-->
Out of the many meanings attributable to the term nafs - soul, spirit, mind, animate being, living entity, human being, person, self (in the sense of a personal identity), humankind, life-essence, vital principle, and so forth - most of the classical commentators choose "human being", and assume that it refers here to Adam. Muhammad 'Abduh, however, rejects this interpretation (Manar IV, 323 ff.) and gives, instead, his preference to "humankind" inasmuch as this term stresses the common origin and brotherhood of the human race (which, undoubtedly, is the purport of the above verse), without, at the same time, unwarrantably tying it to the Biblical account of the creation of Adam and Eve. My rendering of nafs, in this context, as "living entity" follows the same reasoning. - As regards the expression zawjaha ("its mate"), it is to be noted that, with reference to animate beings, the term zawj ("a pair", "one of a pair" or "a mate") applies to the male as well as to the female component of a pair or couple; hence, with reference to human beings, it signifies a woman's mate (husband) as well as a man's mate (wife). Abu Muslim - as quoted by Razi - interprets the phrase "He created out of it (minha) its mate" as meaning "He created its mate [i.e., its sexual counterpart] out of its own kind (min jinsiha)", thus supporting the view of Muhammad 'Abduh referred to above. The literal translation of minha as "out of it" clearly alludes, in conformity with the text, to the biological fact that both sexes have originated from "one living entity".
This relates to the legal guardians of orphans during the latters' minority.
Lit., "such as are good for you" - i.e., women outside the prohibited degrees enumerated in verses {22-23} of this surah (Zamakhshari, Razi). According to an interpretation suggested by 'A'ishah, the Prophet's widow, this refers to the (hypothetical) case of orphan girls whom their guardians might wish to marry without, however, being prepared or able to give them an appropriate marriage-portion - the implication being that they should avoid the temptation of committing such an injustice and should marry other women instead (cf. Bukhari, Kitab at-Tafsir, as well as Muslim and Nasa'i). However, not all of 'A'ishah's contemporaries subscribed to her explanation of this verse. Thus, according to Sa'id ibn Jubayr, Qatadah, and other successors of the Companions, the purport of the above passage is this: "Just as you are, rightly, fearful of offending against the interests of orphans, you must apply the same careful consideration to the interests and rights of the women whom you intend to marry." In his commentary on this passage, Tabari quotes several variants of the above interpretation and gives it his unequivocal approval.
Lit., "whom your right hands possess" - i.e., from among the captives taken in a war in God's cause (regarding which see surah {2}, notes [167] and [168], and surah {8}, note [72]). It is obvious that the phrase "two, or three, or four: but if you have reason to fear...", etc. is a parenthetic clause relating to both the free women mentioned in the first part of the sentence and to female slaves - for both these nouns are governed by the imperative verb "marry". Thus, the whole sentence has this meaning: "Marry from among [other] women such as are lawful to you, or [from among] those whom you rightfully possess - [even] two, or three, or four: but if you have reason to fear that you might not be able to treat them with equal fairness, then [only] one" - implying that, irrespective of whether they are free women or, originally, slaves, the number of wives must not exceed four. It was in this sense that Muhammad 'Abduh understood the above verse (see Manar IV, 350). This view is, moreover, supported by verse {25} of this surah as well as by 24:32 , where marriage with female slaves is spoken of. Contrary to the popular view and the practice of many Muslims in the past centuries, neither the Qur'an nor the life-example of the Prophet provides any sanction for sexual intercourse without marriage. As regards the permission to marry more than one wife (up to the maximum of four), it is so restricted by the condition, "if you have reason to fear that you might not be able to treat them with equal fairness, then [marry only] one", as to make such plural marriages possible only in quite exceptional cases and under exceptional circumstances (see also the first clause of 24:32 and the corresponding note [42]). Still, one might ask why the same latitude has not been given to women as well; but the answer is simple. Notwithstanding the spiritual factor of love which influences the relations between man and woman, the determinant biological reason for the sexual urge is, in both sexes, procreation: and whereas a woman can, at one time, conceive a child from one man only and has to carry it for nine months before she can conceive another, a man can beget a child every time he cohabits with a woman. Thus, while nature would have been merely wasteful if it had produced a polygamous instinct in woman, man's polygamous inclination is biologically justified. It is, of course, obvious that the biological factor is only one - and by no means always the most important - of the aspects of marital love: nonetheless, it is a basic factor and, therefore, decisive in the institution of marriage as such. With the wisdom that always takes human nature fully into account, Islamic Law undertakes no more than the safeguarding of the socio-biological function of marriage (which includes also care of the progeny), allowing a man to have more than one wife and not allowing a woman to have more than one husband at one time; while the spiritual problem of marriage, being imponderable and therefore outside the scope of law, is left to the discretion of the partners. In any event - since marriage in Islam is a purely civil contract - recourse to divorce is always open to either of the two partners. (Regarding the dissolution of a marriage at the wife's instance, see surah {2}, note [218].)
The expression nihlah signifies the giving of something willingly, of one's own accord, without expecting a return for it (Zamakhshari). It is to be noted that the amount of the marriage-portion, or dower, which the bridegroom has to give to the bride has not been circumscribed by the Law: it depends entirely on the agreement of the two parties, and may consist of anything, even a mere token. According to several authentic Traditions recorded in most of the compilations, the Prophet made it clear that "even an iron ring" may be enough if the bride is willing to accept it, or, short of that, even "the imparting to thy bride of a verse of the Qur'an".
Lit., "your possessions which God has assigned to you". The context makes it obvious that this relates to the property of orphans who have not yet reached the age of discretion and are, therefore, "weak of judgment" (lit., "weak-minded").
I.e., people who do not have any legal claim to the inheritance, but nevertheless deserve to be considered.
In my notes on verses {11-12}, which spell out the legal shares of inheritance due to the next of kin, no attempt has been made to analyze all the legal implications of this ordinance. The laws of inheritance are the subject of a special, and very elaborate, branch of Islamic jurisprudence, and their full elucidation would go far beyond the scope of explanatory notes which aim at no more than making the text of the Qur'an accessible to the understanding of the non-specialized reader.
Lit., "they".
Lit., "more than that". According to most of the classical commentators, this passage refers to half-brothers and half-sisters. The inheritance of full brothers and sisters is dealt with at the end of this surah (verse {176}).
This refers to bequests and fictitious debts meant to deprive the heirs of their legal shares. According to several authentic Traditions, the Prophet forbade, in cases where there are legal heirs, the making of bequests to other persons in excess of one-third of one's estate (Bukhari and Muslim). If, however, there are no near of kin legally entitled to a share of the inheritance, the testator is free to bequeath his fortune in any way he desires.
Lit., "them".
Lit., "and the two from among you who become guilty thereof, punish them both". According to most of the commentators, this refers to immoral conduct on the part of a man and a woman as well as to homosexual relations.
Some of the commentators attribute to the term fahishah (here rendered as "immoral conduct") the meaning of "adultery" or "fornication" and are, consequently, of the opinion that this verse has been "abrogated" by 24:2 , which lays down the punishment of one hundred stripes for each of the guilty parties. This unwarranted assumption must, however, be rejected. Quite apart from the impossibility of admitting that any passage of the Qur'an could have been "abrogated" by another of its passages (see surah {2}, note [87]), the expression fahishah does not, by itself, connote illicit sexual intercourse: it signifies anything that is grossly immodest, unseemly, lewd, indecent or abominable in word or in deed (cf. Lane VI, 2344f.), and is by no means restricted to sexual transgressions. Read in this context, and in conjunction with 24:2 , this expression obviously denotes here immoral conduct not necessarily amounting to what is termed zina (i.e., "adultery" or "fornication"), and therefore redeemable by sincere repentance (in contrast to a proven act of zina, which is punishable by flogging). - It is noteworthy that in all cases of alleged sexual transgressions or misbehaviour the Qur'an stipulates the direct evidence of four witnesses (instead of the two required in all other judicial cases) as a sine qua non of conviction. For the reasons underlying this injunction, as well as for its judicial implications, see note [7] on 24:4 .
