answered their prayers and removed their distresses. God listened to their prayers, helped these in miraculous ways, resolved their problems, and caused their enemies to be humiliated and disgraced.

(4) That even though the Prophets enjoyed God’s special favor and were endowed with extraordinary powers by Him, they were, nevertheless, still human beings, and were, like other creatures, His servants. None of them was invested with divinity. They were even susceptible to human error in forming their opinions and arriving at their judgements. Additionally, they were subjected to sickness just like the rest of us. They were also tested by having to face up to considerable hardships. When they made a mistake God would take them to task for it.

50. The three words — ‘criterion’, ‘light’ and ‘admonition’ — are used to characterize the Jewish Torah. The Torah was a criterion for distinguishing between truth and falsehood; a light to show man the right way and an admonition to call the children of Adam’s attention to their forgotten lesson.

51. Although the Torah was meant for all mankind, only those endowed with a certain set of qualities could in fact benefit from it.

52. The ‘Hour’ which has been much mentioned above, refers to the Hour of Resurrection, Judgement and Requital.

53. We have translated the Arabic word rushd as ‘discretion’, which signifies a person’s ability to distinguish between right and wrong, and to follow whatever is right and avoid whatever is wrong. Since this expression connotes both right conduct and wisdom, our translation covers both meanings.

Abraham owed his wisdom to God’s favor since it is God Who bestowed His wisdom upon him.

The words, meaning ‘We knew him well’, signifies that God’s favor was not arbitrary; He knew full well what kind of man Abraham was and so He lavished His favors on him in consideration of that merit.

Elsewhere, the Qur’an points out that God knows who is worthy of being entrusted with His message: ‘Allah knows best where to place His message’ (al-An‘am 6: 124).

Implicit in this statement is a subtle rejoinder to the hostile statements which the Quraysh were wont to make against the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him). They decried his designation as God’s Messenger, saying that there was nothing very special about him to justify such a position. This charge is refuted at several different places in the Qur’an, and in various ways. In the present verse only an implicit point is made with reference to Abraham’s selection as God’s Messenger. The same Kind of rejoinder as made against the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) could also have been made against Abraham when he, out of all the people living in Mesopotamia, was chosen as God’s Messenger. What the Qur’an says here is that God knew Abraham’s mettle well, so He chose him for this great favor to the exclusion of all others.

It is useful to study the following passages in the Qur’an dealing with * Abraham’s character and qualities: al-Baqarah 2: 124-41 and 258-60; al-An‘am 6: 74-84; al-Tawbah 9: 114; Hud 11: 69-76; Ibrahim 14: 35-41; al-Hijr 15: 51-8, and al-Nahl 16: 120-3.

54. Before trying to comprehend the full meaning of the event mentioned in the following verses one should recall that the Quraysh owed Abraham a great deal. The Ka‘bah, which gave them a singular pre-eminence in the whole of Arabia, was constructed by him. The prestige enjoyed by the Quraysh, therefore, was a direct result of their being Abraham’s offspring and as such custodians of the shrine constructed by him. If we consider the story of Abraham today, and in lands far removed from Arabia, it impresses us as an instructive historical event. However, in the times and milieu in which this story was narrated — sixth century Arabia — it had a much greater significance.

The Qur’anic account of Abraham dealt a severe blow at the very roots of the religion and the exclusivism, arrogance and vanity of the Quraysh.

55. Literally, it may be rendered as: ‘Are you expressing your true ideas before us, or are you jesting?’ The real thrust of the verse, however, is what we have conveyed by our own translation. The unbelievers were so convinced of the truth of their religion that they were not even prepared to take Abraham’s message seriously. Hence, they simply dismissed Abraham’s statement as a joke; they could not believe that the ideas which he expressed could really represent his inner convictions.

56. Abraham told the idolaters that if they were not prepared to heed ‘his arguments, he would make them observe how their gods were of no avail, how they were altogether helpless. Once their idols were proven powerless, the error in considering them to be gods and worshipping them would become fully evident. Abraham, however, did not spell out how he intended to demonstrate the helplessness of their idols.

57. Abraham was on the look-out for the right moment. Once he found there were no worshippers in the temple, nor any keepers to safeguard it, he entered it and demolished ali their idols.

58. The word ‘him’ in the statement ‘. . . that they may possibly return to him’ could, grammatically speaking, apply either to the Supreme Deity or to Abraham. If one considers it to relate to a supreme deity, then this statement amounts to a sarcastic remark about their polytheistic’ beliefs. For, if the unbelievers considered some object to be their supreme deity, they also had reason to assume the possibility that that same supreme deity, in a fit of rage, had struck down all those subordinate deities, reducing them to pieces. It was reasonable, therefore, to ask that supreme deity what had happened to the minor deities whilst under his very nose. Who had done all this? If it were the act of a miscreant, why had the supreme deity not prevented him from carrying out such an outrageous attack? The other alternative is to accept the second interpretation, namely that — ‘him’ is used here to refer to Abraham. In which case the verse would mean that if the idolaters suspected Abraham of being responsible for the demolition of their idols, they would ask him if this was so and this would provide him with an opportunity to explain his point of view.

59. This is exactly what Abraham wanted. He wanted to prove to the public at large rather than merely a small group of priests and worshippers in the temple that the idols, whom they considered to have the power to answer their prayers were instead absolutely powerless. He also wanted to demonstrate the priests’ true estimation of these idols as distinct from what they generally professed.

The priests committed the same mistake which had earlier been made by Pharaoh; Pharaoh, remember, had assembled the whole populace to watch the tournament between the Prophet Moses (peace be on him) and his magicians.

The Quraysh priests now, in a like manner, assembled the general public to bear witness to their interrogation of Abraham. As already noted, the tournament between Moses and the magicians had provided Moses with an opportunity to prove that what he put before them was a miracle and not the magic that they had supposed. Likewise, Abraham’s enemies enabled him to expose, right before everyone’s eyes, the deceitfulness and fraudulence of the priests.

60. The latter part of the verse indicates that Abraham’s statement in the earlier part of the verse, where he ascribes the demolition of their idols to the supreme deity, was not a lie. For in point of fact Abraham was not making a statement; he was merely presenting an argument that would enable his detractors to realize the truth of the matter. His statement had a clear purpose — to make his opponents recognize that their deities were absolutely powerless, that nothing could be expressed of them. Whenever a person makes a statement when trying to drive home his point, he cannot be called a liar even when his statement is objectively incorrect. For, he does not intend to spread something that is contrary to fact, so his audience believes what is incorrect to be true. The speaker’s purpose is quite evident both to him and to his audience — it is simply to establish a point.

Unfortunately, a report in the Hadith mentions that Abraham lied in his life three times. One of these instances is mentioned in this verse. The second relates to Abraham’s utterance that ‘he was sick’ (al-Saffat 37: 89), and the third to his statement that his wife was his sister. This last instance is not recorded in the Qur’an, but occurs in Genesis 12: 13.

