-->
See Appendix II.
Regarding this rendering of the term mubin, see note [2] on 12:1 .
See note [3] on 12:3 .
Cf. last clause of 13:39 - "with Him ('indahu) is the source (umm) of all revelation". The term umm (lit., "mother") has often the idiomatic connotation of "origin" or "source" (asl), and sometimes - as in 3:7 - of "essence". In the present context, only the former meaning is applicable. See also note [11] on the last verse of surah {85}.
For this rendering of the term musrif, see note [21] on the last sentence of 10:12 . The above rhetorical question answers itself, of course, in the negative - implying that God never ceases to "remind" the sinner through His revelations, and always accepts repentance.
I.e., than the people addressed in verse {5} above.
See surah {30}, note [45].
Cf. 20:53 .
The grammatical form nazzala implies here recurrence: hence, "again and again".
Lit., "all pairs". Some commentators regard the term azwaj as synonymous in this context with "kinds" (Baghawi, Zamakhshari, Baydawi, Ibn Kathir): i.e., they take the above phrase to mean no more than that God created all kinds of things, beings and phenomena. Others (e.g., Tabari) see in it a reference to the polarity evident in all creation. Ibn'Abbas (as quoted by Razi) says that it denotes the concept of opposites in general, like "sweet and sour, or white and black, or male and female"; to which Razi adds that everything in creation has its complement, "like high and low, right and left, front and back, past and future, being and attribute", etc., whereas God - and He alone - is unique, without anything that could be termed "opposite" or "similar" or "complementary". Hence, the above sentence is an echo of the statement that "there is nothing that could be compared with Him" ( 112:4 ).
Lit., "over its backs" - i.e., according to all classical commentators, the "backs" of the above-mentioned animals and ships alike, the singular form of the pronoun ("its") relating to the collective entity comprised in the concept of "all whereon you ride" (ma tarkabun): in other words, "all that you use or may use by way of transport". As regards my rendering of li-tasta'u as "so that you might gain mastery", I should like to point out that the verb istawa (lit., "he established himself") has often the connotation adopted by me: see Jawhari, Raghib and Lisan al-'Arab, art. sawa; also Lane IV, 1478.
I.e., despite the fact that most people readily admit that God has created all that exists (verse {9} above), some of them tend to forget His uniqueness.
Lit., "attribute to Him a part out of [some of] His creatures ('ibad)": cf. 6:100 and the corresponding notes. The noun juz' (lit., "part") evidently denotes here "a part of Himself", as implied in the concept of "offspring"; hence my rendering. If, on the other hand, juz' is understood in its literal sense, the above sentence could have (as Razi assumes) a more general meaning, namely, "they attribute a part of His divinity to some of the beings created by Him". However, in view of the sequence, which clearly refers to the blasphemous attribution of "offspring" to God, my rendering seems to be preferable.
It should be remembered that the people thus addressed were the pagan Arabs, who believed that some of their goddesses, as well as the angels, were "God's daughters". In view of the fact that those pre-Islamic Arabs regarded daughters as a mere liability and their birth as a disgrace, this verse is obviously ironical. (Cf. in this connection {16:57-59}.)
Lit., "what he postulates as a likeness of [or "as likely for"] the Most Gracious": i.e., female offspring, which implies a natural "likeness" to its progenitor.
I.e., one who, from the viewpoint of the pre-Islamic Arabs, would have no function other than "embellishing" a man's life.
Lit., "he finds himself in an invisible (ghayr mubin) conflict" - i.e., an inner conflict which he does not quite admit to his consciousness: cf. 16:59 - "he debates within himself:] Shall he keep this child despite the contempt [which he feels for it] - or shall he bury it in the dust?" (See also, in particular, the corresponding note [66].)
Or: "who are but worshippers [or "creatures"] ('ibad ) of the Most Gracious" - in either case stressing their having been created and, hence, not being divine.
Lit., "their testimony", i.e., regarding the "sex" of the angels, who are spiritual in nature (Razi) and, therefore, sexless.