The expression min qarib, which here implies nearness in time, could also be rendered as "soon", i.e., soon after having committed the evil deed; most of the classical commentators however, hold that in this context it denotes the time before the actual approach of death. This interpretation is borne out by the next verse.
Lit., "until, when death approaches one of them, he says".
According to one of the interpretations advanced by Zamakhshari, this refers to a man's forcibly keeping an unloved wife - and thus preventing her from marrying another man - in the hope of inheriting her property under the provisions specified in the first sentence of verse {12} above. Some authorities, however, are of the opinion that the meaning is: "It is not lawful for you to inherit women against their will"-thus expressing a prohibition of the pre-Islamic custom of inheriting the wives of deceased near relatives. But in view of the fact that Islam does not permit the "inheriting" of women under any circumstances (and not only "against their will"), the former interpretation is infinitely more plausible.
In the event that a wife's immoral conduct has been proved by the direct evidence of four witnesses, as stipulated in verse {15} above, the husband has the right, on divorcing her, to demand the return of the whole or of part of the dower which he gave her at the time when the marriage was contracted. If - as is permissible under Islamic Law - the dower has not been actually handed over to the bride at the time of marriage but has taken the form of a legal obligation on the part of the husband, he is absolved of this obligation in the case of proven immoral conduct on the part of his wife
Lit., "with them".
Lit., "and God might place in it".
Lit., "if you desire the exchange of a wife in place of a wife and you have given one of them a treasure (qintar), do not take away anything thereof". The allusion to the "exchange" of one wife for another is a clear indication of the Qur'anic view that a monogamous marriage is the desirable norm.
I.e., by falsely accusing her of immoral conduct in the hope of regaining her dower (see note [18] above).
Lit., "they have" - the reference being to all married women.
Lit., "except what has come to pass earlier" - i.e., forgiven shall be he who did it before the promulgation of this Qur'anic ordinance or (in the case of a conversion in later times) before one's acceptance of Islam.
See preceding note.
The term muhsanah signifies literally "a woman who is fortified [against unchastity]", and carries three senses: (1) "a married woman", (2) "a chaste woman", and (3) "a free woman". According to almost all the authorities, al-muhsanat denotes in the above context "married women". As for the expression ma malakat aymanukum ("those whom your right hands possess", i.e., "those whom you rightfully possess"), it is often taken to mean female slaves captured in a war in god's cause (see in this connection 8:67 , and the corresponding note). The commentators who choose this meaning hold that such slave-girls can be taken in marriage irrespective of whether they have husbands in the country of their origin or not. However, quite apart from the fundamental differences of opinion, even among the Companions of the Prophet, regarding the legality of such a marriage, some of the most outstanding commentators hold the view that ma malakat aymanukum denotes here "women whom you rightfully possess through wedlock"; thus Razi in his commentary on this verse, and Tabari in one of his alternative explanations (going back to 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas, Mujahid, and others). Razi, in particular, points out that the reference to "all married women" (al-muhsanat min an-nisa'), coming as it does after the enumeration of prohibited degrees of relationship, is meant to stress the prohibition of sexual relations with any woman other than one's lawful wife.
Lit., "with your possessions" - i.e., offering them, as the Law demands, an appropriate dower.
Cf. verse {4} of this surah, and the corresponding note.
The phrase lam yastati' tawlan is often taken to mean "he is not in a position to afford", i.e., in the financial sense; but Muhammad 'Abduh very convincingly expresses the view that it applies to all manner of preventive circumstances, be they of a material, personal or social nature (Manar V, 19).
In this context, ma malakat aymanukum (lit., "those whom your right hands possess") denotes women who were captured in a holy war and have subsequently embraced Islam. In the above phrase, the pronoun "you" refers to the community as a whole.
I.e., since all human beings - whatever their outward "social status" - are members of one and the same human family, and are therefore equal to one another in the sight of God (cf. 3:195 ), it is only the strength or weakness of faith which makes one person superior or inferior to another.
Lit., "and not taking unto themselves secret love-companions". This passage lays down in an unequivocal manner that sexual relations with female slaves are permitted only on the basis of marriage, and that in this respect there is no difference between them and free women; consequently, concubinage is ruled out.
The weaker social status of a slave makes her, obviously, more accessible to temptation than a free married woman is presumed to be.
I.e., to those who for one reason or another are unable to marry free women and are, at the same time, not equal to the temptations arising from celibacy. As is made clear in the next sentence, the Qur'an discourages such marriages - obviously with a view to removing a major attraction from the institution of slavery as such, and thus promoting its abolition.
An allusion to the genuine religious teachings of the past, which aimed at bringing about a harmony between man's physical nature and the demands of his spirit - a harmony which is destroyed whenever asceticism is postulated as the only possible alternative to licentiousness (see also surah {2}, note [118]). This allusion arises from the discussion of sexual morality in the preceding passages devoted to marital relations.
Lit., "want you to deviate with a tremendous deviation".
I.e., to remove, by means of His guidance, all possibility of conflict between man's spirit and his bodily urges, and to show him a way of life in which these two elements of human nature can be harmonized and brought to full fruition.
If the particle illa preceding the above clause is given its usual meaning of "except" or "unless it be", the phrase ought to be rendered thus: "unless it be [an act of] trade based on mutual agreement". This formulation, however, has baffled many a commentator: for, if taken literally, it would imply that wrongful profits from trading based on mutual agreement are excepted from the general prohibition, "Devour not one another's possessions wrongfully" - a supposition impossible to maintain in view of the ethics postulated by the Qur'an. To obviate this difficulty, most of the commentators express the opinion that the particle illa has in this context the meaning of "but", and that the clause ought to be understood as follows: "but it is lawful for you to profit from one another's possessions by way of legitimate trade based on mutual agreement". However, quite apart from the fact that this interpretation is highly laboured and artificial, it does not explain why "legitimate trade" should have been singled out here as a sole means of lawfully deriving economic benefits from one another - for, as Razi rightly points out in his commentary on this verse, "it is no less lawful to benefit economically through a gift, a bequest, a legal inheritance, alms, a dower, or an indemnity for injuries received: for there are, aside from trade, many ways of acquiring possessions [lawfully]". Why, then, should trade alone have been stressed? - and, moreover, stressed in a context not particularly devoted to matters of trade? A really satisfactory answer to this puzzle can, in my opinion, be obtained only through a linguistic consideration of the particle illa. Apart from its usual connotation of "except" or "unless it be", it has sometimes - as has been pointed out in both Qamus and Mughni - the meaning of the simple conjunction "and" (wa); similarly, if it is preceded by a negative clause, it can be synonymous with "nor" or "and neither" (wa-la): as, for instance, in {27:10-11}, "no fear need the message-bearers have in My Presence, and neither (illa) need he who...", etc. Now if we apply this particular use of illa to the passage under consideration, we arrive at the reading, "nor [shall you do it] by means of trade based on mutual agreement", or simply, "not even by way of trade based on mutual agreement" - whereupon the meaning immediately becomes obvious: the believers are prohibited from devouring another person's possessions wrongfully even if that other person - being the weaker party - agrees to such a deprivation or exploitation under the stress of circumstances. The reading adopted by me logically connects, moreover, with verse {32}, which admonishes the believers not to covet one another's possessions.
Lit., "by way of [deliberate] transgression and wrongdoing" ('udwanan wa-zulman).
I.e., paradise. However, according to some of the commentators, the expression mudkhal denotes not the place but the manner of "entering" (Razi) - in which case the above phrase may be rendered thus: "We shall cause you to enter [upon your afterlife] in a state of glory".