Now, some people exhibit an exaggerated sense of their devotion to tradition of all kinds. They are so concerned to affirm the veracity of the transmitters of the traditions embodied in Muslim and al-Bukhari that they do not mind authenticating even those traditions whose contents cast a slur on the truthfulness of Prophets. There is, at the same time, another group of people who go to the other extreme. They exploit a few traditions, which are apparently inauthentic, such as that mentioned above, and indulge in gross generalization, branding all traditions as spurious. Because they can identify a few blatantly erroneous traditions in the collection of Hadith, such people’ would like the entire corpus of traditions to be cast aside. Such an approach, however, is altogether unjustified. For some defects in a few traditions does not necessarily discredit the entire collection of traditions.

At the same time, it is equally wrong to go so far with ‘traditions’ as to affirm even those traditions which imply a slur on a Prophet’s veracity. For even if a hadith is sound according to the criteria of the traditionists for example by means of testing the veracity of its narrators, this does not necessarily mean that it should be blindly accepted as authentic especially if it contains something that is intrinsically objectionable. The chain of narrators of a tradition may well be quite sound and yet the content of that tradition be incorrect; in the course of its transmission, for example, the content may have been incorrectly reported. When a tradition contains something which is intrinsically erroneous. it is obvious to any right-thinking person that such a tradition cannot be affirmed, despite the fact that it is supported by a sound chain of narrators. Hence it is not enough to merely look at the chain of transmission; it is also necessary to consider the content of the tradition. If there is anything wrong with the content, one is quite justified in not accepting that report as true.

As for that report which recounts Abraham’s three so-called lies, it is not only flawed because it ascribes lies to a Prophet, it should also be dismissed on the grounds that it mentions three events of doubtful authenticity.

So far as the first is concerned, and as we have explained earlier, it cannot be called a lie even by a person of very ordinary intellect. So why then would we believe that a Prophet such as Muhammad (peace be on him) would consider such a statement to be a lie? After all, Abraham only made the point to demonstrate to the idolaters the powerlessness of their false deities.

Let us turn to the second instance of ‘lying’ — Abraham’s statement that he was sick. In point of fact, this statement can only be considered contrary to fact if it is conclusively established that Abraham was perfectly healthy at that time; that he had no health complaints at all. Now, the Qur’an makes no mention of Abraham being perfectly healthy at that time. Nor is there any other authentic tradition except the present one which makes any statement about it at all.

As for the third ‘lie’ with which Abraham is charged, referring to his wife as his sister, this is so absurd that one cannot even seriously consider it. The event relates to the time when Abraham went to Egypt with his wife, Sarah.

According to the Bible, Abraham was then 75 years old and his wife a little over 65 years old. At such an advanced age' Abraham is supposed to have learned that the Egyptian Pharaoh would kill him in order to take his beautiful wife. He, therefore, told his wife that if the Egyptians forcibly took her to their Pharaoh, she was to refer to him as her brother, whilst he would introduce her as his sister; this so as to save his life. (See Genesis 12.) If in this report this third ‘lie’ is derived from an improbable and absurd report in the Bible — is it reasonable for a report that consists of such stuff to be ascribed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) merely on the grounds that its chain of narrators is uninterrupted? It should also be emphasized here that those people who are so exaggeratedly obsessed with everything ‘traditional’ do no service to Hadith.

On the contrary their unreasonableness contributes to a highly negative reaction against Hadith and assists those extremists who go to the extent of dismissing the entire corpus of Hadith. (For further details see my Rasa’ il wa Masa’ il (Lahore, 1957), vol. 2, second edition, pp. 35-9 — Ed.)

61. The actual words are which mean that they were ‘turned upside down on their heads’. Some scholars have interpreted this to mean that they put their heads down out of a sense of shame. Such an interpretation, however, would not be consistent with the context of the statement. What this statement really means — and this is also borne out by the context — is that on hearing Abraham’s reply, they realized they had erred for they had taken powerless idols as their deities; idols that were too helpless even to tell others what had befallen them, let alone advise who was responsible for shattering them to pieces. Now, if they were so utterly helpless with regard to themselves, how could they possibly hope to come to the aid of their devotees? Even this realization, however, was soon replaced by a bigoted adherence to their original position. And adamancy, as we know, prevents people from thinking rationally.

62. Both the words of the verse and the context indicate that Abraham’s opponent’s did indeed carry out their threat. They prepared a pit of fire, and threw Abraham into it, but God commanded the fire to cool, thus preventing Abraham from suffering any harm.

This is doubtlessly a miracle narrated by the Qur’an. Nonetheless, there are still those people who are apologetic about such miracles, and who resort to far-fetched interpretations so as to explain them away. They would appear to believe that it is impossible for God to do anything which runs counter to the routine workings of the cosmic system. One may well, if such is their view, ask why they even bother to believe in God in the first. place.

It is also possible that many of those who resort to such far-fetched explanations do so because the ‘rationalists’ of our time deny all miracles. If this is the case, one is quite justified in asking why they feel it incumbent upon themselves to convince everybody of their views. One would be better advised to leave well alone those who are not prepared to believe in the Qur’an as it is. It is no use trying to mold the Qur’an according to the whims of such people when the Qur’an resists such attempts at virtually every step. How can such an effort be considered a healthy and justified means of propagating the Qur’an? (For further elaboration see al-‘Ankabut 29, n. 39.)

63. According to the Bible Abraham had two brothers, Nahor and Haran. Lot was Haran’s son (Genesis 11: 27). It would appear from statements pertaining to Abraham in Surah al-‘Ankabut that only one person belonging to Abraham’s nation believed in him, and that was Lot. (See al-‘Ankabut 29: 26.)

64. This is a reference to Syria and Palestine both of which abound in material and spiritual blessings. Materially speaking, this region is among the most fertile areas of the world. Spiritually, it has been the habitat of Prophets for over two thousand years. No other region in the world rivals it in these respects.

65. Not only was Abraham’s son, Isaac, invested with prophet hood, but also, later his grandson, Jacob.

66. The Bible makes no mention of this important event in Abraham’s life.

In fact, the Bible makes no mention of any incident during Abraham’s stay in Mesopotamia. The author of Genesis: appears uninterested in Abraham’s confrontation with Nimrod, in his dispute with his father and people, in his sustained campaign against idolatry, in his being cast into a pit of fire, and in the circumstances which forced him to forsake his hearth and home. The Bible merely speaks of his migration.

There is an even more interesting discrepancy between the Qur’anic and Biblical versions of Abraham’s story. According to the Qur’an, Abraham’s idolatrous father played a leading role in the perpetration of wrongs and excesses against Abraham. The Bible, however, refers to Abraham’s father as among those who migrated to Haran along with his sons, grandsons and daughters-in-law (Genesis 11: 27-32). Yet Abraham, at some point was asked ‘by God to abandon Haran and instead to settle in Canaan: ‘Now the Lord said to Abraham, ‘‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you’’ (Genesis 12: 1). Why this favor was - suddenly bestowed on Abraham is left unexplained.

The Talmud, however, contains most of the details mentioned in the Qur’an regarding Abraham’s conduct during his Mesopotamian days. When one compares the Qur’anic and Talmudic versions, however, one notes a distinct difference in their thrust. The Talmudic account of Abraham is conspicuously incoherent and full of incredible incidents. In sharp contrast, the Qur’an presents the important details of Abraham’s life, creating the image of a person whose life is far from all those absurdities that might disfigure his personality.

