-->
A reference to their assertion that they believe in what has been revealed to them - i.e., the Law of Moses, which obviously prohibits the killing not only of prophets but of any innocent human being. See also the concluding sentences of verses {61} and {87}, and the corresponding notes.
Even the race argument is often flimsy and hollow pretext. Did not the Jews reject Prophets of their own race who told them unpleasant truths? And do not other nations do likewise? The real trouble is selfishness, narrowness, a mean dislike of anything which runs counter to habits, customs or inclinations.
No translation has been selected yet. Please click on the (Compare) link at the top and enable the translations of your choice.
No translation has been selected yet. Please click on the (Compare) link at the top and enable the translations of your choice.
It is obvious that they did not actually utter these words; their subsequent behaviour, however, justifies the above metonymical expression.
Lit., "into their hearts has been instilled the calf because of their denial of the truth": i.e., as soon as they turned away from the genuine message propounded by Moses, they fell into worshipping material goods, symbolized by the "golden calf".
Cf. the introductory words of ii. 63 which are the same as the introductory words here but the argument is developed in a different direction in the two places. In ii. 63, after they are reminded of the solemn Covenant under the towering height of Mount Sinai they are told how they broke the Covenant in after ages. Here, after they are reminded of the same solemn Covenant, they are told that even then they never meant to observe it. Their thought is expressed in biting words of sarcasm. They said in words: "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do" But they said in their hearts: "We shall disobey".
What they should have said was: "We hear and we obey" this is the attitude of the true men of Faith (ii. 285).
After the Commandments and the Law had been given at Mount Sinai, and the people had solemnly given their Covenant, Moses went up to the Mount, and in his absence, the people made the golden calf. When Moses returned, his anger waxed hot. "He took the Calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it." (Exod. xxxii. 20). This incident is interpreted in the Qur-an allegorically. The Calf is the symbol of disobedience, rebellion, want of faith. It was like a taint of poison. Their punishment was to swallow the taint of poison which they had themselves produced. They swallowed it not into their stomachs, but into their hearts, their very being. They had to mortify and humble themselves in the sight of God, as was shown in another allegory based on the Jewish narrative (see ii. 54 and note, above).
No translation has been selected yet. Please click on the (Compare) link at the top and enable the translations of your choice.
An allusion to the Jewish belief that paradise is reserved for the children of Israel alone (cf. verse {111} of this surah).
No translation has been selected yet. Please click on the (Compare) link at the top and enable the translations of your choice.
i.e., disobeying Allah, killing some of the prophets (including Zachariah and John the Baptist), claiming to have killed Jesus, accusing Mary of adultery, and dealing with usury. See 4:153-158.
The phrase "What their hands have sent on before them" frequently occurs in the Qur-an. Here, and in many places, it refers to sins. In such passages as lxxviii. 40, or lxxxi. 14, it is implied that both good and bad deeds go before us to the judgement seat of God before we do ourselves. In ii. 110, it is the good that goes before us. Our deeds are personified. They are witnesses for or against us, and they always go before us. Their good or bad influence begins to operate before we even know it. This is more general than the New Testament idea in the First Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy, v. 24: "Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after."
No translation has been selected yet. Please click on the (Compare) link at the top and enable the translations of your choice.
No translation has been selected yet. Please click on the (Compare) link at the top and enable the translations of your choice.
A party of the Jews in the time of Muhammad ridiculed the Muslim belief that Gabriel brought down revelations to Muhammad Mustafa. Michael was called in their books "the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people": (Daniel xiii. 1). The vision of Gabriel inspired fear (Daniel, viii. 16-17). But this pretence - that Michael was their friend and Gabriel their enemy - was merely a manifestation of their unbelief in angels, apostles, and God Himself; and such unbelief could not win the love of God. In any case it was disingenuous to say that they believed in one angel and not in another. Muhammad's inspiration was through visions of Gabriel. Muhammad had been helped to the highest spiritual light, and the message which he delivered and his spotless integrity and exemplary life were manifest Signs which every one could understand except those who were obstinate and perverse. Besides, the verses of the Qur-an were in themselves reasonable and clear.
No translation has been selected yet. Please click on the (Compare) link at the top and enable the translations of your choice.