I.e., wives and husbands (Abu Muslim, as quoted by Razi).
Lit., "more on some of them than on the others". - The expression qawwam is an intensive form of qa'im ("one who is responsible for" or "takes care of" a thing or a person). Thus, qama 'ala 'l-mar'ah signifies "he undertook the maintenance of the woman" or "he maintained her" (see Lane VIII, 2995). The grammatical form qawwam is more comprehensive than qa'im, and combines the concepts of physical maintenance and protection as well as of moral responsibility: and it is because of the last-named factor that I have rendered this phrase as "men shall take full care of women".
Lit., "who guard that which cannot be perceived (al-ghayb) because God has [willed it to be] guarded".
The term nushuz (lit., "rebellion" - here rendered as "ill-will") comprises every kind of deliberate bad behaviour of a wife towards her husband or of a husband towards his wife, including what is nowadays described as "mental cruelty"; with reference to the husband, it also denotes "ill-treatment", in the physical sense, of his wife (cf. verse {128} of this surah). In this context, a wife's "ill-will" implies a deliberate, persistent breach of her marital obligations.
It is evident from many authentic Traditions that the Prophet himself intensely detested the idea of beating one's wife, and said on more than one occasion, "Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?" (Bukhari and Muslim). According to another Tradition, he forbade the beating of any woman with the words, "Never beat God's handmaidens" (Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hibban and Hakim, on the authority of Iyas ibn 'Abd Allah; Ibn Hibban, on the authority of 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas; and Bayhaqi, on the authority of Umm Kulthum). When the above Qur'an-verse authorizing the beating of a refractory wife was revealed, the Prophet is reported to have said: "I wanted one thing, but God has willed another thing - and what God has willed must be best" (see Manar V, 74). With all this, he stipulated in his sermon on the occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage, shortly before his death, that beating should be resorted to only if the wife "has become guilty, in an obvious manner, of immoral conduct", and that it should be done "in such a way as not to cause pain (ghayr mubarrih)"; authentic Traditions to this effect are found in Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Da'ad, Nasa'i and Ibn Majah. On the basis of these Traditions, all the authorities stress that this "beating", if resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic - "with a toothbrush, or some such thing" (Tabari, quoting the views of scholars of the earliest times), or even "with a folded handkerchief" (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim scholars (e.g., Ash-Shafi'i) are of the opinion that it is just barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they justify this opinion by the Prophet's personal feelings with regard to this problem.
The expression shay'an (here rendered as "in any way") makes it clear that shirk ("the ascribing of divinity to anything beside God") is not confined to a worship of other "deities", but implies also the attribution of divine or quasi-divine powers to persons or objects not regarded as deities: in other words, it embraces also saint-worship, etc.
I.e., "whether he belongs to your own or to another community". That the expression "your own people" (dhu 'l-qurba) refers to the community and not to one's actual relatives is obvious from the fact that "the near of kin" have already been mentioned earlier in this sentence. The Prophet often stressed a believer's moral obligation towards his neighbours, whatever their faith; and his attitude has been summed up in his words, "Whoever believes in God and the Last Day, let him do good unto his neighbour" (Bukhari, Muslim, and other compilations).
According to 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud and other Companions, "the friend by your side" (as-sahib bi'l-janb) is one's wife or husband (Tabari). By "those whom you rightfully possess" (lit., "whom your right hands possess") are meant, in this context, slaves of either sex. Since this verse enjoins the "doing of good" towards all people with whom one is in contact, and since the best that can be done to a slave is to free him, the above passage calls, elliptically, for the freeing of slaves (Manar V, 94). See also surah {2}, note [146], as well as 9:60 , where the freeing of human beings from bondage is explicitly mentioned as one of the objectives to which zakah funds are to be dedicated.
An allusion to 2:268 , where Satan is spoken of as "threatening you with the prospect of poverty and bidding you to be niggardly", the implication being that those who obey him "have Satan for their soul-mate (qarin)". For the derivation of this term, see note [24] on 41:25 .
Lit., "what is it that would be upon them". This seems to be a reference to the oft-repeated Qur'anic statement that those who believe in God and live righteously "need have no fear" (la khawf 'alayhim - lit., "no fear [shall be] upon them").
Lit., "from Himself" - i.e., far in excess of what the doer of good may have merited.
I.e., the earlier apostles, of whom every community or civilization has had a share.
Lit., "become level with them". The term "the apostle" is probably used here in its generic sense, and refers to all the apostles who preached God's message at one time or another.
The reference to prayer at this place arises from the mention, in the preceding verses, of the Day of Judgment, when man will have to answer before God for what he did during his life in this world: for it is in prayer that man faces God, spiritually, during his earthly life, and reminds himself of his responsibility towards the Creator. As regards the prohibition of attempting to pray "while in a state of drunkenness", some of the commentators assume that this ordinance represented the first stage of the total prohibition of intoxicants, and has been, consequently, "abrogated" by the promulgation of the law of total abstinence from all intoxicants ( 5:90 ). However, quite apart from the fact that the doctrine of "abrogation" is entirely untenable (see surah {2}, note [87]), there is no warrant whatever for regarding the above verse as a "first step" which has become redundant, as it were, after total prohibition was ordained. It is, of course, true that the Qur'an forbids the use of intoxicants at all times, and not merely at the time of prayer; but since "man has been created weak" ( 4:28 ), his lapse from the way of virtue is always a possibility: and it is to prevent him from adding the sin of praying while in a state of drunkenness to the sin of using intoxicants as such that the above verse was promulgated. Moreover, the expression "while you are in a state of drunkenness (sukara)" does not apply exclusively to alcoholic intoxication, since the term sukr, in its wider connotation, signifies any state of mental disequilibrium which prevents man from making full use of his intellectual faculties: that is to say, it can apply also to a temporary clouding of the intellect by drugs or giddiness or passion, as well as to the state metaphorically described as "drunk with sleep" - in brief, to any condition in which normal judgment is confused or suspended. And because the Qur'an insists throughout on consciousness as an indispensable element in every act of worship, prayer is permitted only when man is in full possession of his mental faculties and "knows what he is saying".
I.e., after sexual intercourse. The term junub (rendered by me as "in a state requiring total ablution") is derived from the verb janaba, "he made [a thing] remote", and signifies one's "remoteness" from prayer because of immersion in sexual passion.
Lit., "if one of you comes from the place in which one satisfies...", etc.
This symbolic ablution, called tayammum, consists in touching the earth, or anything supposed to contain dust, with the palms of one's hands and then passing them lightly over face and hands. Whenever water is not within reach - or cannot be used because of illness - the tayammum takes the place of both the total ablution after sexual intercourse (ghusl) and the partial ablution before prayers (wudu').
The people referred to are the followers of the Bible. Thus, after having touched in the preceding verse upon the question of prayer, the Qur'an resumes its cardinal theme: man's responsibility for his actions and, in particular, for the manner in which he responds to the guidance offered to him through God's revelations.
Cf. 2:93 . The figure of speech "hear without hearkening" addressed, as it were, by the Jews to themselves, describes their attitude towards both their own scriptures and the message of the Qur'an.
Lit., "making a thrust (ta'n) against the Faith" - i.e., attributing to it a fundamental defect. The saying "Hearken thou unto us" is meant to convey the conviction of the Jews that they had nothing to learn from the teaching propounded by the Prophet Muhammad, and that he should rather defer to their views on religious matters. See, in this connection, their assertion, "Our hearts are already full of knowledge", in 2:88 .
See surah {2}, note [74].
Lit., "lest We obliterate the faces" - i.e., that towards which one turns, or that which one faces, with expectation ('Abduh in Manar V, 144 ff.) - "and bring them back to their ends". It is to be noted that the term dubur (of which adbar is the plural) does not always signify the "back" of a thing - as most of the translators assume - but often stands for its "last part" or "end" (cf. Lane III, 846).