I.e., they cannot have any "knowledge" of something that is devoid of all reality - because, far from having "willed" their sin, God had left it to their free will to make a moral choice between right and wrong. (See in this connection surah {6}, note [143].)
I.e., a revelation which would allow man to worship other beings beside God, or to attribute "offspring" to Him: a rhetorical question implying its own negation.
For this rendering of the term mutraf (derived from the verb tarafa), see note [147] on 11:116 .
Commenting on this passage, Razi says: "Had there been in the Qur'an nothing but these verses, they would have sufficed to show the falsity of the principle postulating [a Muslim's] blind, unquestioning adoption of [another person's] religious opinions (ibtal al -qawl bi't-taqlid ): for, God has made it clear [in these verses] that those deniers of the truth had not arrived at their convictions by way of reason, and neither on the clear authority of a revealed text, but solely by blindly adopting the opinions of their forebears and predecessors; and all this God has mentioned in terms of blame and sharp disparagement."
Whereas in some of the readings of the Qur'an the opening word of this verse is vocalized as an imperative, qul ("say"), the reading of Hafs ibn Sulayman al-Asadi - on which this translation is based - gives the pronounciation qala ("he said" or, since it is a repeated occurrence, "he would say").
Namely, the inadmissibility of blindly accepting the religious views s anctioned by mere ancestral tradition and thus prevalent in one's environment, and regarding them as valid even though they may conflict with one's reason and/or divine revelation. Abraham's search after truth is mentioned several times in the Qur'an, and particularly in 6:74 ff. and 21:51 ff.
I.e., God did not impose on them any moral obligations before making the meaning of right and wrong clear to them through a revealed message. Primarily, this is an allusion to the pagan contemporaries of the Prophet, and to the prosperity which they had been allowed to enjoy for a long time (cf. 21:44 ); in its wider sense, however, this passage implies that God would never call people to task for any wrong they may have done so long as they have not been clearly shown how to discriminate between good and evil (cf. {6:131-132}).
See note [12] on 74:24 , where this connotation of sihr appears for the first time in the course of Qur'anic revelation.
I.e., Mecca and Ta'if - implying that if it were really a divine revelation it would have been bestowed on a person of "great standing", and not on Muhammad, who had neither wealth nor a position of eminence in his native city.
Since "man has been created weak" ( 4:28 ), it is almost a "law of nature" that whenever he is exposed to the prospect of great wealth he is liable to lose sight of all spiritual and moral considerations, and to become utterly selfish, greedy and ruthless.
The primary meaning of the noun zukhruf is "gold"; its application to "ornaments" or (as in 10:24 ) to "artful adornment" is only secondary (Taj al-'Arus).
Lit., "to him We assign a satan, and he becomes his other self (qarin)": see note [24] on 41:25 . For the psychological connotation of the term shaytan as "evil impulse", see first half of note [16] on 15:17 as well as note [31] on 14:22 .
Lit.. "until".
Thus do most of the commentators interpret the above phrase which, literally, reads "the two casts" (al-mashriqayn). This interpretation is based on the idiomatic usage, not infrequent in classical Arabic, of referring to two opposites - or two conceptually connected entities - by giving them the designation of one of them in the dual form: e.g., "the two moons", denoting "sun and moon"; "the two Basrahs", i.e., Kufah and Basrah; and so forth.
I.e., "you will not be consoled, as would have been the case in earthly suffering, by the knowledge that you are not to suffer alone" (Zamakhshari, Razi, Baydawi). Since this address is formulated in the plural and not in the dual, it evidently relates to all sinners who, in their lifetime, were impelled by their own evil impulses - their "other selves", as it were - to "remain blind to the remembrance of God". In its wider meaning, the above verse implies that all evil deeds, whenever and wherever committed, are but links of one chain, one evil ineluctably leading to another: cf. 14:49 - "on that Day thou wilt see those who were lost in sin linked together (muqarranin) in fetters" - a phrase which has been explained in my corresponding note [64]. It is noteworthy that the participle mugarran is derived from the same verbal root (qarana) as the term qarin (rendered by me in verses {36} and {38} of this surah and in 41:25 as "other self"): and this, I believe, is a further indication, alluded to in the present verse, to the "togetherness" of all evil deeds.
