Hud

See ayat 4 for tafseer.

See ayat 4 for tafseer.

See ayat 4 for tafseer.

This sūrah, like the preceding sūrah and many other sūrahs of the Qur’an, begins by emphasizing the importance of this great heavenly Book, so that people may pay closer attention to its contents and examine them with greater care and precision. The mention of the disjointed letters “الٓرٰ” itself serves as evidence of the importance of this عظیم آسمانی کتاب. Despite its miraculous nature and grandeur, this Book is composed of the very same simple disjointed letters that are familiar to everyone—namely alif, lām, and rāʾ (الٓرٰ). (Explanatory note: Further details regarding this meaning, as well as other interpretations of the Qur’anic disjointed letters, have already been discussed at the beginning of Sūrat al‑Baqarah, Āl ʿImrān, and al‑Aʿrāf.) After the disjointed letters, one distinctive characteristic of the Noble Qur’an is stated in two sentences. First, it is a Book whose verses are all firm and well‑established (كِتَابٌ اُحْكِمَتْ آيَاتُهُ). Second, it is a Book in which all the individual, social, moral, and spiritual needs of human life have been set forth in detail (ثُمَّ فُصِّلَتْ). This great Book, with these qualities, has been revealed by that God who is both Wise and Fully Aware (مِن لَّدُنْ حَكِيمٍ خَبِيرٍ). By virtue of His wisdom, He has made the verses of the Qur’an firm and consistent; and in accordance with His all‑encompassing awareness and knowledge, He has explained and elaborated the Qur’anic verses in various sections aligned with human needs. This is because no one can issue laws that nurture perfection and growth unless he is fully aware of all the spiritual and physical dimensions of the human being. In reality, each of the attributes of the Qur’an mentioned in this verse originates from one of the divine attributes: the firmness and coherence of the Qur’an stem from God’s wisdom, while its explanation and elaboration arise from His being fully informed and aware.

Translation (academic English, left‑to‑right; suitable for direct insertion into a single Excel cell; Qur’anic expressions preserved verbatim; standard paragraph breaks): Qur’anic exegetes have engaged in extensive discussion regarding the distinction between “أُحْكِمَتْ” and “فُصِّلَتْ”, proposing multiple interpretations. However, the explanation that accords most closely with the meaning of the verse is that the first term conveys the fact that the Qur’an is a single, unified, and internally coherent whole—like a firm and well‑constructed edifice—indicating that it has been revealed by the One, Unique God; consequently, no contradiction or inconsistency is to be found among its verses. The second term points to the reality that, despite this unity, the Book contains numerous divisions and branches encompassing all of humankind’s bodily and spiritual needs. Thus, notwithstanding its unity, it is manifold; and despite its multiplicity, it remains one. In the following verse, the most central and fundamental subject of the Qur’an—namely tawḥīd—and the confrontation with shirk are expressed in these words: “أَلَّا تَعْبُدُوا إِلَّا اللَّهَ”, that is, my first call is that you worship none but the One and Unique God. (Explanatory note: Two possibilities have been advanced regarding “أَلَّا تَعْبُدُوا إِلَّا اللَّهَ”. The first is that it is spoken through the Prophet, with the construction: دعوتي وأمري أن لا تعبدوا إلا الله. The second is that it is God’s own speech, with the ellipsis: أمركم أن لا تعبدوا إلا الله. The phrase “إِنَّنِي لَكُمْ مِنْهُ نَذِيرٌ وَبَشِيرٌ” accords more closely with the first interpretation.) This constitutes the first exposition of the rulings of this great Book. My second call is expressed as: “إِنَّنِي لَكُمْ مِنْهُ نَذِيرٌ وَبَشِيرٌ”, meaning that I am, on behalf of that same God, a warner and a bearer of glad tidings for you. I warn you against disobedience, injustice, corruption, and shirk and kufr, and I alert you to the consequences of your deeds and to divine punishment; and I give you glad tidings of a felicitous life in return for obedience, purity, and taqwā. My third call is that you seek forgiveness for your sins and keep yourselves purified from defilements: “وَأَنْ اسْتَغْفِرُوا رَبَّكُمْ”. My fourth call is that you return to Him, and after being cleansed of sins through seeking forgiveness, adorn yourselves with divine attributes; for returning to Him means nothing other than adorning oneself with His attributes: “ثُمَّ تُوبُوا إِلَيْهِ”. In reality, four stages of the call to truth are set forth through these four statements: two pertain to belief and foundations, and two pertain to what is built upon that foundation—namely, action. Accepting true tawḥīd, combating shirk, and acknowledging the messengership of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny are doctrinal principles; similarly, purifying oneself from sins and adopting divine qualities—that is, effecting one’s complete practical reform—constitute the Qur’an’s two practical commands. Thus, upon reflection, all Qur’anic themes may be summarized within these four categories; they represent the index of the subjects of this sūrah and of the entire Qur’an. The practical outcome of either complying with or opposing these four commands is expressed as follows: when you put this program into practice, God will grant you a wholesome and felicitous life in this world until the final moments of your appointed term: “يُمَتِّعْكُمْ مَتَاعًا حَسَنًا إِلَىٰ أَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى”. Moreover, He will grant each person according to the measure of his deeds, without overlooking the differences and degrees among people in their adherence to these principles, rather bestowing upon each possessor of merit according to his merit: “وَيُؤْتِ كُلَّ ذِي فَضْلٍ فَضْلَهُ”. But if one adopts a path of opposition and disobeys these four commands relating to belief and action, then I fear for you the punishment of a tremendous Day—the Day on which you will be brought before the great court of divine justice: “وَإِنْ تَوَلَّوْا فَإِنِّي أَخَافُ عَلَيْكُمْ عَذَابَ يَوْمٍ كَبِيرٍ”. In any case, know that whatever you are and whatever rank you attain, the ultimate return of you all is unto God: “إِلَى اللَّهِ مَرْجِعُكُمْ”. This phrase points to one of the Qur’an’s fundamental doctrines, namely resurrection and the Hereafter. Therefore, never imagine that your power bears any significance before God’s power, nor suppose that you can escape His command or evade the bar of His justice; nor should you imagine that He is unable to reassemble your decayed bones after death and clothe them with a new life—for He is powerful over all things: “وَهُوَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ”.