For illustrative purposes only, the gist of the Talmudic version of Abraham’s life, is given below. This will also serve to show how wrong it is to believe that the Qur’an is derived from either Christian or Judaic sources. The Talmudic version is as follows: The wise men saw a large star in the sky on the night Abraham was born and they advised Nimrod to kill the child born in the house of Therach.

The king decided to kill the child but Therach hid his child and had the child of one of his servant’s sons killed instead. Therach thereupon hid his wife and child in a cave where they lived for ten years. In the 11th year Abraham was taken by Therach to Noah, where he lived under the guidance of Noah and his son Shem for thirty-nine years. During these years Abraham married his niece, Sarah, who was 42 years his younger. *: Abraham left Noah at the age of 50 and returned to his father. There he found that his father was an idolater and had twelve idols in the house representing the twelve months of the year. He tried to preach to his father against idolatry but when the latter did not listen to him, Abraham then broke all the idols in the house. Seeing this Therach went: straight to Nimrod advising him that this was the son who the wise men had advised Nimrod to kill on the day of his birth. Therach replied that the babies had been switched at Haran’s instigation. (Haran being Abraham’s brother.) Nimrod accordingly let Therach go but threw Haran into the fire along with Abraham. Haran was consumed by it, but Abraham walked through the flames unscathed. When Nimrod witnessed this with his own eyes, he cried out: ‘Servant of the God of Heaven, come forth from the fire and stand before me.’ Thereupon, Abraham walked out of the fire and furnace and stood before the king who bowed before Abraham making him a gift of many valuable objects. Thereafter, Abraham stayed in Iraq for another two years. Meanwhile, Nimrod had a dreadful dream which the astrologers said came through Abraham and that he should, therefore, put Abraham to death. Although Nimrod sent people to kill Abraham, but Abraham came to know of the “Tt may be noted that the Bible does not mention that Sarah was Abraham’s niece; moreover, the difference in their ages is given as only ten years. (See Genesis 11: 29; 17: 17.) plot before-hand through Eleazar, a slave presented to him by Nimrod himself. Abraham accordingly fled and took refuge with Noah where Therach also met him secretly on a number of occasions. At fast both father and son decided to leave the country and Noah and his son Shem also approved of their plan. Accordingly, Therach, along with his son Abraham and his grandson Lot and his grand-daughter and Abraham wife, Sarah left and went to Haran. (See The Talmud Selections, pp. 30-42.) With what has been abstracted above, how can a sensible person, after a comparative study of the Qur’anic and Talmudic accounts, subscribe to the notion that the Qur’an has borrowed its material from the Talmud?

67. In Qur’anic usage the grant of hukm and ‘ilm to someone generally means that he has been endowed with prophet hood. The word hukm signifies wisdom, the capacity to arrive at the right decisions, as well as the conferment of authority by God. ‘Ilm (knowledge) signifies that true knowledge made available by revelation. (For further details about Lot, see al-A ‘raf 7: 80-4; Hiid 11: 69-83, and al-Hijr 15: 61-77.)

68. Reference is made here to Noah’s prayer to God following a very long period of struggle to reform his people: ‘O Lord! I have been overwhelmed; come to my help’ (al-Qamar 54: 10). ‘O Lord, do not spare a single unbelieving soul on the earth’ (Nah 71: 26).

69. ‘Great distress’ signifies either the distressful state of living in the midst of an evil people, or the woeful condition of the Flood. (For details about the story of Noah, see al-A ‘raf 7: 59-64; Yunus 10: 71-4; Hid 11: 25-48 and Bani Isra’il 17: 3.)

70. This incident is not mentioned in the Bible. Nor do we find any trace of it in Judaic literature.

According to Muslim commentators on the Qur’an, the incident described relates to an episode when someone’s herd of goats trespassed on to another person’s field at night. The aggrieved person petitioned the Prophet David, who decided that the goats should be taken from their owner and given to the aggrieved person. The Prophet Solomon, on the other hand, disagreed with this judgement, holding that the goats should only be retained by the aggrieved party until the field was restored to its original state by the owner of the goats. . (See the comments of Ibn Kathir and al-Qurtubi on_verses 78-9 in their respective Commentaries — Ed.).

The Qur’an, however, does not provide any details about this case, nor is: there any direct information about the matter in the Hadith. Since such details are absent from the Qur’an and cannot be corroborated on the authority of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) in Hadith, it cannot be said with certainty, therefore, what the authoritative Islamic position on the question is.

This accounts for the variety of opinions of Hanafi, Shafi‘, Maliki and other Muslim jurists on the question of whether the owner of the goats should be penalized if his herd damages a field; and what penalty if any is to be levied, i.e. the quantum and mode of such a penalty.

Mention of this particular incident as it relates to David and Solomon just goes to emphasize that even though Prophets are endowed by God. with extraordinary powers and abilities, they still remain hun.an beings and do not partake of His Divinity. In this particular case, when God did not provide any guidance to David through revelation, the father’s own decision was incorrect.

On the other hand, God provided Solomon with the right decision. This. is significant in so far as both David and Solomon were Prophets. It is also noteworthy that both these Prophets have been referred to as individuals endowed with great personal qualities, conferred upon them by God, but this did not make them equal to God. Incidentally, the above verse also establishes that if two judges rule on a case and find differently, and regardless that only one judgement is correct, both judges will be considered vindicated in their rulings provided they have the necessary qualifications, knowledge and experience, needed for judging that case. This point is elaborated upon in traditions from the Prophet (peace be on him). In a tradition on the authority of ‘Amr ibn al-As it is reported that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: ‘If a magistrate judges, exerting himself to the full, and arrives at the right judgement he. will receive twice the reward whereas if he judges, exerting himself to the full, but errs in his judgement, he will receive a single reward.’ (See Abu Da’ud and Ibn Majah.) A tradition from: Buraydah mentions that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: ‘Judges are of three kinds: one of them will go to Paradise while the other two will go to Hell. He who discerns the truth and decides the case accordingly, will go to Paradise. However, he who discerns the truth and yet decides otherwise will go to Hell.

Likewise, those judges who decide cases without the necessary knowledge will also go to Hell.’ (See Abu Da’ud, Sunan, K. al-Aqdiyah, ‘Bab fi al- Qadiukhti’ Ibn Majah, Sunan, K. al-Ahkam, ‘Bab al-Hakim yajtahid fa yusib al-Haqq’ — Ed.)

71. The words used here are (with David) rather than (‘for David’). In other words, the mountains and the birds, along with David, were made subservient; not that the mountains and birds were subservient to David.

As a result, the mountains and the birds together with David celebrated the glory of God. The same point has been made elsewhere in the Qur’an: ‘It is We Who made the mountains subservient along with him: they celebrate Our praise at eventide and at the break of the day, and the birds were mustered together, each turning [to Allah]’ (Sad 38: 18-19). This is further explained by another verse: ‘We commanded the mountains to celebrate Our glory with him; and also the birds’ (Saba’ 34: 10).