This rhetorical question implies a negative answer: cf. 35:22 - "thou canst not make hear such as are [deaf of heart like the dead] in the graves".
For the above rendering of dhikr as "[a source of] eminence", see first half of note [13] on 21:10 .
The meaning is that on the Day of Judgment all prophets will be asked, metaphorically, as to what response they received from their people (cf. 5:109 ), and those who professed to follow them will be called to account for the spiritual and social use they made - or did not make - of the revelation conveyed to them: and thus, the "eminence" promised to the followers of Muhammad will depend on their actual behaviour and not on their mere profession of faith.
I.e.. "look into the earlier revelations and ask thyself".
I.e., in pursuance of the principle, referred to above, that it is not permissible to worship anyone or anything but God.
See note [94] on the last sentence of 6:109 .
The concept of "returning" to God implies that the instinctive ability to perceive His existence is inherent in human nature as such, and that man's "turning away" from God is only a consequence of spiritual degeneration, and not an original tendency or predisposition: cf. {7:172-173}. The "suffering" ('adhab) mentioned above relates to the plagues with which the recalcitrant Egyptians were struck (see 7:130 ff.).
Lit., "beneath me", i.e., "at my command": a reference to the imposing irrigation system originating in the Nile and controlled by royal power.
An allusion to the impediment in speech from which Moses suffered (cf. {20:27-28} and the corresponding note [17]), or perhaps to the contents of his message, which to Pharaoh appeared unconvincing.
In ancient Egypt, golden armless and necklaces were regarded as princely insignia (cf. Genesis xii, 42), or at least as evidence of high social dignity. This is apparently an echo of the pagan objection to Muhammad, mentioned in verse {31} above: "Why was not this Qur'an bestowed from on high on some great man of the two cities?" The same is the case with the subsequent reference to the "absence of angels".
Objecting to the Qur'anic condemnation of their idolatrous worship of angels - whom they describe here as "our deities" - the pagan Quraysh pointed to the parallel Christian worship of Jesus as "the son of God", and even as "God incarnate", and argued more or less thus: "The Qur'an states that Jesus was purely human - and yet the Christians, whom the same Qur'an describes as 'followers of earlier revelation' (ahl al-kitab), consider him divine. Hence, are we not rather justified in our worshipping angels, who are certainly superior to a mere human being?" The fallacy inherent in this "argument" is disposed of in the sequence.
Since the Qur'an condemns explicitly, and in many places, the deification of Jesus by the Christians, this unwarranted deification cannot be used as an argument in favour of the pagan worship of angels and, thus, against the Qur'an: in the words of Zamakhshari, such an argument amounts to "applying a false analogy to a false proposition" (qiyas basil bi-batil).
Implying not only that Jesus was not a supernatural being, but that the angels, too, are mere created beings finite in their existence - as indicated by the phrase "succeeding one another" - and, therefore, utterly removed from the status of divinity (Baydawi).
Whereas most of the commentators regard the pronoun hu in innahu as relating to Jesus and, consequently, interpret the above phrase as "he is indeed a means to know [i.e., an indication of the coming of] the Last Hour", some authorities - e.g., Qatadah, Al-Hasan al-Basri and Sa'id ibn Jubayr (all of them quoted by Tabari, Baghawi and Ibn Kathir) - relate the pronoun to the Qur'an, and understand the phrase in the sense adopted in my rendering. The specific mention of the Last Hour in the above context is meant to stress man's ultimate responsibility before the Creator and, therefore, the fact that worship is due to Him alone: and so this parenthetic passage follows logically upon the mention of the false deification of Jesus.
