-->
According to some commentators, the letters t and h (pronounced ta ha) which introduce this surah belong to the group of al-muqatta'at - the "single [or "disjointed"] letters" - which are prefixed to a number of the Qur’anic surahs (see Appendix II). However, in the opinion of some of the Prophet’s Companions (e.g., Abd Allah ibn Abbas) and a number of outstanding personalities of the next generation (like Said ibn Jubayr, Mujahid, Qatadah, Al-Hasan al-Basri, Ikrimah, Ad-Dahhak, Al-Kalbi, etc.), ta ha is not just a combination of two single letters but a meaningful expression of its own, signifying "0 man" (synonymous with ya rajul) in both the Nabataean and Syriac branches of the Arabic language (Tabari, Razi, Ibn Kathir), as well as in the - purely Arabian - dialect of the Yemenite tribe of 'Akk, as is evident from certain fragments of their pre-Islamic poetry (quoted by Tabari and Zamakhshari). Tabari, in particular, gives his unqualified support to the rendering of ta ha as "0 man".
I.e., the ethical discipline imposed upon man by the teachings of the Qur’an is not meant to narrow down his feel of life, but, on the contrary, to enhance it by deepening his consciousness of right and wrong.
For my rendering of the metaphorical term al-arsh as "the throne of His almightiness", see note [43] on 7:54 .
I.e., He knows not only man’s unspoken, conscious thoughts but also all that goes on within his subconscious self.
For an explanation of this rendering of al-asma' al-husna, see surah {7}, note [145].
Apart from two short references to Moses in earlier surahs ({53 :36} and {87: 19}), the narrative appearing in verses {9-98} is undoubtedly the earliest Qur'anic exposition of the story of Moses as such. Its mention at this stage is connected with the reference to revelation at the beginning of this surah (verses {2-4}) and, generally, with the Qur'anic doctrine of the basic ideological unity of all revealed religions.
From the sequence (here as well as in 27:7 and 28:29 ) it appears that Moses had lost his way in the desert: probably a symbolic allusion to his dawning awareness that he was in need of spiritual guidance. This part of the story relates to the period of his wanderings subsequent to his flight from Egypt (see 28:14 ff.). Regarding the allegory of the "fire" - the "burning bush" of the Bible - see note [7] on {27:7-8}.
Lit., "he was called".
Whereas some commentators assume that the word tuwan (or tawa) is the name of the "hallowed valley", Zamakhshari explains it, more convincingly, as meaning "twice" (from tawan or tiwan, "twice done")-i.e., "twice-hallowed" - apparently because God's voice was heard in it and because Moses was raised there to prophethood.
Thus, conscious remembrance of God and of His oneness and uniqueness is declared to be the innermost purpose, as well as the intellectual justification of all true prayer.
I.e., the time of its coming.
The expression "what he strove for" implies consciousness of endeavour, and thus excludes involuntary actions (in the widest sense of the latter term, comprising everything that is manifested in word or actual deed), as well as involuntary omissions, irrespective of whether the relevant action or omission is morally good or bad. By enunciating the above principle within the context of the story of Moses, the Qur'an stresses the essential identity of the ethical concepts underlying all true religions. (See also {53: 39} and the corresponding note [32].)
Lit., "in it".
The miraculous transformation of the staff into a serpent has, I believe, a mystic significance: it seems to be an allusion to the intrinsic difference between appearance and reality, and, consequently, to the spiritual insight into this difference bestowed by God on His chosen servants (cf. the experience of Moses with the unnamed sage described in (18:66-82}). This interpretation finds strong support in 27:10 and 28:31 , in both of which places it is said that Moses saw the staff "move rapidly, as if it were a serpent (ka’annaha jann)"
I.e., strangely luminescent by virtue of the prophethood to which he had been raised. (See also note [85] on 7:108 .)
This seems to be a reference to Pharaoh’s greatest sin, namely, his claim to divine status (cf. 28:38 and 79:24 ).
I.e., "remove all impediment from my speech" (cf. Exodus iv, 10, "I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue"), which would imply that he was not gifted with natural eloquence.