There are still many people today who suppose that religious devotion merely means constructing a dwelling for the Hereafter and attaining comfort and tranquility after death, and that righteous deeds are solely the fruit and provision for the afterlife. Such people are indifferent to— or assign little importance to— the effects of a pure and authentic religion upon the present, worldly life. Yet religion is one that constructs the earthly abode before it builds the abode of the Hereafter; indeed, unless religion exerts influence in this life, it can have no real effect in the next. The Qur’an explicitly adopts this theme as a heading in many verses, even assigning importance to certain subsidiary matters. For example, in Sūrat Nūḥ, that great prophet addressed his people as follows: اِسْتَغْفِرُوا رَبَّكُمْ إِنَّهُ كَانَ غَفَّارًا، يُرْسِلِ السَّمَاءَ عَلَيْكُمْ مِدْرَارًا، وَيُمْدِدْكُمْ بِأَمْوَالٍ وَبَنِينَ وَيَجْعَلْ لَكُمْ جَنَّاتٍ وَيَجْعَلْ لَكُمْ أَنْهَارًا. That is: seek forgiveness from your Lord and wash away your sins with the water of repentance, for He is forgiving, so that He may send down upon you the blessings of the sky in abundance, strengthen you with wealth and offspring, and grant you flourishing gardens and flowing rivers (Nūḥ 10–12). Some people perceive only an abstract or intangible relationship between these material blessings of the world and seeking forgiveness and purification from sin— a connection they find difficult to comprehend. However, there is no reason to interpret these matters in a way that defies understanding. Who can doubt that accepting true tawḥīd, establishing a divine society under the guidance of the prophets, purifying the environment from sin, and adorning human beings with moral values—that is, the four principles indicated in the preceding verse—lead society toward perfection and growth, culminating in a secure, peaceful, harmonious, and prosperous community? For this very reason, after mentioning these four principles, the Qur’an declares: يُمَتِّعْكُمْ مَتَاعًا حَسَنًا إِلَىٰ أَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى. If you adhere to these principles, you will enjoy a dignified and wholesome manner of life until the final moments of your appointed term. Provide your feedback on BizChat

Some Qur’anic commentators have cited several occasions of revelation (asbāb al‑nuzūl) for this verse. One of them states that the verse was revealed concerning al‑Akhnas ibn Sharīq, a hypocrite who was extremely sweet‑spoken and would outwardly display friendship and affection before the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, while inwardly harboring enmity and hostility. It is also narrated by Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh from Imām Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (peace be upon him) that when a group of polytheists passed by the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, they would lower their heads and even cover them with their garments so that the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny would not see them. This verse was revealed concerning them.

This verse, taken as a whole, points in general terms to the foolish conduct of the enemies of Islam and of the Messenger of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Through their hypocritical and truth‑evading behavior, they sought to keep themselves hidden from the sight of others, so that they might not hear the voice of truth. Accordingly, it is stated: Behold! They fold their chests and lower their heads so as to conceal themselves from him (اَلَا اِنَّهُمْ يَثْنُونَ صُدُورَهُمْ لِيَسْتَخْفُوا مِنْهُ). In order to understand the meaning of this verse correctly, it is essential to clarify the sense of the word “يَثْنُونَ”. Its root is thany (on the pattern of sang), which originally denotes bringing different parts of something close together. For example, the expression thany thawbah is used for folding a garment. The word ithnān (“two”) is also derived from this root, since one is placed alongside the other. Praise and eulogy are termed thanāʾ on the same basis, because the outstanding qualities of the praised person are enumerated one after another. This root is likewise used in the sense of bending or inclining, because in such a motion a person brings parts of the body closer together. It is also employed to convey the meaning of harboring hatred or enmity, since in that state a person draws hostility toward someone or something close to the heart; this usage is also found in Arabic literature, for example: “اِثْنَوْنِي صَدْرَهُ عَلَى الْبَغْضَاءِ” — “He kept enmity against me in his heart.” Taking all these usages into account, it becomes clear that the above interpretation may point to the outward and inward opposition of the Prophet’s enemies, as well as to their various hidden conspiracies. On the one hand, they harbored malice, hatred, and hostility in their hearts while outwardly displaying friendliness through sweet speech; on the other hand, when conversing, they would lower their heads, draw their chests inward or backward, and even cover their heads with their garments, so that through gestures and insinuations they could engage in slander and plotting without anyone becoming aware of their secrets. For this reason, the Qur’an immediately declares: Behold! When they cover themselves with their garments, He knows what they conceal and what they disclose (اَلَا حِينَ يَسْتَغْشُونَ ثِيَابَهُمْ يَعْلَمُ مَا يُسِرُّونَ وَمَا يُعْلِنُونَ). The Lord knows both their outward and hidden states, for He is All‑Knowing of what lies within the breasts (اِنَّهُ عَلِيمٌ بِذَاتِ الصُّدُورِ).

In the preceding verse, reference was made to the vastness of the Lord’s knowledge and His encompassing awareness of everything manifest and hidden. The verse under discussion, in fact, serves as evidence for this, because it speaks of God providing sustenance to all beings in existence—something that is inconceivable without complete and comprehensive knowledge of all created things. Thus God Almighty declares: there is no creature upon the earth whose provision is not incumbent upon God; He knows its place of settlement and the points to which it is transferred from its place of abode, and He conveys provision to every living being wherever it may be (وَمَا مِنْ دَابَّةٍ فِي الْاَرْضِ إِلَّا عَلَى اللَّهِ رِزْقُهَا وَيَعْلَمُ مُسْتَقَرَّهَا وَمُسْتَوْدَعَهَا). All of these realities, with all their limits and conditions, are recorded in the Clear Book—that is, in the Preserved Tablet of God’s knowledge (كُلٌّ فِي كِتَابٍ مُبِينٍ).

1. “Dābbah” (دابّة): The word dābbah is derived from dabīb, which means to move slowly or to take small steps. However, in its lexical sense it includes every form of movement. Sometimes this term is also applied to horses or other riding animals. Accordingly, it is clear that in the verse under discussion, all living beings are encompassed. 2. “Rizq” (رزق): This term conveys the meaning of continuous bestowal. Since the provision granted by God to the beings of the world is enduring and uninterrupted, it is referred to as rizq. It should also be noted that the concept of rizq is not confined merely to the fulfillment of material needs; rather, it includes every form of material and immaterial bestowal. That is why we say: “اللّٰهم ارزقنی علماً تاماً” (O God, grant me perfect knowledge), or “اللّٰهم ارزقنی شهادة فی سبیلک” (O God, grant me martyrdom in Your path). Nevertheless, it is possible that the verse under discussion primarily intends material provision, although its more general meaning is by no means far‑fetched. 3. “Mustaqarr” and “Mustawdaʿ” (مستقر، مستودع): Mustaqarr essentially means a place of settlement or abode, as its root is qarr (on the pattern of ḥarr), which denotes intense cold that confines human beings and other living creatures indoors; for this reason, the word is also used to signify rest and stability. Mustawdaʿ and wadīʿah derive from the same root, meaning to leave or deposit something. Everything that, due to its impermanence, returns from a temporary state to its original and enduring condition is termed mustawdaʿ. Likewise, a wadīʿah (a deposit) is so called because it ultimately leaves its current place and returns to its true owner. In reality, the verse makes it clear that one should not imagine that God provides sustenance only to those creatures that remain fixed in their primary place of residence and, in ordinary terms, receive their share of sustenance in their homes. Rather, wherever they may be and in whatever state or condition they exist, God delivers their portion of sustenance to them, for He knows both their permanent abode and all the places to which they migrate. From massive marine animals to the most minute living beings that are invisible to the naked eye, He has appointed suitable provision for all. This provision is so precisely measured and suited to each creature that, in terms of both quantity and quality, it fully meets their needs and inclinations. Even the nourishment of an unborn child in the womb differs from month to month and from day to day; although outwardly it may appear to be nothing more than blood, its composition constantly changes. Similarly, during the period of suckling—even though, outwardly, the child’s diet appears to remain the same for several successive months—the composition of the milk itself is different from the very first day. 4. “Kitāb Mubīn” (کتاب مبین): The expression kitāb mubīn means a clear and manifest record, and it points to one level of the vast knowledge of the Lord. On this basis, a person should never experience even the slightest anxiety regarding the acquisition of sustenance, nor imagine that his name might somehow be omitted from the register of provision. All terrestrial and celestial beings are recorded in this Book, in which each is explicitly numbered and identified. Just as, in an institution, if the names of all employees are clearly recorded in a register, is there any reasonable possibility that one of them could be overlooked?