This is an allusion to the story of the Sabbath-breakers (lit., "the people of the Sabbath") referred to in 2:65 and fully explained in {7:163-166}.
Lit., "anything below that".
The continuous stress, in the Qur'an, on God's transcendental oneness and uniqueness aims at freeing man from all sense of dependence on other influences and powers, and thus at elevating him spiritually and bringing about the "purification" alluded to in the next verse. Since this objective is vitiated by the sin of shirk ("the ascribing of divine qualities to aught beside God") the Qur'an describes it as "unforgivable" so long as it is persisted in, i.e., unless and until the sinner repents (cf. verses {17} and {18} of this surah).
I.e., the Jews, who consider themselves to be "God's chosen people" and, therefore, a priori destined for God's grace, and the Christians, who believe in Jesus' "vicarious atonement" for the sins of mankind. There is also an obvious connection between this observation and the reference to shirk in the preceding verse, inasmuch as the Jews and the Christians, while not actually believing in the existence of any deity apart from God, ascribe divine or semi-divine qualities, in varying degrees, to certain human beings: the Christians by their elevation of Jesus to the status of a manifestation of God in human form and their open worship of a hierarchy of saints, and the Jews by their attribution of law-giving powers to the great Talmudic scholars, whose legal verdicts are supposed to override, if need be, any ordinance of the scriptures (cf. in this respect 9:31 ). It goes without saying that this condemnation applies also to those Muslims who have fallen into the sin of worshipping saints and according them something of the reverence which is due to God alone. Consequently, the expression "those who consider themselves pure" comprises, in this context, all who think of themselves as believing in the One God (simply because they do not consciously worship a plurality of deities) but are, nevertheless, guilty of the sin of shirk in the deeper sense of this term.
According to most of the philological authorities (e.g., Qamus), a fatil is any "slender thread which one rolls between one's fingers" - a term which is also, but by no means exclusively, applied to the tiny fibre adhering to the cleft of the date-stone (cf. Lane Vl, 2334). Idiomatically, it is best rendered as "a hair's breadth". The above passage implies, firstly, that spiritual purity is not the privilege of any particular group or community, and, secondly, that one can become or remain pure only by God's grace, for "man has been created weak" (verse {28} above). See also note [27] on the second paragraph of 53:32 .
Lit., "and this is enough as an obvious sin". This passage refers to various theological statements of an arbitrary nature, such as the Jewish assertion that they are "the chosen people" and, thus, immune from God's condemnation; the Christian doctrine of "vicarious atonement", the definition of God as a "trinity" with Jesus as its "second person"; and so forth.
The word al-jibt - rendered by me as "baseless mysteries" - is probably, as the Lisan al-'Arab points out, of non-Arabic origin. It denotes, according to some authorities, "something which is worthless in itself" or "something in which there is no good" (Qamus, Baydawi); according to others, it signifies "enchantment" ('Umar ibn al-Khattab, Mujahid and Sha'bi, as quoted by Tabari; also Qamus); others, again, interpret it as "anything that is worshipped instead of God" (Zamakhshari), and consequently apply it also to idols and idol-worship (Qamus, Lisan al-'Arab) and - according to a Tradition quoted by Abu Da'ud - to all manner of superstitious divination and soothsaying as well. Taking all these interpretations into account, al-jibt may be defined as "a combination of confusing ideas (dijl), fanciful surmises (awham) and fictitious stories (khurafat)" (Manar V, 157) - in other words, abstruse mysteries without any foundation in fact. - As regards the expression "the powers of evil" (at-taghut), it seems to refer here to superstitious beliefs and practices - like soothsaying, foretelling the future, relying on "good" and "bad" omens, and so forth - all of which are condemned by the Qur'an. See also surah {2}, note [250].
An allusion to the Jewish belief that they occupy a privileged position in the sight of God.
I.e., revelation, which - according to the Jews - has been reserved to them alone.
I.e., in Abraham - implying that they are faithful to his message. It is to be borne in mind that the Prophet Muhammad, too, was a direct-line descendant of Abraham, whose message is confirmed and continued in the Qur'an.
This awesome allegory of suffering in the life to come is obviously meant to bring out the long-lasting nature of that suffering (Razi).
The primary meaning of zill is "shade", and so the expression zill zalil could be rendered as "most shading shade" - i.e., "dense shade". However, in ancient Arabic usage, the word zill denotes also "a covering" or "a shelter" and, figuratively, "protection" (Raghib); and, finally, "a state of ease, pleasure and plenty" (cf. Lane V, 1915 f.), or simply "happiness" - and in the combination of zill zalil, "abundant happiness" (Razi) - which seems to agree best with the allegorical implications of the term "paradise".
I.e., in the judicial sense, as well as in the sense of judging other people's motives, attitudes and behaviour. - The term amanah denotes anything one has been entrusted with, be it in the physical or moral sense (Razi). If one reads this ordinance in the context of the verses that precede and follow it, it becomes obvious that it relates to the message or - in view of the plural form amanat - to the truths which have been conveyed to the believers by means of the divine writ, and which they must regard as a sacred trust, to be passed on to "those who are entitled thereto" - i.e., to all mankind, for whom the message of the Qur'an has been intended. This, of course, does not preclude the ordinance from having a wider scope as well - that is, from its being applied to any material object or moral responsibility which may have been entrusted to a believer - and, in particular, to the exercise of worldly power and political sovereignty by the Muslim community or a Muslim state, to which the next verse refers.
I.e., from among the believers.
I.e., to the Qur'an and to the sunnah (the sayings and the practice) of the Prophet. See also verse {65} of this surah.
Read in conjunction with 3:26 , which speaks of God as "the Lord of all dominion" - and therefore the ultimate source of all moral and political authority - the above passage lays down a fundamental rule of conduct for the individual believer as well as the conceptual basis for the conduct of the Islamic state. Political power is held in trust (amanah) from God; and His will, as manifested in the ordinances comprising the Law of Islam, is the real source of all sovereignty. The stress, in this context, on "those from among you who have been entrusted with authority" makes it clear that the holders of authority (ulu 'l-amr) in an Islamic state must be Muslims.
Lit., "who summon one another to the judgment [or "rule"] of the powers of evil (at-taghut): an allusion to people like those mentioned in verse {51} above, who, by their deference to what the Qur'an describes as at-taghut (see surah {2}, note [250]), nullify all the good that they could derive from guidance through revelation.
The classical commentators see in verses {60-64} a reference to the hypocrites of Medina who, at the time of the Prophet, outwardly professed to be his followers but did not really believe in his teachings. It seems to me, however, that this passage goes far beyond the possible historical occasion of its revelation, inasmuch as it touches upon an often-encountered psychological problem of faith. People who are not fully convinced that there exists a reality beyond the reach of human perception (al-ghayb, in the sense explained in surah {2}, note [3]) find it, as a rule, difficult to dissociate their ethical views from their personal predilections and morally questionable desires - with the result that they are only too often "willing to defer to what the powers of evil tell them". Although they may half-heartedly concede that some of the moral teachings based on revelation (in this case, the Qur'an) contain "certain verities", they instinctively recoil from those teachings whenever they conflict with what their own idiosyncrasies represent to them as desirable: and so they become guilty of hypocrisy in the deepest, religious connotation of this word.
Lit., "what their hands have sent ahead": an allusion to their ambivalent attitude and the confusion which it may have created in others.
I.e., they will plead that their aim was no more than a harmonization of the Qur'anic ethics with a "humanistic" (that is, man-centred) world-view: a plea which the Qur'an implicitly rejects as being hypocritical and self-deceptive (cf. {2:11-12}). As regards the phrase "whereupon they will come to thee", see verse {41} of this surah.