The point which emerges from those passages is that when the Prophet David was saying his hymns, the mountains echoed with his loud, melodious - voice, causing the birds to suspend their flight just as if his voice had cast a spell upon them. This notion is further borne out by the following hadith: ‘Once, when Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari, who had an exceptionally melodious voice was reciting the Qur’an, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) passed by and stopped at hearing the recitation. He listened to him for a while, and when he [i.e. Abu Musa] had finished, the Prophet exclaimed: ‘*He has a portion of Davud’s melodies”

72. This point is further elaborated upon in Sarah Saba’: ‘We made the iron soft for him [David] and commanded him: make coats of mail, balancing well the rings of the chain armor’ (Saba’ 34: 10-11). Thus we learn that God granted David complete mastery over iron, especially for military purposes. In the light of the historical and archaeological information these verses can be explained as follows: The Iron Age began somewhere between 1200 B.C. and 1000 B.C. which was the time of the Prophet Davud. The Hittites, inhabitants of Syria and Asia Minor, who had their hey-day during the period 2000 B.C. to 1200 B.C., were the first to invent techniques for melting and manufacturing iron; an expertise which they kept a closely-guarded secret. The iron that was thus made was, however, extremely expensive — like gold and silver and consequently the requisite techniques were not widely used. Later on, the Philistines also acquired this knowledge but they too kept it a closely-guarded secret. Before Saul’s accession to the throne, the Hittites and Philistines had continually defeated the Israelites and had almost driven them out of Palestine. According to the Bible, one of the factors which had ensured their superiority was their use of chariots and other weapons manufactured from iron (Joshua 17: 16; Judges 1: 19 and 4: 2-3). When Saul, under God’s command, became ruler in 1020 B.C., he crushed the Hittites and Philistines and recovered a major portion of Palestine. The Prophet David (1004 B.C.-965 B.C.) extended the Israelite domain to the rest of Palestine to Transjordan and a major part of Syria.

It was during this period that melting techniques, thus far only known to the Hittites and Philistines, were disclosed. Within a short period of time, other techniques of iron-manufacturing produced inexpensive iron, as a result of which iron products were manufactured and commonly used. Edom, in the southern part of Palestine, is immensely rich in iron ore. Recent archaeological excavations show at several places remnants of furnaces obviously used for melting and moulding iron. Indeed, a furnace excavated near Ezion-Geber, a port on the Gulf of Aqaba in the days of the Prophet Solomon, appears to have been built, on the very same principles. which are employed to. this day in blast furnaces. Quite naturally, Davud would have used this discovery of iron for military purposes since it was armor manufactured from this metal which in the then recent past, had created such difficulties for the Israelites.

73. For further details about Davud see al-Baqarah 2: 251, and Bani Isra’ il 17, nn. 7 and 63.

74. This is elaborated elsewhere in the Qur’an thus: ‘And We subjected the wind to Solomon: its early morning stride was a month’s journey, and its evening stride was a month’s journey’ (Saba’ 34: 12). Alternatively: “We subjected the wind to him to flow gently to his order, whithersoever he willed’ (Sad 38: 36). , We, thus, know that the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) was granted control over the wind and that this greatly facilitated his voyages to places lying as far as a month’s sea-journey away; the wind favoring him both on his outward as well as return journeys. We learn both from Biblical sources and from modern researches that Solomon (peace be on him) embarked on large-scale naval expeditions. His fleet-sailing from Ezion-Geber through the Red Sea to Yemen, and to-countries lying to the south and east of his empire.

Similarly, another of Solomon’s fleets, called Tharashish in the Bible, operated at ports on the Mediterranean Sea and in Western countries.

The furnace which Solomon had built at Ezion-Geber for melting and molding iron ore was substantial — no other furnace of like size has so far been discovered anywhere in Eastern Asia or the Middle East. Archaeologists believe that the ore used in this furnace was brought from the iron and copper mines of ‘Araban in Edom. The iron and copper ore melted in this furnace was used for ship-building and for other purposes. This would, thus, seem to explain the meaning of the Qur’anic verse: ‘And We caused molten copper to flow for Solomon’ (Saba’ 34: 12).

This historical background also enables us to grasp what is meant by Solomon’s ‘mastery over the wind’. Sea voyages in those days were totally dependent upon favourable winds. And with God’s special favor Solomon’s fleet always enjoyed favorable winds. If Solomon enjoyed control over the wind so that he could order it to move in the direction he wished, as is implied in the Qur’anic statement ape: a (‘it blew at his bidding’, verse 81) this could only have been conferred upon him by God — such a task not being difficult for God. Furthermore, since God Himself granted Solomon this authority, it need not vex us here.

75. The point is thus elaborated in Surah Saba’: “There were jinns that worked in front of him by the permission of his Lord and if any of them turned aside from God’s command, God made him taste of the penalty of the Blazing Fire. They worked for him as he desired, making arches, images, basons as large as reservoirs, and cooking cauldrons fixed in their places: ‘Work you, sons of David; with thanks; but few of My servants are grateful!’’ Then, when We decreed Solomon’s death, nothing showed them his death except a little worm of the earth, which kept gnawing away at his staff; so when he fell down, the jinn saw plainly that if they had’ known the unseen, they would not have tarried in the humiliating penalty’ (Saba’ 34: 12-14).

This verse makes it quite plain that the satans who had been made subservient to the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) and who performed many tasks for him, were, in fact, jinn. They were the same jinn who, according to the beliefs of Arab polytheists, had knowledge of those realms beyond sense-perception. If one studies the Qur’an with open eyes, and with a mind free of all biases and preconceived notions, it is clear what the Qur’an means when it uses the term ‘satans’ without any qualification, what those creatures are whom it refers to as jinn. It is also clear what kind of-jinn were considered by the polytheists of Arabia to possess knowledge of those realms beyond sense-perception.

Modern commentators on the Qur’an have gone to extreme lengths to prove that the jinn and satans who had been put under the Prophet Solomon’s control were in fact men from neighboring nations. The words of the Qur’an, however, exclude all such far-fetched interpretations. Additionally, wherever this story is recounted in the Qur’an, it occurs in a context and a style which leaves no grounds for such an interpretation. If the masons employed by Solomon were indeed human beings, then what prompted the Qur’an to mention those same masons in such an exceptional manner? For man’s ability to erect buildings, ranging from the pyramids of ancient Egypt to the skyscrapers of present-day New York, is well-known. And if it is human beings who are referred to here as jinn, what prince or business tycoon has not enjoyed the services of such ‘jinn’ and ‘satans’?