There are many significant discussions concerning rizq (provision), of which a few are mentioned here: 1. As previously explained, the lexical meaning of rizq is continuous and enduring bestowal, regardless of whether it is material or spiritual. Accordingly, every benefit that God grants to His servants—whether in the form of food, shelter, and clothing, or in the form of knowledge, intellect, understanding, faith, and sincerity—is called rizq. Those who restrict this concept solely to its material aspect have not paid careful attention to the contexts in which the term is used. The Noble Qur’an states concerning those who are martyred in the path of truth: بَلْ أَحْيَاءٌ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ يُرْزَقُونَ—they are alive and receive provision from their Lord (Āl ʿImrān 169). It is evident that the provision of the martyrs, especially in the realm of barzakh, does not consist of material blessings, but rather of spiritual and immaterial bestowals whose true nature is difficult for us to comprehend within this material life. 2. The provision of the needs of living beings—or, in other words, supplying their rizq—is among the most attention‑worthy issues. With the passage of time and the advancement of scientific knowledge, the veils over its mysteries are gradually being lifted, and science is revealing astonishing realities in this regard. In earlier times, scientists were puzzled by the question of how living beings residing in the depths of seas and rivers could obtain nourishment, since the fundamental basis of food lies in plant life, which depends on sunlight, whereas beyond a depth of approximately 700 meters there is absolutely no light—indeed, an eternal darkness prevails. It was soon discovered, however, that sunlight nurtures fine particles of plant life on the surface of the water and upon the beds of waves, and once these organisms complete their stages of growth and development, they descend into the deeper layers of seas and rivers like ripened fruit, becoming a table of sustenance for living beings there. On the other hand, many birds derive their nourishment from aquatic fish. There even exist several species of nocturnal birds that, in the darkness of night, retrieve their prey like expert divers, guided by specific waves functioning much like radar. The sustenance of some birds is hidden within the teeth of enormous marine animals. These animals, after feeding on other aquatic creatures, feel the need for a “natural toothpick” and move toward the shore, keeping their mouths—resembling small caves—open. The birds whose provision God has placed there enter these cavern‑like mouths without fear and extract their sustenance; in doing so, they not only satisfy their own hunger but also rid the massive animal of harmful residues. Once both purposes are fulfilled, the birds fly away and the animal, feeling relief and comfort, closes its mouth and returns to the depths of the water. Indeed, God’s method and planning in providing sustenance for diverse beings is truly astonishing. From the embryo that resides in the mother’s womb to the various insects that inhabit the dark depths of the earth, winding passages, tree bark, mountain peaks, and deep ravines—none of these are hidden from the knowledge and awareness of the Almighty. As the Qur’an states, God is fully aware of their place of settlement and true abode; He knows their movements and conveys their provision to them wherever they may be. It is noteworthy that in the verse under discussion, those who receive provision are described as dābbah (moving beings) and as beings characterized by motion, which subtly points to the relationship between energy and motion. We know that wherever motion exists, it requires an energy‑producing substance—the very substance that gives rise to motion. Hence, the Qur’an states in the verses under discussion that God provides sustenance to all moving beings. If motion is understood in this broader sense, then plants are also included, since they possess a subtle and precise form of movement in their growth and development; thus, in philosophy, growth (namū) is considered a type of motion. 3. Here the question arises: is the provision of every person predetermined from the beginning to the end of life, such that it will inevitably reach him whether or not he seeks it? Or must it be pursued, as the poet says: “شرطِ عقل است جستن از درها”—it is a requirement of reason that it be sought through the proper doors. Some lethargic and complacent individuals, relying on their interpretation of this verse and on certain narrations about the determination of sustenance, conclude that it is unnecessary to exert much effort in seeking one’s livelihood, since provision is destined and will reach a person in all circumstances, and no one will be deprived of it. Such ignorant individuals, who possess little understanding of religion, provide opponents with a pretext to claim that religion fosters economic stagnation. Exploiters and capitalists have used this notion as a convenient excuse to extract as much as possible from the deprived classes and to deprive them even of life’s basic necessities. Yet even a minimal acquaintance with the Qur’an and Islamic traditions suffices to recognize that Islam views all efforts to obtain material and spiritual benefits positively. The Qur’an even declares: لَيْسَ لِلْإِنْسَانِ إِلَّا مَا سَعَىٰ—for the human being there is nothing except what he strives for. This statement places human benefit squarely in one’s effort and labor. The guides of Islam worked diligently in order to set an example for others, and even the earlier prophets were not exceptions: they tended flocks, sewed garments, forged armor, and tilled the land. If God’s guaranteeing provision meant remaining idle and waiting for sustenance to arrive, then the prophets and the Imams—who were more knowledgeable than anyone else and most familiar with religious teachings—would not have exerted themselves in earning a livelihood. Thus, while we affirm that every person’s provision is decreed, it is conditional upon striving and effort; where the condition is not fulfilled, the conditioned outcome will not be attained. This is akin to saying that every person has a fixed life span: clearly, this means that the body possesses the capacity to endure for a certain period provided that the principles of health are observed, harmful substances are avoided, and causes of premature death are shunned. The crucial point is that the verses and traditions affirming the determination of provision function as a “brake” and a limit for greedy world‑seekers who knock on every door and commit injustice, oppression, and dishonesty under the assumption that their lives cannot proceed well otherwise. The Qur’an and Islamic traditions warn such individuals not to act irrationally or to employ unlawful means in earning a living, but rather to strive through lawful effort while remaining confident that God will fulfill all their needs through that path. This is the same God who did not forget them in the darkness of the womb, who provided sustenance in the mother’s breast when the newborn lacked any capacity to nourish itself, and who even after the period of nursing—when the child was still weak—placed its provision in the hands of a compassionate father who willingly endured hardship day and night to sustain his offspring. How, then, could God abandon a person once he reaches maturity and gains the strength and ability to work? Does reason or faith permit a person, out of fear that sustenance might not be provided, to commit sin, oppression, and the violation of others’ rights, or to greedily usurp the rights of the weak and oppressed? It cannot be denied, however, that there are forms of provision that come to a person whether he pursues them or not—such as sunlight, which reaches us without effort and illuminates our homes; rain and air, which come to us without struggle; and intellect, awareness, strength, and capacity, which were placed within us from the very outset without our seeking them. Yet such benefits either accompany us freely or are lost or rendered ineffective if we make no use of them. In this context, a well‑known narration from Imam ʿAlī (peace be upon him) states: “واعلموا يا بنيّ أن الرزق رزقان: رزق تطلبه، ورزق يطلبك”—Know, my son, that provision is of two kinds: one that you seek, and one that seeks you. This statement points to the same reality. Often a person is not actively seeking a particular benefit, yet through a chain of events and circumstances, it comes to him; although such events may appear accidental to us, they unfold precisely according to the Creator’s design. The essential point is that all Islamic teachings call upon us to exert maximum effort and striving—whether in material or spiritual realms—to attain the best life possible. It is therefore incorrect to justify idleness by claiming that provision is fixed and will inevitably arrive. 4. In the verses under discussion, reference is made only to rizq (provision), whereas in the subsequent verses, concerning repentant believers, reference is made to matāʿ ḥasan—excellent and worthy benefit. The juxtaposition of these two concepts clarifies that while provision is allocated for all moving beings—human beings, animals, insects, predators, the righteous and the wicked alike—matāʿ ḥasan and noble, valuable blessings are reserved exclusively for the people of faith who have purified themselves from all forms of sin and impurity through repentance, and who utilize God’s blessings in obedience to His commands rather than in pursuit of desire, caprice, and rebellion.