This is the primary meaning of the term wazir (lit., "burden-carrier", derived from wizr, "a burden"); hence its later - post-classical - application to government ministers.
Lit., "much" or "abundantly".
Lit., "at another time", i.e., the time of Moses' childhood and youth, which is recalled in verses {38-40}. For a fuller explanation of the subsequent references to that period - the Pharaonic persecution of the children of Israel and the killing of their new-born males, the rescue of the infant Moses and his adoption by Pharaoh's family, his killing of the Egyptian, and his subsequent flight from Egypt-see {28:3-21}, where the story is narrated in greater detail.
Lit., "take him" (cf. 28:9 ). Pharaoh is described as an enemy of God because of his overweening arrogance and cruelty as well as his claim to the status of divinity (see 79:24 ); and he was, unknowingly, an enemy of the infant Moses inasmuch as he hated and feared the people to whom the latter belonged.
I.e., "under My protection and in accordance with the destiny which I have decreed for thee": possibly a reference to Moses' upbringing within the cultural environment of the royal palace and his subsequent acquisition of the ancient wisdom of Egypt - circumstances which were to qualify him for his future leadership and the special mission that God had in view for him.
For a fuller account, see 28:12 .
As is implied here and in {28:12-13}, his own mother became his wet-nurse.
Cf. 28:14 .
For the details of this particular incident, which proved a turning-point in the life of Moses, see {28:15-21}.
See {28:22-28}.
Lit., "or [that he might] fear" - i.e., that there is some truth in the words of Moses. Since God knows the future, the tentative form in the above phrase-"so that he might (la'allahu) bethink himself", etc.,-obviously does not imply any "doubt" on God's part as to Pharoah's future reaction: it implies no more than His command to the bearer of His message to address the sinner with a view to the latter's bethinking himself: in other words, it relates to the intention or hope with which the message-bearer should approach his task (Razi). And since every Qur'anic narrative aims at bringing out an eternal truth or truths or at elucidating a universal principle of human behaviour, it is evident that God's command to Moses to speak to one particular sinner "in a mild manner, so that he might [have a chance to] bethink himself" retains its validity for all times and all such attempts at conversion.
I.e., "lest he prevent us, by banishing or killing us outright, from delivering Thy message fully".
Cf. 2:49 , 7:141 and 14:6 . For a more detailed description of this Pharaonic oppression of the Israelites, see Exodus i, X-22.
In the original, this sentence appears in the past tense ("has given" and "has guided"); but as it obviously relates to the continuous process of God's creation, it is independent of the concept of time and denotes, as in so many other places in the Qur'an, an unceasing present. The term khalq signifies in this context not merely the inner nature of a created thing or being but also the outward form in which this nature manifests itself; hence my composite rendering of khalqahu as "its true nature and form". The idea underlying the above sentence is expressed for the first time in {87:2-3}, i.e., in a surah which belongs to the earliest period of Qur'anic revelation.
Sc., "who used to worship a plurality of deities: are they, in thy view, irretrievably doomed?"
I.e., He alone decrees their destiny in the life to come, for He alone knows their motives and understands the cause of their errors, and He alone can appreciate their spiritual merits and demerits.
According to Razi, the dialogue between Moses and Pharaoh ends here for the time being, with verses {53-55} representing a direct Qur'anic discourse addressed to man in general.
I.e., "has provided you with ways and means - both material and intellectual - to gain your livelihood on earth and from it".
Lit., "pairs" (azwaj), a term which in this context apparently denotes "kinds"; but see also 13:3 and the corresponding note [7].
Regarding the creation of man's body "out of the earth", see the second half of note [47] on {3: 59}, as well as note [24] on 15:26 ; its "return into it" signifies the dissolution of this body, after death, into the elementary organic and inorganic substances of which it was composed; and all these facts- creation, subsistence and dissolution -contain the message of God's almightiness, of the ephemeral nature of man's life on earth, and of his future resurrection.