I.e., with divine revelation.
According to Tabari, the restrictive allusion to "some of that . . .", etc., bears on the realm of faith and morals alone, since it was not a part of Jesus' mission to deal with problems of his people's worldly life. This observation coincides with the image of Jesus forthcoming from the (admittedly fragmentary) description of his teachings available to us in the Synoptic Gospels.
Sc., regarding the nature of Jesus and the inadmissibility of worshipping anyone but God: an allusion to subsequent developments in Christianity.
I.e., they will hate one another - those who realize that they have been led astray by their erstwhile friends, and the latter, because they see that they will be held responsible for the sins of those whom they have led astray.
I.e., for an unspecified period: see the last paragraph of 6:128 and the corresponding note [114], as well as the saying of the Prophet quoted in note [10] on 40:12 , indicating that - in accordance with the Qur'anic statement, "God has willed upon Himself the law of grace and mercy" ( 6:12 and [54]) - the otherworldly suffering described as "hell" will not be of unlimited duration. Among the theologians who hold this view is Razi, who stresses in his comments on the above passage that the expression "they shall abide (khalidun) in the suffering of hell" indicates only an indeterminate duration, but "does not convey the meaning of perpetuity" (la yafidu 'd -dawam).
As is evident from verses {81} ff. above, this is a reference to the truth of God's oneness and uniqueness, which those who believe in Jesus as "the son of God" refuse, as it were, to acknowledge: thus, the discourse returns here to the question of the "nature" of Jesus touched upon in verses {57-65}.
The verb barama or abrama signifies, literally, "he twined" or "twisted [something] together", e.g., the strands that are to form a rope; or "he twisted [something] well" or "strongly". Tropically, it connotes the act of "establishing" or "determining" a thing, a proposition, a course of events, etc. (Jawhari). According to the Lisan a -'Arab, the phrase abrama al-amr has the meaning of "he determined (ahkama) the case". In the present context, the term amr, having no definite article, signifies "anything" or - in its widest sense - "anything that should [or "could"] be": and so, taking the preceding verse into account, we arrive at the meaning of arbitrarily "determining what [the truth] should be" - i.e., in contradiction to what the Qur'an postulates as the truth.
This is most probably an allusion to the centuries-long subtle Christian controversies on the question as to whether or not Jesus was "the son of God" and, hence, divine. These controversies were often influenced by a subconscious leaning of some of the early Christian thinkers towards ancient, mostly Mithraistic, cults and concepts which were in the beginning strongly opposed by unitarian theologians, foremost among them Arius, Patriarch of Alexandria (about 280-336 C.E.). However, at the politically-motivated Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), the Arian views - which until then had been shared by the overwhelming majority of articulate Christians - were condemned as "heretical", and the doctrine of Christ's divinity was officially formulated in the so-called Nicene Creed as the basis of Christian beliefs. (See also note [60] below).
Lit., "Our messengers", i.e., angels.
Cf. the last clause of surah {9} and the corresponding note [171].
See note [XX] on the last sentence of 6:100 .
Evidently an allusion to the verbal subtleties of the Nicene Creed, and particularly the statement, "Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten, not made [i.e., not created], by the Father as His only Son, of the same substance as the Father, God of God ...", etc.
A reference to falsely deified saints or prophets and, particularly (in view of the context), to Jesus.
For an explanation of the Qur'anic concept of "intercession", see 10:3 - "There is none that could intercede with Him unless He grants leave therefore" - and the corresponding note [7]. - My interpolation, at the end of the above verse, of the words "that God is one and unique" is based on Razi's interpretation of this passage, implying that a mere oral "bearing witness to the truth" is useless if it is not the outcome of an inner awareness of God's oneness and uniqueness.
Razi (on whose commentary the above interpolation is based), regards this as a reference to the Prophet Muhammad. It seems, however, that the meaning is wider, embracing every believer, of whatever denomination, who is distressed at the blindness of people who attribute divinity or divine qualities to any being other than God Himself.