This verse discusses three fundamental themes. The first is the creation of the universe, particularly the beginning of creation, which is a sign of the divine power of the Lord and a proof of His greatness: “He is the One who created the heavens and the earth in six days” (وَ هُوَ الَّذِیۡ خَلَقَ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضَ فِیۡ سِتَّۃِ اَیَّامٍ). It needs no clarification that “days” here do not mean twenty‑four‑hour days, for at the time being referred to, neither the earth nor its twenty‑four‑hour rotation existed. Rather, as stated earlier, what is meant is a “period” or “epoch,” whether brief or extremely long and extending over millions of years. A comprehensive explanation of this matter has already been presented under Sūrah al‑Aʿrāf, verse 54; therefore, repetition is unnecessary. We also noted there that God was fully capable of creating the entire cosmos in a single instant, but He brought it into existence across six successive stages so that this gradual creation—constantly displaying new forms and renewed aspects—might more effectively manifest divine power and majesty. God willed to display His power through countless dimensions, not merely a single one, so that recognition of His power and wisdom would be easier and clearer, and that proofs of His knowledge would be available to humanity across years, centuries, and ages. It then states: “and His Throne was upon the water” (وَکَانَ عَرْشُہُ عَلَی الْمَاءِ). To understand this expression correctly, familiarity with the meanings of the terms ʿarsh and māʾ is essential. The word ʿarsh originally signifies a roof or canopy; the elevated thrones of ancient rulers were also called ʿarsh. Likewise, raised structures or trellises upon which climbing plants grow are called ʿarsh. Later, the term came to be used metaphorically in the sense of authority or power, just as the word “throne” is used metaphorically in Persian and other languages. In Arabic, expressions such as “fulān istawā ʿalā ʿarshih” or “suqiṭa ʿarshuh” mean that a person has attained power or has lost it; similar idioms are common in Persian as well. (At times ʿarsh is also used in the sense of a seat or chair; this secondary meaning has been discussed elsewhere.) It should also be noted that ʿarsh is sometimes used to denote the entire cosmos, because the “throne of power” encompasses all of existence. As for the word māʾ, its common meaning is water, but it can also be applied more broadly to flowing or molten substances, such as liquid metals. Taken together, these interpretations suggest that at the beginning of creation, the universe existed in the form of molten matter or layered, flowing gaseous substances. Within this water‑like cosmic mass, intense turbulence and upheaval occurred, some portions emerged from others, processes of union and separation began, and one after another planets, stars, and solar systems formed. Thus, the universe and the seat of divine power were initially established upon a water‑like primordial substance. A similar indication appears in Sūrah al‑Anbiyāʾ, verse 30: “Did those who disbelieve not see that the heavens and the earth were once joined together, then We separated them, and We made every living thing from water?” (اَوَلَمْ یَرَ الَّذِینَ كَفَرُوا اَنَّ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَالْاَرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقًا فَفَتَقْنٰهُمَا وَجَعَلْنَا مِنَ الْمَاءِ كُلَّ شَیْءٍ حَیٍّ). Clear allusions to this meaning are also found in the first sermon of Nahj al‑Balāghah. The second theme addressed in this verse is the purpose and goal of the creation of the universe—a purpose whose most significant component is the noblest being within creation, the human being, who is meant to pursue moral cultivation and spiritual development so as to draw ever closer to God. God declares that this magnificent creation was brought into existence “so that He may test you as to which of you is best in deed” (لِیَبْلُوَكُمْ اَيُّكُمْ اَحْسَنُ عَمَلًا). The term لِیَبْلُوَكُمْ derives from balāʾ and ibtlāʾ, meaning trial or testing. As previously explained, divine testing is not for the purpose of discovering hidden states or inner conditions—since God is already fully aware—but rather for training, nurturing, and developing human beings. A noteworthy point here is that human worth is linked not to the quantity of deeds, but to their quality (ḥusn al‑ʿamal). This indicates that Islam consistently emphasizes the quality of action rather than its sheer quantity. In this regard, a tradition is reported from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), who said: “God does not desire abundance of action; rather, He desires the correctness of action. Correctness of action is connected to fear of God and sincere intention.” He then added: “Preserving an action until it is purified is more difficult than performing the action itself; and a pure action is one in which you desire praise from no one other than God, Mighty and Exalted.” This highlights the centrality of sincerity and God‑consciousness in moral action. The third subject addressed in the verse is resurrection (maʿād), which is inseparably connected to the creation of the universe and its purpose. Since the aim of creation is human perfection and development, such development prepares human beings for life in a broader and more complete realm of existence. Therefore, it states: if you tell them that you will indeed be raised after death, the disbelievers will respond in astonishment and rejection, saying that this cannot be accepted as real and is nothing but manifest magic (وَلَئِنْ قُلْتَ اِنَّكُمْ مَبْعُوثُونَ مِنْ بَعْدِ الْمَوْتِ لَيَقُولَنَّ الَّذِینَ كَفَرُوا اِنْ هٰذَا اِلَّا سِحْرٌ مُبِينٌ). The demonstrative hādhā refers to the Messenger of God’s discourse concerning resurrection and the Hereafter; in the view of the disbelievers, this claim itself is “magic.” Thus, the word siḥr is used here in the sense of baseless, unfounded speech or deceptive illusion, because magicians typically present things that lack true reality. Consequently, siḥr in this context denotes something devoid of factual substance. As for the view of some who interpret hādhā as a reference to the Qur’an—on the grounds that the Qur’an exerts a captivating and “magical” influence on its listeners—this interpretation does not appear convincing, because the verse is addressing the subject of resurrection, not the Qur’an itself, even though the Qur’an’s remarkable power of attraction cannot be denied.