Lit., We showed him" (araynahu), i.e., Pharaoh. According to Zamakhshari, Razi and Baydawi, this verb has here the meaning of "We made him acquainted with" or "aware of".
The messages alluded to here are both those entrusted directly to Moses and the intangible "messages" forthcoming from God's creation and referred to in the preceding passage.
I.e., "deprive us of our rule" (cf. 7:110 ).
Lit., "the day of adornment" - possibly the Egyptian New Year's Day. The expression "your tryst" has the connotation of "the tryst proposed by you".
Lit., "he decided upon his artful scheme" (Jama'a kaydahu): evidently an allusion to his summoning all the greatest sorcerers of Egypt (cf. {7:111-114}).
I.e., by deliberately denying the truth of His messages.
See note [40] above. The dual form refers to Moses and Aaron.
Lit., "your exemplary [or "ideal"] way of life (tariqah)".
Lit., "in one [single] line", i.e., in unison.
Cf. {7: 113-114}.
Lit., "conceived fear within himself". The implication is that the feat of the sorcerers was based on mass-hallucination (cf. 7:116 - "they cast a spell upon the people's eyes"), a hallucination to which even Moses succumbed for a while.
Lit., "wherever he may come" - i.e., irrespective of whether he aims at a good or at an evil end (Razi). The above statement implies a categorical condemnation of all endeavours which fall under the heading of "magic", whatever the intention of the person who devotes himself to it. (In this connection, see also surah {2}, note [84].)
Cf. {7:117-119}.
See note [90] on 7:120 .
I.e., Moses (cf. note [91] on 7:123 ).
Regarding the meaning of the stress on "great numbers", forthcoming from the grammatical form of the verbs employed by Pharaoh, see surah {7}, note [92].
Sc., "I or the God in whom you now believe".
Or: "thou canst end [for us] only this worldly life". It is to be noted that the verb qada signifies, among other meanings, "he decreed" as well as "he ended [something]".
Pharaoh (a title borne by every indigenous ruler of Egypt) was considered to be a "god-king" and, thus, the embodiment of the Egyptian religion, in which occult practices and magic played a very important role; hence, every one of his subjects was duty-bound to accept magic as an integral part of the scheme of life.
Lit., "and the most abiding", i.e., eternal: cf. {55:26-27}.
I.e., he will neither be reborn spiritually nor find peace through extinction (Baghawi, Baydawi). As is apparent from the juxtaposition, in the next verse, of the term mujrim (rendered by me as "one who is lost in sin") with that of mu'min ("believer"), the former term is here applied to one who, in his lifetime, has consciously and persistently denied God (Baydawi).
Thus the Qur'an implies - here as well as in many other places - that the spiritual value of a person's faith depends on his doing righteous deeds as well: cf. the statement in 6:158 that on Judgment Day "believing will be of no avail to any human being... who, while believing, did no good works".
I.e., after all the trials which the Israelites had to undergo in Egypt, and after the plagues with which Pharaoh and his followers were afflicted (cf. {7 :130}ff.).
Referring to the phrase "strike out (idrib) for them a dry path through the sea", Tabari explains it as meaning "choose (ittakidh) for them a dry path". See also {26:63-66} and the corresponding notes [33] and [35].
Lit., "there overwhelmed them [that] of the sea which overwhelmed them" - expressing the inevitability of the doom which encompassed them.
See note [38] on 19:52 . As regards God's "covenant" with the children of Israel, see 2:63 and {83}.
The reference to God's bestowal of "manna (mann) and quails (salwa)" upon the Israelites during their wanderings in the Sinai Desert after their exodus from Egypt is found in the Qur'an in two other places as well (namely, in 2:57 and 7:160 ). According to Arab philologists, the term mann denotes not only the sweet, resinous substance exuded by certain plants of the desert, but also everything that is "bestowed as a favour", i.e., without any effort on the part of the recipient. Similarly, the term salwa signifies not merely "a quail" or "quails", but also "all that makes man content and happy after privation" (Qamus). Hence the combination of these two terms denotes, metonymically, the gift of sustenance freely bestowed by God upon the followers of Moses.