The expression "by God's leave" is to be understood, in this context, as "with God's help" or "by God's grace" (Zamakhshari, Razi). As so often in the Qur'an, the sudden change, within one and the same sentence, from the pronoun "We" or "I" to "He", or from "We" to "God", is meant to impress upon the listener or reader of the Qur'an the fact that God is not a "person" but an all-embracing Power that cannot be defined or even adequately referred to within the limited range of any human language.
This verse lays down in an unequivocal manner the obligation of every Muslim to submit to the ordinances which the Prophet, under divine inspiration, promulgated with a view to exemplifying the message of the Qur'an and enabling the believers to apply it to actual situations. These ordinances constitute what is described as the sunnah (lit., "way") of the Prophet Muhammad, and have (whenever they are authenticated beyond any possibility of doubt) full legal force side by side with the Qur'an: see verse {80} of this surah.
I.e., by means of the God-inspired commands issued by the Prophet (see preceding note).
Lit., "they would not do it, save for a few of them": the pronoun obviously relates to the half-hearted, who are not prepared to undergo the sacrifices which their faith demands of them. The reference to laying down one's life in the defence of faith and freedom and, if necessary, abandoning one's homeland, introduces, as it were, the long passage beginning with verse {71}, which deals with fighting in God's cause.
Lit., "and then go forth, [be it] in small detachments or all together" - the latter expression applying to what nowadays is called "total war". The term hidhr connotes not merely an effort to guard oneself against imminent danger but also the making of all necessary preparations with regard to (in this context) military organization, equipment, etc. The problem of war as such arises from the principles of ideological statehood postulated in verse {59} of this surah. Since the Muslims are expected to organize their communal life within the framework of a state based on the ideological premises laid down in the Qur'an, they must be prepared for hostility on the part of groups or nations opposed to the world-view and the social system of Islam and, conceivably, bent on its destruction: consequently, the concept of a defensive war in God's cause (jihad) plays a very prominent role in the socio-political scheme of Islam and is frequently alluded to throughout the Qur'an.
Lit.,"he".
Lit., "what is amiss with you that you do not fight" - implying that they have no moral excuse for such a refusal.
Thus the Qur'an implies that "evil" is not an independent, esoteric factor of life, but rather a result of man's succumbing to the temptations arising from his own moral weakness and thereby "denying the truth". In other words, the "power" of the negative principle symbolized by Satan has no intrinsic reality ("Satan's guile is weak indeed"): it becomes real only through man's wilfully choosing a wrong course of action.
I.e., from unrighteous violence, to which man so often inclines. The fact that most people have to be told to refrain from violence is contrasted, in the next sentence, with the unwillingness on the part of many of them to expose themselves to physical danger in a righteous cause.
I.e., they do not realize that the evil happening may possibly be a consequence of their own actions or their own wrong choice between several courses open to them, but are prone to attribute it to the failings of others.
Lit., "something [which they are] told" - i.e., a truth which their own reason as well as the teachings of all the prophets should have made obvious to them.
There is no contradiction between this statement and the preceding one that "all is from God". In the world-view of the Qur'an, God is the ultimate source of all happening: consequently, all good that comes to man and all evil that befalls him flows, in the last resort, from God's will. However, not everything that man regards as "evil fortune" is really, in its final effect, evil - for, "it may well be that you hate a thing the while it is good for you, and it may well be that you love a thing the while it is bad for you: and God knows, whereas you do not know" ( 2:216 ). Thus, many an apparent "evil" may sometimes be no more than a trial and a God-willed means of spiritual growth through suffering, and need not necessarily be the result of a wrong choice or a wrong deed on the part of the person thus afflicted. It is, therefore, obvious that the "evil" or "evil fortune" of which this verse speaks has a restricted connotation, inasmuch as it refers to evil in the moral sense of the word: that is to say, to suffering resulting from the actions or the behaviour of the person concerned, and this in accordance with the natural law of cause and effect which God has decreed for all His creation, and which the Qur'an describes as "the way of God" (sunnat Allah). For all such suffering man has only himself to blame, since "God does not wrong anyone by as much as an atom's weight" ( 4:40 ).
Lit., "And they say, 'Obedience'" - a reference to the hypocrites of Medina, in the time of the Prophet, and - by implication - the hypocritical "admirers" and half-hearted followers of Islam at all times.
I.e., they surreptitiously try to corrupt the message of God's Apostle. The verb bata denotes "he spent the night"; in the form bayyata it signifies "he meditated by night [upon something, or upon doing something]", or "he devised [something] by night" (Lisan al-'Arab), i.e., in secrecy, which is symbolized by "the dark of night".
I.e., the fact that it is free of all inner contradictions - in spite of its having been revealed gradually, over a period of twenty-three years - should convince them that it has not been "composed by Muhammad" (an accusation frequently levelled against him not only by his contemporaries but also by non-believers of later times), but could only have originated from a supra-human source. See also 25:32 and 39:23 .
I.e., the half-hearted followers of Islam spoken of in the preceding verses (Zamakhshari). The above reference to peace or war - lit., "security or danger (khawf)" - is connected, firstly with the basic principles of statecraft mentioned in verse {59} of this surah and, secondly, with the discourse on fighting in God's cause beginning with verse {71}.
Lit., "from among them".
Lit., "those from among them who elicit [the truth]", i.e., the special organs of the state entrusted with gathering and evaluating political and military intelligence.
Although primarily addressed to the Prophet, the "thou" in this sentence relates to every believer. The above exhortation is to be understood in the context of a war already in progress, and not as an incitement to war.
The term harad signifies "corruption of body or mind" or "corruption in one's conduct", as well as "constant disquietude of mind" (Qamus). According to Raghib, the verbal form harradahu means "he rid him of all harad" - analogous to the expression marradahu, "he rid him of illness (marad)". In the two instances where this verb occurs in the Qur'an (in this verse as well as in 8:65 ), it has the imperative form: "Render the believers free of all disquietude of mind" or tropically, "of all fear of death" - and may, thus, be suitably expressed as "inspire the believers to overcome all fear of death". The usual rendering of the phrase harrid al-mu'minin as "urge [or "rouse" or "stir up"] the believers" does not convey the full meaning of the verb harrada, notwithstanding the fact that it has been suggested by some of the classical philologists (cf. Lane II, 548).
Lit., "shall have a share (nasib) therefrom". Since the term nasib has here a positive meaning, it can be suitably rendered as "a share in its blessings".
The noun kifl is derived from the root-verb kafala "he made himself responsible [for a thing]". Tabari explains it in this context as denoting "a share in the responsibility and the sin". The expression minha ("out of it") indicates the part played by the transgressor in the evil enterprise, to which the pronoun ha ("it") refers.
Lit., "greet with better than it, or return it". In the above context, this obviously refers to an offer of peace by people with whom the believers are at war as well as to individual persons who, while possibly belonging to the enemy, have, to all outward appearances, peaceful intentions. In accordance with the injunctions, "if they incline to peace, incline thou to it as well" ( 8:61 ), and "if they desist [from fighting], then all hostility shall cease" ( 2:193 ), the believers are obliged to make peace with an enemy who makes it clear that he wants to come to an equitable understanding; similarly, they must show every consideration to individual persons from among the enemies who do not actively participate in the hostilities (see also verse {94} of this surah).
Lit., "two parties".
Lit., "seeing that God has thrown them back in result of what they have earned". There are various conjectures, almost all of them of a historical nature, as to the identity of these hypocrites. Some of the commentators think that the verse refers to the hypocrites at Medina in the early years after the hijrah; others (e.g., Tabari) prefer the view expressed by Ibn 'Abbas, according to whom this refers to certain people of Mecca who, before the hijrah, outwardly accepted Islam but secretly continued to support the pagan Quraysh. It seems to me, however, that there is no need to search after "historical" interpretations of the above verse, since it can easily be understood in general terms. The preceding verse speaks of God, and stresses His oneness and the obvious truth inherent in His revealed message, as well as the certainty of judgment on Resurrection Day. "How, then," continues the argument, "could you be of two minds regarding the moral stature of people who go so far as to pay lip-service to the truth of God's message and are, nevertheless, not willing to make a sincere choice between right and wrong?"