See ayat 11 for tafseer.

See ayat 11 for tafseer.

See ayat 11 for tafseer.

In these verses, in connection with the preceding discussion concerning unbelievers, certain aspects of their psychological states and moral weaknesses are explained—those very vulnerable points that draw a person toward darkness and paths of corruption. The first trait attributed to such people is their mockery of realities and their ridicule of life‑shaping issues. Out of ignorance, foolishness, and arrogance, when God’s representatives warn and threaten them regarding the punishment of wrongdoers, and yet God, through His grace and mercy, delays the punishment for some time, they brazenly and insolently say: what is it that is holding back this divine punishment? What happened to that punishment, and where has that torment gone? (وَلَئِنْ أَخَّرْنَا عَنْهُمُ الْعَذَابَ إِلَىٰ أُمَّةٍ مَعْدُودَةٍ لَيَقُولُنَّ مَا يَحْبِسُهُ). The word ummah derives from the root umm (with the vowel pattern of qam), meaning “mother,” whose original sense conveys the idea of bringing different things together. Accordingly, any group united by a common goal or gathered within the same time or place is called an ummah. However, this term is also used to denote a period of time, either because the components of time are interconnected or because every group exists within a certain temporal span. In Sūrat Yūsuf, verse 45, it is stated: وَادَّكَرَ بَعْدَ أُمَّةٍ—that is, “he remembered [Joseph] after a long period.” In the verse under discussion, ummah is employed in this temporal sense; therefore, it is qualified by maʿdūdah (a limited period). Thus, if punishment is deferred from them for a short time, they say mockingly: what is preventing it? This attitude is characteristic of all arrogant and ignorant individuals: whatever does not accord with their inclinations appears to them as a joke. Hence, they regard the awakening and unsettling warnings of people of truth as mere jest and mockery. But the Qur’an responds to them plainly: behold! on the day when divine punishment comes, it will not be turned away from them, and that which they used to mock will encompass them and bring about their destruction (أَلَا يَوْمَ يَأْتِيهِمْ لَيْسَ مَصْرُوفًا عَنْهُمْ وَحَاقَ بِهِمْ مَا كَانُوا بِهِ يَسْتَهْزِئُونَ). It is true that at that time their cries and lamentations will reach the skies and they will regret their shameless utterances, but neither will their cries avail them nor will their remorse bring them any benefit. Another aspect of their weakness is their pettiness and lack of inner capacity when faced with hardships and when divine blessings are withdrawn, as stated in the following verse: when We allow a human being to taste some blessing and mercy from Us, and then take it away from him, he becomes utterly despondent and rises in ingratitude (وَلَئِنْ أَذَقْنَا الْإِنسَانَ مِنَّا رَحْمَةً ثُمَّ نَزَعْنَاهَا مِنْهُ إِنَّهُ لَيَئُوسٌ كَفُورٌ). Although this verse refers to “the human being” in general terms, as noted earlier, in such contexts the word insān points to disorganized, self‑centered, and defective human types; thus, this discussion applies to the unbelievers mentioned in the preceding verses. A third weakness of unbelievers is that when they are immersed in comfort and abundance, arrogance, pride, and egoism so thoroughly dominate them that they forget everything else. As the Qur’an says: when We allow him to taste prosperity after adversity has touched him, he declares, “Evils have departed from me,” and thus becomes exultant and boastful, neglecting gratitude for God’s blessings (وَلَئِنْ أَذَقْنَاهُ نَعْمَاءَ بَعْدَ ضَرَّاءَ مَسَّتْهُ لَيَقُولَنَّ ذَهَبَ السَّيِّئَاتُ عَنِّي إِنَّهُ لَفَرِحٌ فَخُورٌ). In the phrase ذَهَبَ السَّيِّئَاتُ عَنِّي, another interpretation is also possible: when such people are delivered from afflictions and replaced with blessings, they say that their previous hardships were atonement for their sins, and that their sins have now been washed away, rendering them pure. Imagining themselves to have become close to God, they abandon the very idea of repentance and return to Him. The verse then clarifies that only the people of faith—those who adopt patience and steadfastness in the face of life’s hardships and severe trials, who never neglect righteous deeds, who remain distant from narrow‑mindedness, ingratitude, pride, and arrogance, who neither become conceited and forget God during times of abundance nor fall into despair and denial in times of tribulation—are truly balanced. Their great souls and elevated outlook can endure both blessing and trial alike; they are never heedless of God or of their responsibilities. These are the ones who are God’s near servants, and for them there is forgiveness and a great reward (إِلَّا الَّذِينَ صَبَرُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ أُولَٰئِكَ لَهُمْ مَغْفِرَةٌ وَأَجْرٌ كَبِيرٌ).

In a number of narrations transmitted to us through the path of the Ahl al‑Bayt (peace be upon them), the expression “اُمَّةٍ مَعْدُودَةٍ” is understood to refer to a very small group, and is interpreted as an allusion to the companions and supporters of Imam al‑Mahdi (peace be upon him). According to this reading, the meaning of the first verse would be as follows: if We defer the punishment and chastisement of the oppressors and wrongdoers until the uprising of Imam al‑Mahdi (peace be upon him) and his supporters, then the deniers will say, “What has held back the punishment of God?” However, as stated previously, in the apparent and primary meaning of the verse, “اُمَّةٍ مَعْدُودَةٍ” denotes a limited and specified period of time. A narration transmitted from the Commander of the Faithful, Imam ʿAli (peace be upon him), in the commentary on this verse also adopts this interpretation, explaining “اُمَّةٍ مَعْدُودَةٍ” as a restricted span of time. Accordingly, it is possible that the reported narration points to another meaning or to the inner dimension (baṭn) of the verse. In that case, it would express a general and universal principle concerning oppressors and tyrants, rather than being confined to the polytheists and criminals of the time of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Moreover, it is well known that the verses of the Qur’an may possess multiple layers of meaning: the first and outward meaning may pertain to a specific issue or group, while a second meaning may be general in nature, not restricted to any particular time or community.