According to several authentic Traditions, some of the learned men from among the Jews of Medina described Gabriel as "the enemy of the Jews", and this for three reasons: firstly, all the prophecies of the misfortune which was to befall the Jews in the course of their early history were said to have been transmitted to them by Gabriel, who thus became in their eyes a "harbinger of evil" (in contrast to the angel Michael, whom they regarded as a bearer of happy predictions and, therefore, as their "friend"); secondly, because the Qur'an states repeatedly that it was Gabriel who conveyed its message to Muhammad, whereas the Jews were of the opinion that only a descendant of Israel could legitimately claim divine revelation; and, thirdly, because the Qur'an - revealed through Gabriel - abounds in criticism of certain Jewish beliefs and attitudes and describes them as opposed to the genuine message of Moses. (For details of these Traditions, see Tabari, Zamakhshari, Baghawi, Razi, Baydawi, Ibn Kathir.) As regards my rendering of ma bayna yadayhi in verse {97} as "whatever there still remains of earlier revelations", see surah {3}, note [3].
No translation has been selected yet. Please click on the (Compare) link at the top and enable the translations of your choice.
No translation has been selected yet. Please click on the (Compare) link at the top and enable the translations of your choice.
No translation has been selected yet. Please click on the (Compare) link at the top and enable the translations of your choice.
The divine writ referred to here is the Torah. By disregarding the prophecies relating to the coming of the Arabian Prophet, contained in Deuteronomy xviii, 15, 18 (see note [33] above), the Jews rejected, as it were, the whole of the revelation granted to Moses (Zamakhshari; also 'Abduh in Manar I, 397).
I think that by "the Book of God" here is meant, not the Qur-an, but the Book which the People of the Book had been given, viz., the previous Revelations. The argument is that Muhammad's Message was similar to Revelations which they had already received, and if they had looked into their own Books honestly and sincerely, they would have found proofs in them to show that the new Message was true and from God. But they ignored their own Books or twisted or distorted them according to their own fancies. Worse, they followed something which was actually false and mischeivous and inspired by the evil one. Such was the belief in magic and sorcery. These are described in the next verse in terms referring to the beliefs and practices of the "People of the Book."
No translation has been selected yet. Please click on the (Compare) link at the top and enable the translations of your choice.
The expression ash-shayatin, here rendered as "the evil ones", apparently refers to human beings, as has been pointed out by Tabari, Razi, etc., but may also allude to the evil, immoral impulses within man's heart (see note [10] on verse {14} of this surah). The above parenthetic sentence constitutes the Qur'anic refutation of the Biblical statement that Solomon had been guilty of idolatrous practices (see I Kings xi, 1-10), as well as of the legend that he was the originator of the magic arts popularly associnted with his name.
This "declaration" circumscribes, metonymically, man's moral duty to reject every attempt at "sorcery" inasmuch as - irrespective of whether it succeeds or fails - it aims at subverting the order of nature as instituted by God. - As regards the designation of Harut and Marut, most of the readings of the Qur'an give the spelling malakayn ("the two angels"); but it is authentically recorded (see Tabari, Zamakhshari, Baghawi, Razi, etc.) that the great Companion of the Prophet, Ibn 'Abbas, as well as several learned men of the next generation - e.g., Al-Hasan al-Basri, Abu 'l-Aswad and Ad-Dahhak - read it as malikayn ("the two kings"). I myself incline to the latter reading; but since the other is more generally accepted, I have adopted it here. Some of the commentators are of the opinion that, whichever of the two readings is followed, it ought to be taken in a metaphorical sense, namely, "the two kingly persons", or "the two angelic persons": in this they rely on a saying of Ibn 'Abbas to the effect that Harut and Marut were "two men who practiced sorcery in Babylon" (Baghawi; see also Manar I, 402). At any rate, it is certain that from very ancient times Babylon was reputed to be the home of magic arts, symbolized in the legendary persons - perhaps kings - Harut and Marut; and it is to this legend that the Qur'an refers with a view to condemning every attempt at magic and sorcery, as well as all preoccupation with occult sciences in general.