76. There is much controversy surrounding who Job was, when he lived, and to which nation he belonged. Researchers of the present times advance a variety of views. Some consider him to be an Israelite, some an Egyptian, while yet others regard him as an Arab, some are of the opinion that he lived at a time which preceded that of Moses, others that he was a contemporary of the Prophets David and Solomon, and still others that he belonged to an even later period. These scholars’ conjectures are based on the Book of Job, part of the Bible, and are on their differing views about the language, style and contents to be found in that Book. Barring this, there is no other historical evidence for such speculation. As for the Book of Job itself, it is marked by many contradictions and inconsistencies. Moreover, its content varies from the Qur’an to such. an extent that the two cannot be reconciled with each other. We are unable, therefore, to trust the Book of Job. The only plausible evidence to be found is that contained in the Book of Isaiah and the Book of Ezekiel, as these books are relatively more reliable from an historical viewpoint. Isaiah lived in the eighth century and Ezekiel in the tenth century B.C. It is certain, therefore, that Job lived either in the ninth century B.C. or earlier. In so far as his origins are concerned, it would appear from al-Nisa’ 4: 163 and al-An‘am 6: 84 that Job was an Israelite. However, the contention of Wahb ibn al-Munabbih that Job was a descendant of Esa, son of the Prophet Isaac cannot be altogether dismissed. (See al-Tabari, Ta’rikh, vol. 1, p. 226 — Ed.)

77. This supplication is marked by unusual sublimity and refinement. Job mentions his suffering in the merest of words and then concludes by simply saying: “You are the Most Merciful of those that are merciful.’ He gives vent to no grievance or complaint; expresses no desire to be fulfilled, no demand to be met. The very style of the supplication suggests that it was made by an extremely patient, content, gracious and self-respecting person; but who, being overwhelmed with suffering, was compelled to utter a few words and no more.

The situation seems similar to that of a dignified and self-respecting person who, long afflicted by starvation, happens to meet someone magnanimous, and to whom he simply says: ‘I am extremely hungry and you are kind and generous.’ He utters these words under the compulsion of his starvation, but is able to say no more. But the succinctness of the expression renders the statement very powerful, extremely rich in meaning.

78. From Surah Sad one learns (see verse 38: 42 ff.) that God told Job: ‘Strike [the ground] with your foot. Here is cool water to wash and to drink’ and so, as soon as Job struck the ground with his foot, God caused a natural spring to flow for him. Its water had a special medicinal property which cured Job when he either drank of it or bathed in it. This mode of treatment provides some clue as to Job’s illness, suggesting as it does some sort of severe skin disorder. This view is also corroborated by the Bible which mentions that Job was afflicted with ‘loathsome sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head’. (See Job 2: 7.)

79. The Prophet Job’s story as narrated in the Qur’an shows him as the embodiment of patience and perseverance. It also emphasizes that his life was a model for the pious and the devout. On the other hand, the account of his life in the Bible (see the Book of Job) conjures up an entirely different image — a picture of one who levels nothing but complaint against God. Job is mentioned as saying: ‘Let the day perish wherein I was born’ (Job 3: 3). ‘Why did I not die - at birth, come forth from the womb and expire?’ (Job 3: 11). He is ever ready to complain against God: ‘O that my vexation were weighed, and all my calamity laid in the balances! For then it would be heavier than the sand of the sea; - therefore my words have been rash. For the arrows of the Almighty are in me, my spirit drinks their poison; the terrors of God are arrayed against me’ (Job 6: 2-4). Additionally, ‘If I sin, what do I do to thee, thou watcher of men? Why hast thou made me thy mark? Why have I become a burden to thee? Why dost’ thou not pardon my transgression and take away my iniquity?’ (Job 7: 20-1).

Job further says: ‘I will say to God, do not condemn me; let me know why thou dost contend against me. Does it seem good to thee to oppress, to despise the work of thy hands, and favor the designs of the wicked?’ (Job 10: 2-3).

Three of Job’s friends try to console him and urge him to be patient, and to submit to God’s will. Yet all this has no effect on him. Reacting to their exhortation, he lambasts God once again and fails to see any wisdom or purpose in his suffering. He simply regards it as a calamity, a calamity striking a righteous and pious person like himself. He takes strong exception to that arrangement whereby the wrong-doers seemingly prosper whereas the pious suffer. Recounting his own good deeds, he then turns to the sufferings, which in his view, God inflicted upon him. He openly challenges God to explain why he is subjected to this kind of treatment. His outburst against God reaches such a crescendo that Job’s friends desert him. When these three friends no longer respond to Job’s diatribe against his Creator, the fourth person, so far a silent listener, intervenes and severely rebukes Job, for Job holds himself to be in the right, instead of God. Job’s speech is interrupted by God where after we encounter a verbal debate between the two (see Job, chaps. 10, 16, 32, 41 and 42).

It is hard to believe, while reading these passages, that the account pertains to the same Job who has been presented in the Qur’an as a paragon of patience, and whose life was considered instructive for all those who are devout.

What is especially bewildering about the account in the Bible’s Book of Job is that its early part says one thing, the middle part something else, and the concluding part something totally different again; there is no consistency between its different parts. The opening part presents Job as pious -and God-fearing, as basically a good person who, apart from these qualities, was also extremely wealthy to the extent of being the richest man in the East. Once God’s son, accompanied by Satan, called on God, and during this meeting God took pride in His servant, Job. To this Satan responded by saying that Job could not be other than God’s grateful servant for He had after all blessed him so immensely, but would Job be the same if God were to snatch away his possessions. Satan argued that Job would disown God if this were the case. Satan, therefore, threw down a challenge to God on this count. God accepted the challenge and delegated all authority to Satan, authorizing him to do whatever pleased him, but cautioning him against doing anything against Job’s person.

Satan deprived Job of everything, including his family. Although this rendered Job alone and penniless, it still did not distract him. Instead, he ‘fell upon the ground and worshipped’, saying: ‘Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return; the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord’ (Job 1: 20-1). Yet another encounter took place in the heavens, and this attended by the son of God and Satan. God took this opportunity to assail Satan, telling him that Job had proved his mettle. Again Satan challenged God, saying that if Job were to be afflicted by extreme physical suffering, he would then disown and blaspheme against God. God, once again authorized Satan to go ahead with his machinations, asking him only to spare Job’s life. On his return, Satan afflicted Job, ‘with loathsome sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head’ (Job 2: 7). Job’s wife said to him: ‘Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God, and die’ Job 2: 9). To this, he replied: ‘You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?’ (Job 2: 10).

The above account provides a summary of the first two chapters of the Book of Job. The third chapter, however, opens with a marked change in tone and tenor, and this continues until Chapter 42. These chapters provide a long account of Job’s impatience, of bitter complaint and allegation against God, thus proving that God’s estimate of Job, as identified in the earlier part of the Book of Job, was false whereas Satan’s view was true. Chapter 42 concludes.

with Job seeking God’s pardon after engaging in a prolonged conflict with Him. Job, did not, however, seek God’s pardon out of his thanks to and trust in God. He was, rather, moved to seek God’s pardon because he was severely rebuked by Him. In response to all this God removes all Job’s afflictions and blesses him. Whilst studying the last part of the Book of Job, one cannot help but feel that neither God nor Job stood up to Satan’s challenge. God compelled Job to seek His pardon and readily accepted his repentance so that He would not suffer Satan’s humiliation.

The contents of the Book of Job eloquently attest, therefore, that it is neither God’s work, nor even that of Job’s. It was not even written during Job’s life-time; rather, centuries later, someone wrote a legendary story about Job.