The verse discussed above depicts, in three different states, the inner and psychological conditions of the polytheists and sinners, and within them enumerates four of their characteristics. The first is that, when blessings are withdrawn, they become “يَئُوس”—extremely despairing and hopeless. The second is that they are “كَفُور”—exceedingly ungrateful. By contrast, when they are immersed in blessings, even if a very small favor reaches them, they lose themselves in joy, become absorbed in pleasure and delight, and grow heedless of everything else. This intoxication of pleasure and pride draws them toward temptation, corruption, and transgression of the bounds set by God. In addition to this, such people become “فَخُور”—highly boastful and arrogant about the blessings they have attained. In any case, these four traits arise from intellectual short‑sightedness and lack of inner capacity, and they are not confined to any single group of unbelieving or sinful people; rather, they represent a general set of characteristics found among them. By contrast, people of faith—who possess elevated thought, broad inner capacity, openness of heart, and great spiritual depth—are neither shaken by the changing conditions of time, nor do they fall into ingratitude or despair when blessings are taken away, nor does the arrival of blessings drive them into arrogance and heedlessness. For this very reason, in describing the exceptional case, the verse uses patience and steadfastness rather than explicitly mentioning faith—an important and thought‑provoking point.

Another noteworthy point deserving attention is that in both situations—when a blessing is withdrawn after being granted, and when a blessing is granted after having been withdrawn—the expression “أَذَقْنَا”, derived from “إذاقة” (to taste), is employed. This wording indicates their extreme lack of inner capacity: if even a small blessing is bestowed upon them and then taken away, their cries of complaint and ingratitude rise loudly; and if, after hardship and distress, a slight blessing reaches them, they rush headlong in excessive exuberance and unrestrained delight.

It is noteworthy that in the first verse the blessing is expressed by the term “raḥmah”, whereas in the second verse the term “niʿmah” is employed. This difference may suggest that all of God’s blessings reach human beings through His grace and mercy rather than on the basis of entitlement. Had blessings been granted purely on the basis of entitlement, they would have reached only a very small number of people, or perhaps no one at all.

Two effects of righteous deeds are mentioned. In the final verse under discussion, believers who possess steadfastness and perform righteous actions are promised both forgiveness (maghfirah), that is, the pardon of sins, and a great reward (ajr kabīr). This indicates that righteous deeds have two consequences: one is the cleansing and removal of sins, and the other is the attainment of a عظیم reward.

See ayat 14 for tafseer.

See ayat 14 for tafseer.

Two occasions of revelation have been mentioned for these verses, and it is possible that both are valid. The first is that a group of the disbelievers of Mecca came to the Prophet Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him and his family, and said: if you indeed speak the truth that you are a messenger of God, then turn the mountains of Mecca into gold for us, or bring angels who may testify to your prophethood. In response to them, the aforementioned verses were revealed. The second occasion of revelation is reported from Imam Ja‘far al‑Sadiq, peace be upon him. He relates that the Prophet Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him and his family, said to Ali, peace be upon him: I requested of God that He establish brotherhood and fraternity between you and me, and this request was granted; and I also requested that you be appointed as my successor, and this request too was accepted. When some opponents heard of this conversation, they, out of hostility and enmity, said: by God, a dry waterskin filled with dates is better than what Muhammad has asked of his Lord. If he is truthful, why does he not request from God that an angel be sent to assist him against his enemies, or that a treasure be granted to relieve him from poverty? Accordingly, the aforementioned verses were revealed in order to provide a response to these opponents.

In these verses it becomes evident that, on account of the severe opposition and obstinacy of the adversaries, the Prophet Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him and his family, would at times defer the proclamation of certain revealed verses to a later occasion. Accordingly, in the first of the verses under discussion, God addresses His Prophet and restrains him from such a course, stating: it is as though you might refrain from conveying some of that which is revealed to you, and your heart becomes constricted and distressed thereby (فَلَعَلَّکَ تَارِکٌ بَعْضَ مَا یُوحیٰ إلَیْکَ وَضَائِقٌ بِہِ صَدْرُکَ). You feel troubled lest they demand from you the kinds of miracles that accord with their desires, and say: “Why has no treasure been sent down to him, or why has no angel come with him?” (اَنْ یَقُولُوا لَوْلَا اُنزِلَ عَلَیْہِ کَنزٌ اَوْ جَاءَ مَعَہُ مَلَکٌ). However, as is evident from other Qur’anic verses—such as Surah Bani Isra’il, verses 90–93—their demands were not made with the intention of accepting the truth or verifying the authenticity of the message; rather, they arose from pretext, obstinacy, and enmity. Therefore, the Qur’an immediately states: you are only a warner (إنَّمَا اَنْتَ نَذِیرٌ); that is, whether they accept or reject, mock, or persist in obstinacy, your duty is simply to warn. At the conclusion of the verse it is stated: God is Guardian, Custodian, and Overseer over all things (وَاللهُ عَلیٰ کُلِّ شَیْءٍ وَکِیلٌ). Thus, you should not be concerned with their belief or disbelief, for this matter does not pertain to you; your responsibility is the communication and conveyance of the message, while God Himself knows how to deal with them and is fully aware of all their actions. Since their objections and pretexts arose from a fundamental denial of divine revelation—they claimed that these verses were not from God but were fabricated by Muhammad—the following verse responds to this claim with utmost clarity: they say that he has fabricated it (اَمْ یَقُولُونَ افْتَرَاہُ). Say to them: if you are truthful in asserting that these are the products of human intellect, then produce ten surahs like it, fabricated as you claim, and call upon whomever you can besides God to assist you (قُلْ فَاْتُوا بِعَشْرِ سُوَرٍ مِثْلِہِ مُفْتَرَیَاتٍ وَادْعُوا مَنْ اسْتَطَعْتُمْ مِنْ دُونِ اللهِ إنْ کُنتُمْ صَادِقِینَ). But if they do not respond to this challenge and are unable to produce even ten such surahs, then know that this incapacity itself is a sign that these verses are revealed through the knowledge of God (فَإلَّمْ یَسْتَجِیبُوا لَکُمْ فَاعْلَمُوا اَنَّمَا اُنزِلَ بِعِلْمِ اللهِ). And know that there is no deity except Him, and that the revelation of these eloquent verses is itself a proof of this reality (وَاَنْ لَاإلَہَ إلاَّ ھُوَ). O opponents, in such a state, will you then submit to the command of God (فَھَلْ اَنْتُمْ مُسْلِمُونَ)? Despite having been invited to this challenge and your inability having been clearly established, does any room for doubt remain that these verses are from God? In the presence of such a manifest sign, will you persist in your course, or will you submit?