See surah {2}, note [203], as well as note [124] of this surah.
I.e., any of those who have not "forsaken the domain of evil" and are wavering between belief and disbelief.
Lit., "if God had so willed, He would indeed have given them power over you, whereupon...", etc. - implying that only the lack of requisite power, and not true good will, causes them to refrain from making war on the believers.
Lit., "God has given you no way against them": a reference to the ordinance laid down in verse {86} above.
Lit., "whenever they are returned to temptation (fitnah), they are thrown back into it", or, "thrown headlong into it".
Lit., "that We have given you clear authority (sultan)" - a solemn reiteration of the ordinance which permits war only in self-defence (cf. 2:190 ff. as well as the corresponding notes [167] and [168]).
On the strength of this verse, read in conjunction with verse {93}, some of the Mu'tazilite scholars are of the opinion that a believer who deliberately kills another believer must be considered an unbeliever (Razi). This does not, of course, apply to the execution of a death sentence passed in due process of law.
Lit., "his people" - i.e., the heirs or dependents of the victim. The "freeing of a believing soul from bondage", mentioned three times in this verse, refers in the first instance to persons who have been taken captive in war (cf. surah {8}, note [72]) But see also note [5] on 58:3 .
Lit., "who are hostile to you" - implying that they are in an actual state of war.
This relates to cases where the victim is a non-Muslim belonging to a people with whom the Muslims have normal, peaceful relations; in such cases the penalty is the same as that imposed for the killing, under similar circumstances, of a fellow-believer.
I.e., in the way prescribed for fasting during the month of Ramadan (see {2:183-187}). This alleviation applies to a person who cannot afford to pay the indemnity and/or purchase the freedom of a slave (Razi), or cannot find a slave to be freed, as may be the case in our times (Manar V, 337).
Sc., "and therefore one of the enemies". This verse prohibits the treating of noncombatants as enemies and using their supposed unbelief as a pretext for plundering them. The injunction "use your discernment" (tabayyanu) imposes on the believers the duty of making sure, in every case, whether the persons concerned are actively engaged in hostilities or not.
Lit., "thus have you [too] been aforetime". Since the preceding injunction refers to the whole community, it would seem that the above clause, too, bears the same implication: namely, a reference to the time when the Muslim community was, because of its weakness and numerical insignificance, at the mercy of enemies endowed with greater power. Thus, the believers are told, as it were: "Remember your erstwhile weakness, and treat the peacefully-minded among your enemies with the same consideration with which you yourselves were once hoping to be treated."
Lit., "who sit [at home]" - i.e., who do not participate in the struggle in God's cause, be it physical or moral.
The term mujahid is derived from the verb jahada, which means "he struggled" or "strove hard" or "exerted himself", namely, in a good cause and against evil. Consequently, jihad denotes "striving in the cause of God" in the widest sense of this expression: that is to say, it applies not merely to physical warfare (qital) but to any righteous struggle in the moral sense as well; thus, for instance, the Prophet described man's struggle against his own passions and weaknesses (jihad an-nafs) as the "greatest jihad" (Bayhaqi, on the authority of Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah).
Lit., "in what [condition] were you?" - i.e., while alive. This refers to people who evade without valid excuse, all struggle in God's cause.
Lit., "was not God's earth wide, so that you could migrate therein?" The term hijrah (lit., "exodus"), derived from the verb hajara ("he migrated"), is used in the Our'an in two senses: one of them is historical, denoting the exodus of the Prophet and his Companions from Mecca to Medina, while the other has a moral connotation - namely, man's "exodus" from evil towards God - and does not necessarily imply the leaving of one's homeland in the physical sense. It is this wider, moral and ethical meaning of the term hijrah to which the above passage refers - just as the preceding passage (verses {95-96}) referred to "striving hard in God's cause" (jihad) in the widest sense of the term, embracing both physical and moral efforts and the sacrifice, if need be, of one's possessions and even one's life. While the physical exodus from Mecca to Medina ceased to be obligatory for the believers after the conquest of Mecca in the year 8 H., the spiritual exodus from the domain of evil to that of righteousness continues to be a fundamental demand of Islam: in other words, a person who does not "migrate from evil unto God" cannot be considered a believer - which explains the condemnation, in the next sentence, of all who are remiss in this respect.
Or: "cannot find the [right] way" - implying that they are helplessly confused and cannot, therefore, grasp this basic demand of Islam; or, alternatively, that the message relating to this demand has not been adequately conveyed and explained to them.
The word muragham is derived from the noun ragham ("dust") and is connected with the idiomatic expression raghima anfuhu, "his nose was made to cleave to dust", i.e., he became humbled and forced to do something against his will. Thus, muragham denotes "a road by the taking of which one leaves one's people against their will" (Zamakhshari), it being understood that this separation from one's famililar environment involves what is described as muraghamah, the "breaking off [from another]" or the "cutting off from friendly or living communion" (see Lane III, 1113). All this can best be rendered, in the above context, as "a lonely road" - a metaphor of that heartbreaking loneliness which almost always accompanies the first steps of one who sets forth on his "exodus from evil unto God". (Regarding this latter expression, see note [124] above as well as surah {2}, note [203].)
Lit., "the prayer": a reference to the five obligatory daily prayers - at dawn, noon, afternoon, after sunset and late in the evening - which may be shortened and combined (the noon prayer with that of the afternoon, and the sunset prayer with that of the late evening) if one is travelling or in actual danger. While the extension of this permission to peaceful travel has been authorized by the Prophet's sunnah, the Qur'an mentions it only in connection with war situations; and this justifies the interpolation, in the opening sentence, of the words "to war". The prayer described in the next verse - with the congregation praying in shifts - is called salat al-khawf ("prayer in danger").
Lit., "might cause you an affliction" - implying, according to almost all the commentators, a sudden attack.
Lit., "among them". The "thou" in this sentence refers, primarily, to the Prophet and, by implication, to the leader of every group of believers at war with "those who deny the truth".
Lit., "when they have prostrated themselves, let them [i.e., the other group] be behind you". This idomatic expression is not to be taken literally: in classical Arabic usage, the phrase kana min wara'ika (lit., "he was behind thee") signifies "he protected thee" or (in military parlance) "he covered thee", and is not meant to describe the physical relative position of the two persons or groups.
Lit., "turn upon you in one turning".
I.e., if there is a risk of their weapons being damaged by exposure to unfavourable weather conditions, the warriors are exempted from the obligation of keeping their arms with them while praying. This exemption applies, of course, only to such of the soldiers as are in charge of particularly sensitive weapons; and the same applies to the individual cases of illness mentioned in the sequence. It must, however, be remembered that the term matar (lit., "rain") is often used in the Qur'an to denote "an affliction": and if we adopt this meaning, the above phrase could be rendered as "if you suffer from an affliction" - thus allowing for a wide range of possible emergencies.
The "thou" in this and the following two verses - as well as in verse {113} - refers, on the face of it, to the Prophet; by implication, however, it is addressed to everyone who has accepted the guidance of the Qur'an: this is evident from the use of the plural "you" in verse {109}. Consequently, the attempt on the part of most of the commentators to explain this passage in purely historical terms is not very convincing, the more so as it imposes an unnecessary limitation on an otherwise self-explanatory ethical teaching of general purport.
This obviously refers to the hypocrites as well as to the half-hearted followers of the Qur'an spoken of earlier in this surah: both are accused of having betrayed the trust reposed in them, inasmuch as they pretend to have accepted the Qur'anic message but, in reality, are trying to corrupt it (see verse {81}). Since they are already aware of what the Qur'an demands of them and are, nevertheless, bent on evading all real self-surrender to its guidance, there is no use in arguing with them.