The main characters of the story — Job, Eliphaz Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, Zophar the Neamatite, Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite — come from the author’s own world-view and not historical reality. The poetic and literary qualities of the Book of Job may certainly be praised; there are, however, no grounds to consider the work as ‘Scriptures’, as one of the heavenly books.

This work is no more a true mirror of Job’s character than is the legendary tale of Joseph and Zelicha a true mirror of Joseph’s character. Perhaps it is even less so. At most, all that can be said is that the accounts in the preliminary and concluding parts of the work have an element of historical truth. These elements must have reached the author either via oral traditions current in his time or through works which are now extinct.

80. For further details see Maryam 19, n. 33 above.

81. Dhu al-Kifl literally means ‘a man of good luck’; good luck not in terms of worldly benefits but rather in the sense of possessing moral excellence and so receiving reward from God in the Hereafter: Dhu al-Kifl was also the title rather than the proper name of the person concerned. The Qur’an mentions him twice and on both occasions it is the title rather than the name that is mentioned.

Commentators on the Qur’an have presented a myriad of opinions about the identity of Dhu al-Kifl and about the period during which he lived. Some are of the opinion that Dhu al-Kifl is the equivalent of Zechariah. * Others are of the opinion that he was Ilyas (Elijah); still others consider him to be Joshua the son of Nun, and even successor to Elisha, or Job’s son who later became a Prophet and bore the name of Bishr. Al-Alusi has expressed the following view: “The Jews claim that he was the Prophet Ezekiel who was honored with prophethood during the captivity of the Israelites in 597 B.C. He performed his mission as a Prophet in a town close to the Chebar river.’ (See his Ruh al-Ma‘ani, vol. 17, p. 82 — Ed.) In view of this great diversity of opinions, it is difficult to be certain who Dhu al-Kifl exactly was. Qur’anic commentators of recent times are inclined to the view that he was in fact Ezekiel. We, however, have failed to find any firm grounds in support of this view. Nevertheless, if any good evidence to this effect were to become available one would like to support it. This is so since the description of Ezekiel in the Book of Ezekiel seems to confirm the’ characterization of Dhu al-Kifl in this verse — viz. his being patient and righteous. Ezekiel was made a captive by Nebuchadnezzar before the fall of Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar also established a colony of exiles by the river Chebar calling it Tel Aviv, and it was here, in 594 B.C. that Ezekiel was designated a Prophet. He was then 30 years of age. *This is patently wrong as we shall show later. This, again, is erroneous since in Surah Sad the two are mentioned as separate persons. For a full 22 years he continuously warned the captive Israelites as well as the self-indulgent inhabitants and rulers of Jerusalem of the need to heed the truth. His devotion to his mission may be gauged from the report that in the ninth year of his mission his wife, whom he called the ‘delight of his eyes’, passed away. When people came to offer their condolences, he made use of this occasion to warn them of God’s impending chastisement (Ezekiel 24: 15-27).

It seems pertinent to point out here that the Book of Ezekiel is one of the few books in the Bible which seems to have been truly revealed by God.

82. Reference is made here to the Prophet Jonah (peace be on him). At some places in the Qur’an he is mentioned by his proper name and at others only his title, ‘Dhu al-Nun’ (the man of the fish) is used. This title does not mean that he was engaged in catching or selling fish, but rather indicates the fish which with God’s leave, devoured him, as has been described in al-Saffat (37: 142). (For further details see Towards Understanding the Qur’ an, vol. IV, Yunus 10, nn. 98-100, pp. 66-8, and al-Saffat 37, nn. 77-8.)

83. Angry with his people, Jonah suddenly upped and left them. He did so before receiving God’s command to emigrate — a command that would have provided him with the necessary justification for relinquishing the duties he had been assigned.

84. Believing that his people would soon be afflicted with God’s chastisement, Jonah decided to find a refuge that would save him from this.

This in itself was not objectionable, but what was objectionable, was that a Prophet should leave his post without God’s permission.

85. Darkness here refers to that darkness in the belly of the fish, further compounded by the darkness of the sea.

86. For a detailed discussion see Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. 1, Al ‘Imran 3: 37-41 and nn. 35-42, pp. 249-52 and Maryam 19: 2-15 above.

The Qur’anic statement that God made Zechariah’s wife fit for him refers to the fact that God cured her of her infertility thus enabling her to conceive in spite of her old age. The remaining part of the verse: ‘You are the best Inheritor’, means that he would have no regrets even if he was not blessed with any offspring for God suffices to inherit.

87. It is pertinent here to recall the purpose for which the Prophets were raised. Zechariah’s (peace be on him) story is repeated in order to emphasize that all the Prophets were no more than human beings and servants of God, who were devoid of even a shred of divinity. Nor did the Prophets have the power to grant offspring to others, for they themselves had to pray to God whenever they were in need of their own.

Jonah’s case is also mentioned for a purpose. For even though he was a Prophet of great stature, he was nevertheless taken to task by God when he suffered a lapse. Later, when he turned to God in sincere penitence and humility, he received the exceptional favor of being brought out alive from the belly of the fish which had devoured him. The Prophet Job’s story was also narrated to illustrate that it was not unusual for Prophets, like other human beings, to be subjected to suffering. When a Prophet is thus afflicted he turns to God, in prayer, in the hope that He will remove that affliction from him, as did Job.

Another important point which is underscored here is that all Prophets believed in God’s Oneness and addressed all their needs to Him alone.

Furthermore, God has always come to a Prophet’s rescue in exceptional ways.

Although they may initially face a variety of afflictions, their prayers are eventually granted in a rather miraculous fashion.

88. The reference made here is to Mary.

89. The Qur’an also makes the following statement about the Prophet Adam: ‘I am about to create man from clay. When I have fashioned him in due proportion and breathed into him of My spirit, prostrate yourselves before him’ (Sad 38: 71-2). The same statement is made in several places about the Prophet Jesus (peace be on him): ‘The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of Allah, and His command that He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him’ (al-Nisa’ 4: 171). The Qur’an also states elsewhere that Mary was the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her chastity that: We breathed [into her body] of Our Spirit’ (al-Tahrim 66: 12).

It is noteworthy that God describes the birth of Jesus and of Adam in identical terms. For example, it has been said: ‘Surely the similitude of the creation of Jesus in the sight of Allah is as the creation of Adam whom He created out of dust, then said to him ‘‘Be’’ and he was’ (Al ‘Imran 3: 59). (See Towards Understanding the Qur’an, vol. I, Al ‘Imran, 3: 59, p. 260 — Ed.) It would appear from these verses that when God brings someone into being directly by His command, rather than by the ordinary process of procreation, the expression used for it is: ‘breathing of God’s spirit’. The spirit is ascribed to God since its breathing is something miraculous. (For further details see Towards Understanding the Qur’ an, vol. Il, al-Nisa’ 4, nn. 212-13, p. 116 — Ed.)

90. Neither Jesus nor Mary had any share whatsoever in godhead. They were merely those among many signs from God. For a full discussion on the meaning of ‘sign’, see Maryam 19, n. 21 above; and al-Mu' minun 23, n. 43,

91. The imperative to serve God is addressed to all mankind. All human beings were originally part of one community, followers of the same faith. All the Prophets who were raised to guide mankind, called people to that same religion. The core of this religion being that the One True God alone is Lord 0f all mankind, and He alone should be served and worshipped. Those religions which emerged later in history are all distortions of this one true, original religion. Some elements of this original religion were taken over by a particular creed while other elements were taken over by yet different creeds with a great innovations added later.