Or: "do not behave in an overweening manner" - i.e., "do not attribute these favours to your own supposed excellence on account of your descent from Abraham".
There is almost complete unanimity among the classical commentators in that God's "condemnation" (ghadab, lit., "wrath") is a metonym for the inescapable retribution which man brings upon himself if he deliberately rejects God's guidance and "transgresses the bounds of equity".
This passage relates to the time of Moses' ascent of Mount Sinai, mentioned in 2:51 and 7:142 .
Lit., "what has hastened thee ahead of thy people?" - implying that he should not have left them alone, without his personal guidance, at so early a stage in their freedom. In this inimitable elliptic manner the Qur'an alludes to the psychological fact that a community which attains to political and social freedom after centuries of bondage remains for a long time subject to the demoralizing influences of its past, and cannot all at once develop a spiritual and social discipline of its own.
The classical commentators understand this phrase in its physical sense, i.e., "they are coming up behind me and are now close by". Since, however, Moses was obviously meant to be alone on his ascent of Mount Sinai, I am of the opinion that his answer has a tropical sense, expressing his assumption that the children of Israel would follow his guidance even in his absence: an assumption which proved erroneous, as shown in the sequence.
The designation as-sf~miri is undoubtedly an adjectival noun denoting the person's descent or origin. According to one of the explanations advanced by Tabar~ and Zamakhsharl, it signifies "a man of the Jewish clan of the Samirah", i.e., the ethnic and religious group designated in later times as the Samaritans (a small remnant of whom is still living in Nablus, in Palestine). Since that sect as such did not yet exist at the time of Moses, it is possible that - as Ibn 'Abbas maintained (Razi) - the person in question was one of the many Egyptians who had been converted to the faith of Moses and joined the Israelites on their exodus from Egypt (cf. note [92] on 7:124 ): in which case the designation samiri might be connected with the ancient Egyptian shemer, "a foreigner" or "stranger". This surmise is strengthened by his introduction of the worship of the golden calf, undoubtedly an echo of the Egyptian cult of Apis (see note [113] on 7:148 ). In any case, it is not impossible that the latter-day Samaritans descended - or were reputed to descend - from this personality, whether of Hebrew or of Egyptian origin; this might partly explain the persistent antagonism between them and the rest of the Israelite community.
Or, according to Zamakhsharl: "Did, then, the time [of my absence] seem too long to you?" (It is to be noted that the term 'ahd signifies a "time" or "period" as well as a "covenant" or promise".)
Lit., "Or have you decided that condemnation by your Sustainer should fall due upon you?"-i.e., "are you determined to disregard the consequences of your doings?"
It is mentioned in Exodus xii, 35 that, immediately before their departure from Egypt, the Israelites "borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver and jewels of gold". This "borrowing" was obviously done under false pretences, without any intention on the part of the Israelites to return the jewellery to its rightful owners: for, according to the Biblical statement (ibid., verse {36}), "they spoiled [i.e., robbed] the Egyptians" by doing so. While it is noteworthy that the Old Testament, in its present, corrupted form, does not condemn this behaviour, its iniquity seems to have gradually dawned upon the Israelites, and so they decided to get rid of those sinfully acquired ornaments (Baghawi, Zamakshari and - in one of his alternative interpretations - Razi).
This interpolation is necessary in view of the change from the direct speech in the preceding verse to the indirect in this one and in the sequence.
See surah {7}, note [113].
An allusion to the fact that Moses had been brought up - obviously as an Egyptian - at Pharaoh's court.
Sc., "and do not follow the Samaritan". This is in sharp contrast to the Bible (Exodus xxxii, 1-5), which declares Aaron guilty of making and worshipping the golden calf.
Cf. the last sentence of 7:142 , where Moses, before leaving for Mount Sinai, exhorts Aaron to "act righteously" (islih). In this connection see also Aaron's reply to Moses in 7:150 , as well as the corresponding note [117].
See 7:150 .
Lit., "to my word" or "to what I had said" - evidently, about the importance of keeping the people united (Zamakhshari).