I.e., "you may ask God to forgive them, but do not try to find excuses for their behaviour". It is significant that the Qur'an characterizes a betrayal of trust, whether spiritual or social, as "being false to oneself" - just as it frequently describes a person who deliberately commits a sin or a wrong (zulm) as "one who sins against himself" or "wrongs himself" (zalim nafsahu)- since every deliberate act of sinning damages its author spiritually.
Lit., "that of belief" (min al-qawl). It is to be remembered that the noun qawl does not denote merely "a saying" or "an utterance" (which is its primary significance): it is also employed tropically to denote anything that can be described as a "conceptual statement" - like an opinion, a doctrine, or a belief - and is often used in this sense in the Qur'an.
Lit., "he who earns a sin, earns it only against himself".
Lit., "There is no good in much of their secret confabulation (najwa) - excepting him who enjoins...", etc. Thus, secret talks aiming at positive, beneficial ends - for instance, peace negotiations between states or communities - are excepted from the disapproval of "secret confabulations" because premature publicity may sometimes be prejudicial to the achievement of those ends or may (especially in cases where charity is involved) hurt the feelings of the people concerned.
Lit., "him We shall [cause to] turn to that to which he [himself] has turned" - a stress on man's freedom of choice.
The term inath (which is the plural of untha, "a female being") seems to have been applied by the pre-Islamic Arabs to their idols, probably because most of them were considered to be female. Hence, according to some philologists, the plural form inath signifies "inanimate things" (cf. Lane I, 112). Ibn 'Abbas, Qatadah and Al-Hasan al Basri explain it as denoting anything that is passive and lifeless (Tabari); this definition has been adopted by Raghib as well. On the other hand, Tabari mentions a Tradition, on the authority of 'Urwah, according to which a copy of the Qur'an in the possession of 'A'ishah contained the word awthan ("idols") instead of inath (cf. also Zamakhshari and Ibn Kathir). The rendering "lifeless symbols" is most appropriate in this context inasmuch as it adequately combines the concept of "idols" with that of "inanimate things".
Cf. {7:16-17}. The pre-Islamic Arabs used to dedicate certain of their cattle to one or another of their idols by cutting off or slitting the ears of the animal, which was thereupon considered sacred (Tabari). In the above context, this reference is used metonymically to describe idolatrous practices, or inclinations, in general. The allusion to Satan's inducing man to "corrupt [lit., "change"] God's creation" has a meaning to which sufficient attention is but seldom paid: Since this creation, and the manner in which it manifests itself, is an expression of God's planning will, any attempt at changing its intrinsic nature amounts to corruption. - For the wider meaning of the term shaytan ("Satan" or "satanic force"), see first half of note [16] on 15:17 .
The term ghurur signifies anything by which the mind is beguiled or deceived - for instance, utter self-abandonment to earthly joys, or the absurd belief that there is no limit to man's aims and achievements.
An allusion to both the Jewish idea that they are "God's chosen people" and, therefore, assured of His grace in the hereafter, and to the Christian dogma of "vicarious atonement", which promises salvation to all who believe in Jesus as "God's son".
Lit., "chose Abraham to be [His] beloved friend (khalil)".
I.e., the laws relating to marital relations, women's share in inheritance, etc. A fatwa or ifta' denotes the "clarification of a legal injunction" given in reply to a question; correspondingly, the verb istaftahu means "he asked him to give a legal decision", or "to enlighten him about a [particular] law". Since the laws alluded to in the above passage have already been dealt with early in this surah, the repeated reference to them is meant to stress the great importance of the problems involved, as well as the responsibility which men bear towards their physically weaker counterparts. In accordance with the system prevailing throughout the Qur'an, a lengthy passage dealing with purely moral or ethical questions is usually - as in the present case - followed by verses relating to social legislation, and this with a view to bringing out the intimate connection between man's spiritual life and his social behaviour.
Cf. verse {3} of this surah, "If you have reason to fear that you might not act equitably towards orphans...", and 'A'ishah's explanation quoted in the corresponding note [3].
This refers to cases where a man has more than one wife - a permission which is conditional upon his determination and ability to "treat them with equal fairness", as laid down in verse {3} of this surah. Since a man who is fully conscious of his moral responsibility might feel that he is committing a sin if he loves one of his wives more than the other (or others), the above verse provides a "judicial enlightenment" on this point by making it clear that feelings are beyond a human being's control: in other words, that the required equality of treatment relates only to outward behaviour towards and practical dealings with one's wives. However, in view of the fact that a man's behaviour towards another person is, in the long run, almost inevitably influenced by what he feels about that person, the above passage - read in conjunction with verse {3}, and especially its concluding sentence - imposes a moral restriction on plural marriages.
Lit., "do not incline with all inclination" - i.e., towards one of the wives, implying thereby an exclusion of the other from all affection - "leaving her, as it were, in suspense (ka'l-mu'allaqah)". Regarding my rendering of this phrase, see Lane V, 2137.
Lit., "the two".
I.e.. "do not allow the fact that a man is rich to prejudice you in his favour or against him, and do not, out of misplaced compassion, favour the poor man at the expense of the truth".
What is meant here is belief in the fact of earlier revelation, and not in the earlier-revealed scriptures in their present form, which - as repeatedly stated in the Qur'an - is the outcome of far-reaching corruption of the original texts.
Since it is through the beings or forces described as angels that God conveys His revelations to the prophets, belief in angels is correlated with belief in revelation as such.
Lit., "increase in a denial of the truth".
See 3:28 . However, the term "allies" (awliya', sing. wali) does not indicate, in this context, merely political alliances. More than anything else, it obviously alludes to a "moral alliance" with the deniers of the truth: that is to say, to an adoption of their way of life in preference to the way of life of the believers, in the hope of being "honoured", or accepted as equals, by the former. Since an imitation of the way of life of confirmed unbelievers must obviously conflict with the moral principles demanded by true faith, it unavoidably leads to a gradual abondonment of those principles.
Lit., "you shall not sit with them until they immerse themselves in talk other than this". The injunction referred to is found in 6:68 , which was revealed at a much earlier period.
Lit., "did we not gain mastery over you [i.e., "over your hearts" - cf. Lane II, 664] and defend you against the believers?" The term "believers" has obviously a sarcastic implication here, which justifies the use of the demonstrative pronoun "those" instead of the definite article "the".
This announcement has, of course, a purely spiritual meaning, and does not necessarily apply to the changing fortunes of life - since (as this very verse points out) "those who deny the truth" may on occasion be "in luck", that is to say, may gain temporal supremacy over the believers.
Some of the commentators (e.g., Razi) interpret the phrase huwa khadi'uhum (lit., "He is their deceiver") as "He will requite them for their deception". However, the rendering adopted by me seems to be more in tune with 2:9 , where the same type of hypocrisy is spoken of: "They would deceive God and those who have attained to faith - the while they deceive none but themselves, and are not aware of it." See also Manar V, 469 f., where both these interpretations are considered to be mutually complementary.
Lit., "a manifest proof against yourselves". See note [154] above.
The gratitude spoken of here is of a general nature - a feeling of thankfulness for being alive and endowed with what is described as a "soul": a feeling which often leads man to the realization that this boon of life and consciousness is not accidental, and thus, in a logical process of thought, to belief in God. According to Zamakhshari, this is the reason why "gratitude" is placed before "belief" in the structure of the above sentence.
As some of the commentators (e.g., Razi) point out, this may refer to giving currency to earlier sayings or deeds of the repentant sinners - both hypocrites and outright deniers of the truth - mentioned in the preceding two verses: an interpretation which seems to be borne out by the context. However, the above statement has a general import as well: it prohibits the public mention of anybody's evil deeds or sayings, "unless it be by him who has been wronged [thereby]" - which also implies that evil behaviour which affects the society as a whole may be made public if the interests of the wronged party - in this case, the society as such - demand it.