These deviations from and distortions of, the original religion have given rise to a multiplicity of religions. It would, however, be altogether wrong to consider the Prophets as being the founders of these different religions or even to blame them for giving rise to religious disagreements among mankind. True, followers of different religions today claim their allegiance to Prophets of different ages, but such claims do not establish that the Prophets were responsible for the founding of these. God’s Prophets called people to embrace only the one true religion, and to serve only the One True God.

92. This verse may be interpreted in three ways. First, it can mean that once a community has been subjected to God’s scourge, it can never have a fresh lease of life, a rejuvenation. Second, that once a community is destroyed, it never has the chance to be tested by God again. The only occasion when it will undergo any such test is on the Day of Judgement. Third, when a community goes too far with its inequity and transgression, and when its deviation from the true path reaches a high watermark, God will destroy it. Such a community will be denied the opportunity to repent and return to God for it is unable to relinquish its error and so embrace true guidance.

93. We have already attempted to explain Gog and Magog (see al-Kahf 18, nn. 62 and 69 above). For the purposes of these notes, however, it is worth repeating that Gog and Magog will be let loose to pounce upon mankind in the manner that animals pounce upon their prey.

The statement that ‘the time of the fulfilment of the true promise of Allah draws near’ clearly indicates that the incursions of Gog and Magog will take place on a world-wide scale during the last days of human life on earth. This will shortly be followed by the Day of Judgement. One of the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be on him) statements further elaborates this point. This saying of the Prophet (peace be on him) was reported by Hudhayfah ibn Asid al-Ghifari, and is recorded in the Sahih of Muslim: “The Resurrection will not take place until you have witnessed the following ten signs: the smoke; the Dajjal; the beast; the rising of the sun from the west; the descent of Jesus, son of Mary; the (incursions of) Gog and Magog; three major landslides: one in the east, the other in the west and the third one in the Arabian Peninsula. Lastly, a fierce fire will break out in and spread from Yemen driving mankind to the Plain of Judgement.’ (Muslim, K. al-Fitan wa Ashrat al-Sa‘ah, ‘Bab fi al-Ayat al-Lati takun qabl al-Sa‘ah’ — Ed.)

In another hadith referring to the incursions of Gog and Magog, it is said that these would take place when the Last Day was extremely. close, so close that predicting its actual advent would be as difficult as predicting the precise moment of a child’s birth. The information about Gog and Magog from the Qur’an and the Hadith does not suggest that the two — Gog and Magog — will ' jointly swoop on the world. It is even possible that before the Day of Judgement the two will enter into internecine conflicts leading to world-wide strife.

94. The word ghaflah (carelessness, neglect) carries a nuance of apology and regret. Thus, after mentioning peoples’ heedlessness, it is also said that these same will openly admit that the Prophets warned them that the Day of Judgement was at hand. Thus, they will acknowledge not only that they were careless and ignorant, but that they were among the evil-doers.

95. According to some reports, ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Ziba ‘ra objected to the import of this verse, saying that it implied that not only their deities but also Jesus, Ezra and the angels would be cast into Hell as they too had been worshipped by people. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) thereupon affirmed: ‘Yes, everyone who preferred that he be worshipped, beside God, will be in the company of his worshippers {in Hell].’ (See Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, comments on verses 98-9; and Ibn Hisham, Sirah, vol. 1, p. 359 — Ed.)

We thus learn that those who taught people to worship the One True God will certainly not be thrown into Hell. And this is regardless of whether some * ignorant people took them to be gods, or whether others were totally unaware of them. In other words, those who taught of the One True God were not responsible for the polytheism which was falsely practiced in their name. The same, however, cannot be said of those who claim to be co-sharers in godhead, and who are a party to the polytheism of their followers; they will be hurled into Hell along with their votaries. Likewise, all those who, in pursuit of their selfish interests, cause other than God to become deities, will be hurled into Hell. In this case they will be regarded as the real objects of worship in the same way as those who willfully set themselves up as deities.

This category of beings is headed by Satan for it is at his instigation that some human beings are taken as god. It would be appropriate to say then that the deity that is actually worshipped is Satan and not the deities whom he sponsors. Moreover, objects of worship — whether stones, pieces of wood or whatever — will also be thrown into Hell along with their polytheist subscribers so that they may aggravate its fire. The sight of these deities burning in Hell will add to the polytheists’ sufferings, for they will now discover that those upon whose intercession they had pinned all their hopes will be of no avail to them. What is more, they will prove to be instrumental in causing them greater pain.

96. The Qur’an here mentions the word zafir. In particular, this is used to’ " convey loud sounds of exhalation followed by deep inhalation, especially during fierce heat or under extreme toil and fatigue.

97, Here reference is made to those who followed the path of righteousness and virtue. God has promised them safety from punishment and has assured their salvation.

98. When mankind appears before God for its reckoning, ordinary people will be seized by panic. As for the righteous, they will be relaxed and contented for things will proceed according to their expectations. That treasure of faith and righteous deeds which accompanied their departure from this world will stand them in good stead; it will serve as a means of solace, will remove fear and grief from their hearts and give rise to the hope that they will soon be able to see the good results of their striving.

99. This verse has been seriously misinterpreted by some people; this has led to a view that strikes at the very root of Qur’anic teachings and negates the whole world-view of Islam. At the heart of this miscomprehension is the belief that it guarantees inheritance of the earth (i.e. governance of and control over the resources of the earth) only to the righteous; that God will bestow this bounty on them alone. This generalization is then used to derive further conclusions. Some, for example, inferring that the enjoyment of political power is the criterion of righteousness; that those who enjoy it are righteous; whilst those who do not have it are unrighteous. Such people, even go a step further. They look around at those nations which have been ‘inheritors of the earth’ either in the past or currently so, and they note that unbelievers, polytheists, transgressors and sinners have all at one time or another enjoyed ‘inheritance of the earth’. Communities abounding in traits which the Qur’an.

unequivocally brands as sin and evil have enjoyed political power in the past as well as the present. From the likes of Pharaoh and Nimrod to the oppressive rulers of our own day, there have been many who have openly rejected and defied God; yet they have continued to enjoy political power. Because of this, such interpreters of the Qur’an contend that since the principle — that only the righteous will inherit the earth — cannot be wrong, the meaning so far associated with ‘righteousness’ is fallacious. They, therefore, seek a new meaning of righteousness which may indiscriminately be applied to all those who have ruled over the earth, whether they be Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) or Chengis Khan and Halaku. In this pursuit, they are helped by the Darwinian concept of evolution. They try to adapt the Qur’anic concept of salah (rectitude, righteousness) to the Darwinian concept of ‘fitness’ (survival of the fittest).

According to this new interpretation, whoever is capable of conquering land efficiently, ruling over others and successfully exploiting the earth’s material resources is a ‘righteous servant of God’, and his conduct is a model for other worshippers of God for true worship consists of worldly success. Failure to offer this special type of worship and, as a result, inability to rule over the earth will exclude whoever from the category of God’s righteous servants.