It is to be noted that the verb basura (lit., "he became seeing") has the tropical significance of "he perceived [something] mentally", or "he gained insight" or "he understood". Hence, Abu Muslim al-Isfahani (whose interpretation of the whole of this verse Razi analyzes and finds most convincing) explains the above phrase as meaning, "I realized what they [i.e., the rest of the people] did not realize - namely, that some of thy beliefs, O Moses, were wrong". It would seem that the Samaritan objected to the idea of a transcendental, imperceivable God, and thought that the people ought to have something more "tangible" to believe in. (See also next note.)
Contrary to the fanciful interpretations advanced by some of the other commentators, Abu Muslim (as quoted by Razi) explains the term athar (lit., "vestige" or "trace") in its tropical sense of the "practices and sayings" or - collectively - the "teachings" of any person, and particularly of a prophet; thus, he makes it clear that the phrase qabadtu qabdatan min athari 'r-rasul fa-nabadhtuha signifies "I took hold of a handful [i.e., "something"] of the teachings of the Apostle, and discarded it": it being understood that "the Apostle" referred to by the Samaritan in the third person is Moses himself. (As already mentioned in the preceding note, Razi unreservedly subsrcibes to Abu Muslim's intepretation of this passage.) In my opinion, the Samaritan's rejection of a part of Moses' teachings is meant to explain the subconscious tendency underlying all forms of idolatry and of the attribution of divine qualities to things or beings other than God: a futile, self-deceiving hope of bringing the Unpercievable closer to one's limited perception by creating a tangible "image" of the Divine Being or, at least, of something that could be conceived as His "emanation". Inasmuch as all such endeavours obscure rather than illuminate man's understanding of God, they defeat their own purpose and destroy the misguided devotee's spiritual potential: and this is undoubtedly the purport of the story of the golden calf as given in the Qur'an.
Lit., "no touching" - a metaphorical description of the loneliness and the social ostracism in which he would henceforth find himself.
Lit., "there is for thee an appointment which thou canst not fail to keep".
The adverb kadhalika ("thus") which introduces this verse is meant to stress the purpose of all Qur'anic references to past events - be they historical or legendary - as well as the manner in which the relevant stories are treated. Since the purpose underlying every Qur’anic narrative is, invariably, the illustration of certain fundamental truths, the narrative as such is often condensed and elliptic, omitting all that has no direct bearing on the point or points which the Qur’an means to bring out. The term "reminder" alludes to the unceasing guidance which God offers to man through His revelations.
Lit., "blue [of eye]" - i.e., as if their eyes were covered with a bluish, opaque film.
As in several other places in the Qur’an (e.g., in 2:259, 17:52, 18:19, 23:112-113, 30:55, 79:46, etc.), this and the next verse touch upon the illusory character of man’s consciousness of "time" and, thus, upon the relativity of the concept of "time" as such. The number "ten" is often used in Arabic to denote "a few" (Razi).
Signifying, in this context, "We alone understand fully".
Lit., "leave it" - the pronoun relating, by implication, to the earth (Zamakhshari and Razi).
In the eschatology of the Qur'an, the "end of the world" does not signify an annihilation-i.e., reduction to nothingness - of the physical universe but, rather, its fundamental, cataclysmic transformation into something that men cannot now visualize. This is brought out in many allegorical allusions to the Last Day, e.g., in 14:48 , which speaks of "the Day when the earth shall be changed into another earth, as shall be the heavens".
Lit., "the caller in whom there will be no deviation (la 'iwaja lahu)" - i.e., the summons to the Last Judgment.
Regarding the Qur'anic concept of "intercession" on the Day of Judgment, see note [7] on 10:3 . The "word [of faith]" referred to towards the end of the above verse is - according to Ibn 'Abbas (as quoted by Baghawi) - a metonym for the belief that "there is no deity save God", i.e., the realization of His oneness and uniqueness. See also 19:87 and the corresponding note [74].