The above passage does not raise the question as to whether there is an objective truth in the occult phenomena loosely described as "magic", or whether they are based on self-deception. The intent here is no more and no less than to warn man that any attempt at influencing the course of events by means which - at least in the mind of the person responsible for it - have a "supernatural" connotation is a spiritual offence, and must inevitably result in a most serious damage to their author's spiritual status.
The two angels, Hârût and Mârût, were sent to enlighten the people in Babylon so they would not confuse magic tricks with miracles. Still some people abused this knowledge, causing mischief in the land. These practices persisted until the time of Solomon, who himself was falsely accused of utilizing magic to run his kingdom, subdue the jinn, and control the wind.
This is a continuation of the argument in ii. 101. The People of the Book, instead of sticking to the plain Books of Revelations, and seeking to do the will of God ran after all sorts of occult knowledge, most of which was false and evil. Many wonderful tales of occult power attributed the power of Solomon to magic. But Solomon dealt in not arts of evil. It was the powers of evil that pretended to force the laws of nature and the will of God; such a pretense is plainly blasphemy.
This verse has been interpreted variously. Whe were Harut and Marut? What did they teach? Why did they teach it? The view which commends itself to me is that of the Tafsir Haqqani following Baidhawi and the Tafsir Kabir. The word "angels" as applied to Harut and Marut is figurative. It means "good men, of knowledge, science (or wisdom) and power." In modern language the word "angel" is applied to a good and beautiful woman. The earlier tradition made angels masculine, and applied to them the attributes which I have mentioned, along with the attribute of beauty, which was implied in goodness, knowledge, wisdom, and power.
What the evil ones learnt from Harut and Marut (see last note) they turned to evil. When mixed with fraud and deception, it appeared as charms and spells of love potions. They did nothing but cause discord between the sexes. But of course their power was limited to the extent to which God permitted the evil to work, for His grace protected all who sought His guidance and repented and returned to Him. But apart from the harm that these false pretenders might do to others, the chief harm which they did was to their own souls. They sold themselves into slavery to the Evil One, as is shown in the allegory of Goethe's Faust. That allegory dealt with the individual soul. Here the tragedy is shown to occur not only to individuals but to whole groups of people, for example, the People of the Book. Indeed the story might be extended indefinitely.
No translation has been selected yet. Please click on the (Compare) link at the top and enable the translations of your choice.
No translation has been selected yet. Please click on the (Compare) link at the top and enable the translations of your choice.
This admonition, addressed in the first instance to the contemporaries of the Prophet, has - as so often in the Qur'an - a connotation that goes far beyond the historical circumstances that gave rise to it. The Companions were called upon to approach the Prophet with respect and to subordinate their personal desires and expectations to the commandments of the Faith revealed through him: and this injunction remains valid for every believer and for all times.
Some of the disbelievers used to play with words when they addressed the Prophet (ﷺ) in order to ridicule him. So instead of saying, râ’ina “listen to us,” they would say, râ’îna “our shepherd” or “the foolish among us.” They would say loudly, “We listen,” then whisper, “but we disobey!” and say, “Hear us,” then, “may you never hear!” They used to say to each other, “If he had truly been a prophet of Allah, he would have known that we are mocking him.” Therefore, this verse (along with 4:46) was revealed commanding the believers to avoid such words altogether. Better words are recommended.
What the evil ones learnt from Harut and Marut (see last note) they turned to evil. When mixed with fraud and deception, it appeared as charms and spells of love potions. They did nothing but cause discord between the sexes. But of course their power was limited to the extent to which God permitted the evil to work, for His grace protected all who sought His guidance and repented and returned to Him. But apart from the harm that these false pretenders might do to others, the chief harm which they did was to their own souls. They sold themselves into slavery to the Evil One, as is shown in the allegory of Goethe's Faust. That allegory dealt with the individual soul. Here the tragedy is shown to occur not only to individuals but to whole groups of people, for example, the People of the Book. Indeed the story might be extended indefinitely.
No translation has been selected yet. Please click on the (Compare) link at the top and enable the translations of your choice.
I.e., revelation - which is the highest good. The allusion here is to the unwillingness of the Jews and the Christians to admit that revelation could have been bestowed on any community but their own.
No translation has been selected yet. Please click on the (Compare) link at the top and enable the translations of your choice.