Those responsible for interpreting this verse in such a way must, however, face the question: if righteousness and worship are so signified, what, then, is meant by faith? Faith in God, in the Last Day, in the Messengers and in the Books — a faith without which, according to the Qur’an, no good deed is acceptable to God. (See, for instance, al-Kahf 18: 104-6; and in many other places in the Qur’an — Ed.) Additionally, what is meant by the Qur’anic call that one must follow the moral system and the way of life communicated to mankind on God’s behalf by His Messengers? Such interpreters also fail to answer as to why the Qur’an repeatedly states that those who do not believe in the Messenger or do not obey God’s command, are unbelievers, transgressors worthy of God’s punishment and wrath. Had these people, seriously and honestly, reflected over such questions they would have realized the error of their interpretation.

Far from admitting their mistake, however, they have had the audacity to distort the very meaning of their faith: monotheism, the Hereafter and Messenger ship; in short, of every basic Islamic concept. So as to make these conform to their own peculiar interpretation of this verse, they have had no qualms about tampering with the entire body of Qur’anic teachings. Ironically enough, they have even had the temerity to fling at those who disagree with their distortions of the Qur’an, the following sentence from one of Muhammad Iqbal’s well-known couplets: ‘Rather than change themselves, they change the Qur'an.’ All this is because of some Muslims’ obsession with material progress, a progress which has caused them to lose their poise and allowed them to brazenly, and without hesitation, distort the teachings of the Qur’an.

The basic error of this approach is that people take a single verse of the Qur’an and then subject it to an interpretation which conflicts with the totality of Qur ‘anic teachings. As a matter of principle, only that interpretation which is in consonance with the totality of Qur’anic statements and with the overall Qur’anic world-view, can be considered as sound. Anyone who is conversant with what the Qur’an calls righteousness, virtue and piety, cannot then go on to equate these with material prosperity and the capacity to rule. If salah (righteousness) is simply taken here to mean competence and effectiveness, this would run counter to the thrust of Qur’anic teachings when taken as a whole.

Another factor which accounts for their error is the way in which they interpret this verse in isolation from its context and subject it to a meaning which has no other basis except their arbitrary whims. Any interpretation of a Qur’anic verse can only be correct if it is considered in its context. Had this principle been followed, they would have seen that the context of the verse is the question itself, i.e. what is the ultimate end of unbelievers and polytheists? Furthermore, why should we imagine that they would suddenly jump from this question to consider a totally different one? The latter being: what is the principle which governs the entrusting of political power to some and not others?

If we employ the correct principles of Qur’anic exegesis, the meaning of this verse is instantly evident: All it means is that in the World to Come, the inheritors of the earth will be the righteous; the transient arrangement found on the earth today will not endure in the Next, Everlasting Life. The evil-doers and unjust who have had the opportunity to dominate this earthly world will find that the principles operating in the Hereafter are very different.

It is precisely this very point which was clearly stated in the concluding verses to Surah al-Zumar. These verses refer to the Next Life, to the blowing of the two Trumpets, to God’s Final Judgement, to the ultimate end of those who disbelieve, and finally, to the believers’ own end:

And those who feared their Lord will be led to the Garden in crowds, until behold, they arrive there; its gates will be opened and its keepers will say: ‘Peace be upon you! You have done well. Enter you herein to abide forever.’ They will say: ‘Praise be to Allah, Who has truly fulfilled His promise to us, and has given us this land in heritage. We can dwell in the Garden as we will: how excellent a reward for those who work righteousness!’ (al-Zumar 39: 73-4).

It is clear that the verses — verse 105 of the present surah and verses 73 to 74 of al-Zumar — are concerned with the same subject, the inheritance of the earth in the Life to Come.

Let us now turn to the Psalms to which the same verse also refers. It is difficult for us to say whether or not what is known as the Psalms today exists in a pure, unadulterated form. For in the present Psalms there are several exhortations to goodness, honesty and contentment.

For the wicked shall be cut off; but those who wait for the Lord shall possess the land. Yet a little while, and the wicked will be no more; though you look well at his place, he will not be there. But the meek shall possess the land, and delight themselves in abundant prosperity (Psalms 37: 9-11). _. and their heritage will abide forever. The righteous shall possess the land, and dwell upon it forever (ibid., 37: 18, 29).

As for the temporary inheritance of the land in this world, Qur’anic law is set forth in Surah al-A ‘raf: ‘The earth is Allah’s. He bestows it on those of His Servants He chooses.’ (See Towards Understanding the Qur'an, vol. Il, al-A‘raf, 7: 128, p. 70.) In accordance with God’s will this inheritance is conferred on unbelievers as well as believers, and both the sinners and the righteous share it. It is not granted, however, as a recompense for one’s deeds, rather the bestowal of political power, as stated in the Qur’an: ‘Your Lord will soon destroy your enemy and make you rulers in the land. Then He will see how you act.’ (See Towards Understanding the Qur’ an, vol. MII, al-A‘raf 7: 129, p. 70.) As it is, this inheritance is not everlasting. It does not represent a permanent arrangement. Being a trial, conducted in accordance with God’s Law, it is served on different communities in turn. By contrast, the arrangement will be a permanent one in the Hereafter and will be in accordance with the law, as stated earlier, that the earth being God’s will be inherited only by His believing and righteous servants. Unlike this world, inheritance of the earth in the Hereafter will not be a test to those who ‘inherit’ the earth; rather it will be an everlasting recompense for the good conduct of such people in their worldly life. (For further details see al-Nur 24, n. 83.)

100. This may alternatively be rendered as the following: ‘We have sent you only as a mercy for mankind.’ Be that as it may, the verse clearly means the Prophet Muhammad's (peace be on him) advent was a result of God’s mercy towards mankind. It was Muhammad (peace be on him) who warned and cautioned man and enabled him to gain that knowledge which might help him distinguish truth from falsehood, who explained in clear terms, the way which leads towards man’s advantage and the way which leads to his perdition. The Makkan unbelievers viewed the Prophet’s advent as a curse, holding that he caused dissension among them. They are once again told that what they consider a curse is in fact God’s Blessing and Mercy.

101. The reference here is to God’s promise to punish the unbelievers for their rejection of the Prophet's call—a punishment which might be meted out in a wide variety of forms.

102. This alludes to the hostile criticisms, the conspiracies and the whisper campaigns made against Islam at the outset of this surah (see verse 3 ff.). The Prophet (peace be on him) was directed to tell the Makkans that God hears and is well aware of all that they say. The unbelievers should not remain under any illusion that their utterances had evaporated into thin air and that they will not be questioned about them.

103. The respite granted to the unbelievers had deluded them; it was intended that it would enable them to mend their ways, so that they would not be hastily brought to book. Because they had not been punished, however, the unbelievers continued to ‘entertain illusions. Rather than appreciate God for His forbearing, they fell prey to the notion that the teachings of the Prophet (peace be on him) were false. Were this not the case, they foolishly thought, they would have been taken to task long ago.