The meaning of the expression “لعلّ”: as is well known, “لعلّ” is generally used to express expectation regarding a matter; however, in this context it conveys the sense of negation or warning. This is analogous to a father who wishes to prevent his son from associating with someone and says: perhaps your friendship with this person, who is not firm in his conduct, will affect you—meaning that you should not befriend him, for such companionship will render you weak and ineffective. Thus, in such instances, although “لعلّ” is used in the sense of “perhaps,” its implicit implication is to restrain from performing a certain act. In the verses under discussion, God similarly emphasizes to His Prophet that he should not defer the proclamation of divine revelations out of fear of the opponents’ denial or because of their demands for preferred miracles.

A question arises here: how is it possible that the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him and his family, might delay the proclamation of divine revelations or even refrain from conveying them altogether, whereas it is known that no sin or error can be attributed to a Prophet? The answer is that when the Prophet is explicitly commanded to convey a ruling immediately, he undoubtedly fulfills this duty without hesitation or doubt. However, it may occur that the timeframe for proclamation is broad, and, on certain occasions, the Prophet may defer its public communication due to considerations that do not arise from himself but are connected with the defense and preservation of the religious mission itself. It is evident that such postponement does not constitute a sin. A parallel can be found in Surah al‑Ma’idah, verse 67, where God emphasizes to His Prophet the necessity of conveying the divine message and not fearing the threats of the people, assuring him of divine protection. The Qur’anic text states: یَااَیُّھَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَا اُنزِلَ إلَیْکَ مِنْ رَبِّکَ وَإِنْ لَمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَہُ وَاللهُ یَعْصِمُکَ مِنَ النَّاسِ In reality, at such junctures, delay in proclamation was not absolutely prohibited; nevertheless, promptness was preferable as an expression of decisiveness. In this manner, God seeks to strengthen His Prophet psychologically and to reinforce his firmness and resolute stance before the opponents, so that he is not disturbed by their clamor, baseless demands, pretexts, and ridicule.

At the beginning of the second verse under discussion, “اَم یقولون افتراہ…,” two possibilities have been mentioned regarding the word “اَم”: one is that it conveys the meaning of “او” (or), and the other is that it conveys the meaning of “بل” (rather). According to the first interpretation, the meaning of the verse would be: perhaps you refrained from conveying Our revelations out of fear of the opponents’ pretexts, “or” that you did convey the divine verses, yet they regarded them as a fabrication against God. According to the second interpretation, the meaning would be: do not delay the proclamation of divine revelations on account of their pretexts; rather, it proceeds to state that these people are fundamentally deniers of revelation and prophethood and assert that the Prophet has fabricated them against God. In reality, through this discourse, God informs His Prophet that their demands for preferred miracles are not motivated by a search for truth; rather, they arise from a fundamental denial of prophethood, and all these are merely their pretexts. In any case, careful reflection upon the meaning of the verses, particularly from a literary perspective and with attention to their wording, indicates that the second interpretation is closer to the intended sense of the passage.

There is no doubt that it is necessary for the Prophet, blessings and peace be upon him and his family, to present a miracle as proof of his truthfulness for those who genuinely seek the truth; no prophet can consider his mere claim to be sufficient. However, there is equally no doubt that the opponents referred to in the foregoing verses were not seekers of truth. The miracles they demanded were of a kind that conformed to their personal preferences. It is evident that such people are driven by pretext and obstinacy rather than by a sincere search for truth. Is it, then, necessary that a prophet must possess a great treasure, as the polytheists supposed? Or is it necessary that an angel should accompany him in proclaiming his message? Moreover, was not the Qur’an itself a miracle far superior and more exalted? If their objective were not merely to fabricate excuses, why did they not heed the Qur’an’s challenge: if you claim that these verses are of human origin, then produce something comparable to them, even with the assistance of all people?

In the foregoing verses, renewed emphasis is placed upon the miraculous nature of the Qur’an, affirming that it is not an ordinary discourse nor a product of human intellect; rather, it is a divine revelation whose source is the infinite and boundless knowledge and power of God. On this basis, a universal challenge has been issued, inviting all to contest it. Attention is drawn to the fact that the contemporaries of the Messenger of Allah—and indeed all subsequent peoples who have engaged in this endeavor—have been incapable of meeting this challenge. These communities have been prepared to endure every other difficulty, yet they have refrained from confronting the Qur’an itself. This clearly demonstrates that such a task lies beyond human capacity and cannot be accomplished by human means; and what, then, is a miracle if not this? This call of the Qur’an continues to resonate even today; this enduring miracle still invites all humanity and the entire cosmos toward itself and challenges all centers of knowledge. Its challenge is not confined merely to eloquence and rhetoric—the elegance and attractiveness of expression and the profundity of meaning—but extends also: • to its thematic content • to the knowledge it conveys, which was hidden from the people of that time • to its laws and ordinances, which ensure the felicity and salvation of humanity • to its discourse, which is free from every form of contradiction and inconsistency • to its historical accounts, which are devoid of myth and fabrication Indeed, its challenge encompasses all these dimensions. A detailed discussion of the miraculous nature of the Qur’an has already been presented in Tafsir‑e‑Namuna, vol. 1, in the commentary on Surah al‑Baqarah, verses 23–24.