For an explanation of this phrase - which occurs in exactly the same wording in 2:255 , {21: 28} and 22:76 as well - see surah {2}, note [247].
I.e., evildoing which has not been atoned for by repentance before death (Razi). In this particular context, it may be an allusion to the rejection of God's guidance - His "reminder" - spoken of in verses {99-101}.
Lit., "no fear of [any] wrong" - i.e., punishment for any sin which he may have contemplated but not committed-"and neither of a diminution", i.e., of his merit: cf. the twice-repeated statement in {16:96-97} that the righteous shall be recompensed in the hereafter "in accordance with the best that they ever did".
As in verse {99} above - with which this passage connects - the adverb kadhalika ("thus") refers to the method and purpose of the Qur'an.
Lit., "as an Arabic discourse (qur’an)". See, in particular, 12:2 , 13:37 , 14:4 and 19:97 , as well as the corresponding notes.
Lit., "so that they might be [or "remain"] God-conscious, or that it create for them a remembrance", i.e., of God. The verb ahdatha signifies "he brought [something] into existence", i.e., newly or for the first time, while the noun dhikr denotes "remembrance" as well as the "presence [of something] in the mind" (Raghib), i.e., awareness.
Whenever the noun al-haqq is used as a designation of God, it signifies "the Truth" in the absolute, intrinsic sense, eternally and immutably existing beyond the ephemeral, changing phenomena of His creation: hence, "the Ultimate Truth". God’s attribute of al-malik, on the other hand, denotes His absolute sway over all that exists and can, therefore, be suitably rendered as "the Ultimate Sovereign".
Lit., "be not hasty with the Qur'an" (see next note).
Although it is very probable that - as most of the classical commentators point out - this exhortation was in the first instance addressed to the Prophet Muhammad, there is no doubt that it applies to every person, at all times, who reads the Qur’an. The idea underlying the above verse may be summed up thus: Since the Qur’an is the Word of God, all its component parts - phrases, sentences, verses and surahs - form one integral, coordinated whole (cf. the last sentence of 25:32 and the corresponding note [27]). Hence, if one is really intent on understanding the Qur’anic message, one must beware of a "hasty approach" - that is to say, of drawing hasty conclusions from isolated verses or sentences taken out of their context - but should, rather, allow the whole of the Qur'an to be revealed to one’s mind before attempting to interpret singe aspects of its message. (See also {75:16-19} and the corresponding notes.)
The relevant divine commandment - or, rather, warning - is spelled out in verse {117}. The present passage connects with the statement in verse {99}, "Thus do We relate unto thee some of the stories of what happened in the past", and is meant to show that negligence of spiritual truths is one of the recurrent characteristics of the human race (Razi), which is symbolized here - as in many other places in the Qur'an - by Adam.
See {2:30-34} and the corresponding notes, especially [23], [25] and [26], as well as note [31] on 15:41 . Since - as I have shown in those notes - the faculty of conceptual thinking is man’s outstanding endowment, his "forgetting" God’s commandment - resulting from a lack of all "firmness of purpose" in the domain of ethics - is an evidence of the moral weakness characteristic of the human race (cf. 4:28 - "man has been created weak"): and this, in its turn, explains man s dependence on unceasing divine guidance, as pointed out in verse {113} above.
Lit., "so that thou wilt become unhappy". Regarding the significance of "the garden spoken of here, see surah {2}, note [27].
Lit., "be naked": but in view of the statement in verse {121} (as well as in {7: 22}) to the effect that only after their fall from grace did Adam and Eve become "conscious of their nakedness", it is but logical to assume that the words "that thou shalt not... be naked" have a spiritual significance, implying that man, in his original state of innocence, would not feel naked despite all absence of clothing. (For the deeper implications of this allegory, see note [14] on 7:20 .)