Or: "We believe in some and we deny the others" - that is, they believe in God but not in His apostles (Zamakhshari) or, alternatively, they believe in some of the apostles and deny others (Tabari and Zamakhshari). To my mind, the first of these two interpretations is preferable inasmuch as it covers not only a rejection of some of the apostles but also a total rejection of the idea that God may have revealed His will through His chosen message-bearers. In Islam, the rejection of any or all of God's apostles constitutes almost as grave a sin as a denial of God Himself.
I.e., in point of their being God's message-bearers.
As is evident from the sequence, the term ahl al-kitab ("followers of [earlier] revelation") refers here specifically to the Jews, which justifies its rendering as "followers of the Old Testament".
Sc., "in proof of thy prophethood". Alternatively, the sentence may be understood thus: "They ask thee to bring down unto them an [actual] book from heaven." In view, however, of the oft-repeated Qur'anic statement that the Jews were convinced that they alone could be granted divine revelation, it seems to me that the rendering adopted by me is the more appropriate.
See 2:55 and the corresponding note [40].
See {2:58-59} and the corresponding notes.
The statement relating to their punishment - clearly implied here - is made explicit in verse {160}.
See 2:88 and the corresponding notes.
The calumny referred to is the popular Jewish assertion that Jesus was an illegitimate child.
Thus, the Qur'an categorically denies the story of the crucifixion of Jesus. There exist, among Muslims, many fanciful legends telling us that at the last moment God substituted for Jesus a person closely resembling him (according to some accounts, that person was Judas), who was subsequently crucified in his place. However, none of these legends finds the slightest support in the Qur'an or in authentic Traditions, and the stories produced in this connection by the classical commentators must be summarily rejected. They represent no more than confused attempts at "harmonizing" the Qur'anic statement that Jesus was not crucified with the graphic description, in the Gospels, of his crucifixion. The story of the crucifixion as such has been succinctly explained in the Qur'anic phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum, which I render as "but it only appeared to them as if it had been so" - implying that in the course of time, long after the time of Jesus, a legend had somehow grown up (possibly under the then-powerful influence of Mithraistic beliefs) to the effect that he had died on the cross in order to atone for the "original sin" with which mankind is allegedly burdened; and this legend became so firmly established among the latter-day followers of Jesus that even his enemies, the Jews, began to believe it - albeit in a derogatory sense (for crucifixion was, in those times, a heinous form of death-penalty reserved for the lowest of criminals). This, to my mind, is the only satisfactory explanation of the phrase wa-lakin shubbiha lahum, the more so as the expression shubbiha li is idiomatically synonymous with khuyyila li, "[a thing] became a fancied image to me", i.e., "in my mind" - in other words, "[it] seemed to me" (see Qamus, art. khayala, as well as Lane II, 833, and IV, 1500).
Cf. 3:55 , where God says to Jesus, "Verily, I shall cause thee to die, and shall exalt thee unto Me." The verb rafa'ahu (lit., "he raised him" or "elevated him") has always, whenever the act of raf' ("elevating") of a human being is attributed to God, the meaning of "honouring" or "exalting". Nowhere in the Qur'an is there any warrant for the popular belief that God has "taken up" Jesus bodily, in his lifetime, into heaven. The expression "God exalted him unto Himself" in the above verse denotes the elevation of Jesus to the realm of God's special grace - a blessing in which all prophets partake, as is evident from 19:57 , where the verb rafa'nahu ("We exalted him") is used with regard to the Prophet Idris. (See also Muhammad 'Abduh in Manar III, 316 f., and VI, 20f.) The "nay" (bal) at the beginning of the sentence is meant to stress the contrast between the belief of the Jews that they had put Jesus to a shameful death on the cross and the fact of God's having "exalted him unto Himself".
Lit., "who does not believe in him before his death". According to this verse, all believing Jews and Christians realize at the moment of their death that Jesus was truly a prophet of God - having been neither an impostor nor "the son of God" (Zamakhshari).
Most of the commentators assume that this refers to the severe dietary restrictions imposed on the Jews, which are alluded to in 3:93 and 6:146 . Since, however, 3:93 clearly states that these restrictions and prohibitions were a punishment for evil deeds committed "before the Torah was bestowed from on high", while the verse which we are now discussing relates to their sinful behaviour in later times, we must conclude that the punishment spoken of here has another meaning: namely, the age-long deprivation of the Jewish people of the many "good things of life" which other nations enjoy - in other words, the humiliation and suffering which they have had to undergo throughout most of their recorded history, and particularly after the time of Jesus. It is on the basis of this interpretation that I have rendered the expression harramna 'alayhim (lit., "We forbade them") as "We denied to them".
The verb sadda ("he turned away") can be transitive as well as intransitive, and the same applies to the noun sadd derived from it. In the former case, the sentence would read, "for their having turned away many [others] from the path of God"; in the latter case, "for their having [so] often turned away from the path of God". In view of the repeated stress, in the Qur'an, on the refractory nature of the children of Israel - and the abundant evidence to this effect in the Old Testament - I prefer the intransitive rendering.
I.e., those from among the Jews who do not content themselves with a mere observance of rituals, but try to penetrate to the deepest meaning of faith.
According to the grammarians of the Basrah school, and especially Sibawayh, the use of the accusative (mansub) case in the expression al-muqimin as-salah ("those who are constant in prayer") - instead of the nominative al-muqimun - is a legitimate grammatical device meant to stress the special, praiseworthy quality attaching to prayer and to those who are devoted to it (see Zamakhshari and Razi); hence my interpolation of "especially" between brackets.
I.e., the Psalms (see surah {21} note [1O1]).
I.e., before the revelation of this surah.
I.e., by raising Jesus to the rank of divinity. Since here the Christians are addressed specifically, I render the term kitab as "Gospel".
Lit., "His word which He conveyed unto Mary and a soul from Him". According to Tabari the "word" (kalimah) was "the announcement (risalah) which God bade the angels to convey to Mary, and God's glad tiding to her" (a reference to 3:45 ) - which justifies the rendering of kalimatuhu as "[the fulfilment of] His promise". (See also surah {3}, note [28].) As regards the expression, "a soul from Him" or "created by Him", it is to be noted that among the various meanings which the word ruh bears in the Qur'an (e.g., "inspiration" in 2:87 and {253]), it is also used in its primary significance of "breath of life", "soul", or "spirit": thus, for instance, in 32:9 , where the ever-recurring evolution of the human embryo is spoken of: "and then He forms him [i.e., man]...and breathes into him of His spirit" - that is, endows him with a conscious soul which represents God's supreme gift to man and is, therefore, described as "a breath of His spirit". In the verse under discussion, which stresses the purely human nature of Jesus and refutes the belief in his divinity, the Qur'an points out that Jesus, like all other human beings, was "a soul created by Him".
Lit., "cause them to enter into".
I.e., about the laws of inheritance mentioned in the next sentence. Regarding the meaning of istifta' ("a request for enlightenment about a [particular] law"), see note [145] of this surah. The seemingly abrupt transition from the preceding passages - dealing with questions of theology - to this one is in accord with the Qur'anic principle of deliberately interweaving moral exhortation with practical legislation: and this in pursuance of the teaching that man's life - spiritual and physical, individual and social - is one integral whole, and therefore requires simultaneous consideration of all its aspects if the concept of "the good life" is to be realized. The above verse completes the series of inheritance laws dealt with early in this surah.
Lit., "brethren (ikhwah), men and women". It is to be noted that the expression ikhwah comprises either brothers, or sisters, or brothers and sisters.
No comments posted for Surah 4