This symbolic tree is designated in the Bible as "the tree of life" and "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" (Genesis ii, 9), while in the above Qur'anic account Satan speaks of it as "the tree of life eternal (al-khuld)". Seeing that Adam and Eve did not achieve immortality despite their tasting the forbidden fruit, it is obvious that Satan's suggestion was, as it always is, deceptive. On the other hand, the Qur'an tells us nothing about the real nature of that "tree" beyond pointing out that it was Satan who described it - falsely - as "the tree of immortality": and so we may assume that the forbidden tree is simply an allegory of the limits which the Creator has set to man's desires and actions: limits beyond which he may not go without offending against his own, God-willed nature. Man's desire for immortality on earth implies a wishful denial of death and resurrection, and thus of the ultimate reality of what the Qur'an describes as "the hereafter" or "the life to come" (al-akhirah). This desire is intimately connected with Satan's insinuation that it is within man's reach to become the master of "a kingdom that will never decay": in other words to become "free" of all limitations and thus, in the last resort, of the very concept of God - the only concept which endows human life with real meaning and purpose.
Regarding the symbolism of Adam and Eve's becoming "conscious of their nakedness", see note [105] above as well as the reference, in {7:2-27}, to "the garment of God-consciousness", the loss of which made man's ancestors "aware of their nakedness", i.e., of their utter helplessness and, hence, their dependence on God.
See surah {7}, note [16].
I.e., sterile and spiritually narrow, without any real meaning or purpose: and this. as is indicated in the subsequent clause, will be a source of their suffering in the hereafter.
Regarding this rendering of the phrase man asrafa, see surah {10}, note [21], in which I have discussed the meaning of the participial noun musrif, derived from the same verbal root.
Lit., "Is it, then, no guidance for them how many a generation.. .", etc. It is to be borne in mind that, in Qur'anic usage, the noun -tarn signifies not only "a generation", but also - and rather more often-"people belonging to one particular epoch", i.e.. "a civilization" in the historical sense of this term.
Lit., "and a term set [by Him]". This phrase, placed in the original at the end of the sentence, connects - as most of the classical commentators point out - with the opening clause of this verse, and has been rendered accordingly.
Cf. 10:11 and 16:61 .
Lit., "at the sides [or "extremities"] of the day". See in this connection also 11:114 and the corresponding note [145].
Lit., "groups [or "kinds"] of them" (azwajan minhum). According to most of the commentators, this relates to the deniers of the truth spoken of in the preceding passages; but since the above injunction has obviously a wider purport, condemning envy in general, I have rendered this expression as "so many others".
Implying that whatever God grants a person is an outcome of divine wisdom and, therefore, truly appropriate to the destiny which God has decreed for that person. Alternatively, the phrase may be understood as referring to the life to come and the spiritual sustenance which God bestows upon the righteous.
My interpolation of the words "for Us" is based on Razi’s interpretation of the above sentence: "God makes it clear that He has enjoined this [i.e., prayer] upon men for their own benefit alone, inasmuch as He Himself is sublimely exalted above any [need of] benefits." In other words, prayer must not be conceived as a kind of tribute to a "jealous God" - as the Old Testament, in its present corrupted form, frequently describes Him - but solely as a spiritual benefit for the person who prays.
Lit., "to God-consciousness".
I.e., in proof of his prophetic mission: cf. 6:109 and many other instances in which the deniers of the truth are spoken of as making their belief in the Qur'anic message dependent on tangible "miracles".
I.e., "Does not the Qur'an express the same fundamental truths as were expressed in the revelations granted to the earlier prophets?" Beyond this, the above rhetorical question contains an allusion to the predictions of the advent of Muhammad to be found in the earlier scriptures, e.g., in Deuteronomy xviii, 15 and 18 (discussed in my note [33] on 2:42 ) or in John xiv, 16, xv, 26 and xvi, 7, where Jesus speaks of the "Comforter" who is to come after him. (Regarding this latter prediction, see my note on 61:6 .)
Cf. 6:131 , 15:4 or {26:208-209}, where it is stressed that God never punishes man for any wrong committed in ignorance of what constitutes right and wrong in the moral sense - i.e., before making it possible for him to avail himself of divine guidance.
I.e., human nature is such that no man, whatever his persuasion or condition, can ever cease to hope that the way of life chosen by him will prove to have been the right way.