As is well known, the Qur’an in one place invites its opponents to produce something like the entire Qur’an (Bani Isra’il/88), in another place it challenges them to produce surahs comparable to it (as in the verses under discussion), and elsewhere it calls for the production of a single surah similar to it (al‑Baqarah/23). On this basis, some exegetes have raised the question as to why there exists such variation in the degree of this challenge. Different approaches have been proposed in response to this question. (a) Some have argued that this variation resembles a descent from a higher to a lower level, as when one person says to another: if you possess skill in writing and poetry comparable to mine, then produce a book like mine; thereafter he reduces the challenge and asks for a composition comparable to one chapter, and finally asks that even a single page be produced. However, this explanation is valid only if Surah Bani Isra’il, Surah Hud, Surah Yunus, and Surah al‑Baqarah were revealed in that particular sequence. The order reported in “Tarikh al‑Qur’an,” attributed to the list of Ibn al‑Nadim, supports this view, since according to it Surah Bani Isra’il is the forty‑eighth in order of revelation, Hud the fifty‑ninth, Yunus the fifty‑first, and al‑Baqarah the ninety‑ninth. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that this sequence does not correspond to the commonly accepted order mentioned in most exegetical works. (b) Others have stated that, even if the sequence of revelation of these surahs does not conform to such a descending order, it is known that the verses of a surah were not always revealed all at once; rather, many verses were revealed later and, by the command of the Messenger of Allah, were placed within earlier surahs due to contextual appropriateness. It is therefore possible that a similar situation occurred in this case, so that the chronological order of revelation does not negate the possibility of a progression from greater to lesser degrees of challenge. (c) Another explanation is that, in principle, the term “Qur’an” may refer either to the entirety of the Qur’an or to a portion thereof. For example, at the beginning of Surah al‑Jinn it is stated: اِنَّا سَمِعْنَا قُرْآناً عَجَباً “We have heard a wondrous Qur’an.” It is evident that only a portion of the Qur’an had been heard. Linguistically, the term “Qur’an” is derived from “qira’ah” (recitation), and recitation may apply to the entirety of the Qur’an as well as to its parts. Accordingly, the challenge to produce something like the Qur’an does not necessarily imply the entirety of the Qur’an; it may equally apply to ten surahs or even to a single surah. On the other hand, the term “surah” also signifies a “section” or “defined unit,” and it can be applied to any grouping of verses, even if it does not correspond to what is commonly termed a complete surah. In other words, “surah” is used in two senses: one denotes any collection of verses with a particular objective or theme, and the other denotes a complete surah beginning with بسم الله and ending before the next بسم الله. Evidence for this is found in Surah al‑Tawbah, verse 86: وَإِذَا اُنزِلَتْ سُورَةٌ اَنْ آمِنُوا بِاللهِ وَجَاھِدُوا مَعَ رَسُولِہِ … “When a surah is revealed that you should believe in God and strive alongside His Messenger…” It is clear that here “surah” refers to a set of verses concerning belief in God and striving, even if they form part of a larger surah. Raghib, in al‑Mufradat, similarly interprets the opening verse of Surah al‑Nur—“سورة انزلناھا…”—as indicating a collection of rulings and wisdoms. In light of this discussion, there remains no substantial difference between the terms “Qur’an,” “surah,” and “ten surahs” from a linguistic perspective, since all may be applied to a group of verses. This indicates that the Qur’anic challenge does not pertain to a single word or isolated expression—so that one might claim to produce the like of “والضحیٰ” or “مدھامتان” or any simple phrase—but rather to a coherent body of verses possessing a specific purpose and objective.

Exegetes have differed regarding the referent of the addressee in the phrase “إِنْ لَّمْ یَسْتَجِیبُوا لَکُمْ”. Some hold that the addressees are the believers; that is, if the deniers do not respond to your call and fail to produce ten surahs comparable to the Qur’an, then you should know that this Qur’an is from God, and this itself constitutes evidence of its miraculous nature. Others maintain that the addressees are the deniers; that is, O deniers, if other human beings and all those besides God do not respond to your call for assistance in producing something comparable to the Qur’an, and they remain incapable and powerless, then know that this Qur’an is from God. In terms of the ultimate implication, there is no substantive difference between these two interpretations; however, the first view appears to be more consistent with the context.

See ayat 16 for tafseer.

In the foregoing verses, after establishing the arguments for the miraculous nature of the Qur’an and thereby completing the proof against the polytheists and deniers, attention is directed to the fate of those who, despite the truth having become manifest, refuse to submit solely for the sake of their material interests. It is stated: “Whoever desires the life of this world and its adornment, We shall fully recompense them for their deeds therein, and they shall not be diminished therein in the least” (مَنۡ کَانَ یُرِیۡدُ الۡحَیٰوۃَ الدُّنۡیَا وَ زِیۡنَتَہَا نُوَفِّ اِلَیۡہِمۡ اَعۡمَالَہُمۡ فِیۡہَا وَ ہُمۡ فِیۡہَا لَا یُبۡخَسُوۡنَ). The term “بخس” in its lexical sense denotes diminution of a right, and “وَھُمْ فِیھَا لَا یُبْخَسُونَ” indicates that they will receive the full result of their deeds without any reduction whatsoever. This verse articulates an enduring divine principle: that positive actions and their effective results are not lost; the distinction lies in the intention—if the ultimate aim of one’s actions is confined to the material life of this world, then the outcome will likewise be material, but if the aim is God and His pleasure, then such deeds will bear fruit both in this world and in the Hereafter. The former category resembles a temporary and unstable structure erected for immediate need and later abandoned, whereas the latter resembles a firm and enduring edifice that remains beneficial across generations. Contemporary observation offers an illustration: through sustained and organized effort, certain societies have acquired extensive knowledge and mastery over material forces, attaining numerous benefits; thus, there is no doubt that they reap the outcomes of their endeavors. However, insofar as their objective is limited to worldly life, the natural effect of such actions does not extend beyond the provision of material means. Even those deeds that appear humanitarian—such as constructing hospitals, establishing medical institutions, founding academic centers, or assisting disadvantaged communities—when pursued under material objectives and interests, yield primarily material consequences; likewise, actions performed with ostentation are limited in their effects to this domain. Hence, the following verse explicitly states: “For such people, there is nothing in the Hereafter except the Fire” (اُوْلٰئِکَ الَّذِینَ لَیْسَ لَھُمْ فِی الْآخِرَةِ إِلاَّ النَّارُ), and “what they accomplished therein shall come to nothing in the other world, and no recompense shall be granted to them” (وَحَبِطَ مَا صَنَعُوا فِیھَا), and “all that they used to do will be rendered void” (وَبَاطِلٌ مَا کَانُوا یَعْمَلُونَ). The term “حبط” (on the pattern of “وقت”) originally refers to an animal that, having overconsumed unsuitable herbage, becomes bloated and internally diseased, appearing outwardly healthy yet inwardly ruined. This constitutes a highly expressive metaphor for actions that appear beneficial and humane outwardly but are, in reality, corrupted by deficient and impure intentions.

At first glance, it may appear that the two aforementioned verses are in contradiction, since the first verse states: “those whose aim is solely the life of this world will be granted the full result of their deeds therein without any diminution,” whereas the second verse declares that their deeds will become null and void. However, when it is taken into account that one verse pertains to worldly life while the other refers to the Hereafter, this apparent difficulty is resolved. That is, they will indeed obtain the full outcomes of their actions in this world; yet such attainment is of no lasting benefit, for those deeds—though numerous—are without effect for the Hereafter. This is because their aim was neither pure nor sincere; rather, it was limited to material interests alone, which they have already attained.

After the expression “حیاتِ دنیا,” the term “زینت” is employed not to negate the legitimate and balanced enjoyment of worldly blessings, but rather to censure excessive attachment to worldly adornment and material display. The word “زینت,” which appears here in a general sense, is in other verses used to denote beautiful women, abundant wealth, valuable animals, cultivated lands, and various forms of prosperity. For example: زُیِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ حُبُّ الشَّھَوَاتِ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ وَالْبَنِینَ وَالْقَنَاطِیرِ الْمُقَنْطَرَةِ مِنَ الذَّھَبِ وَالْفِضَّةِ وَالْخَیْلِ الْمُسَوَّمَةِ وَالْاَنْعَامِ وَالْحَرْثِ (Al ‘Imran 14) Material attractions—such as women, children, accumulated treasures of gold and silver, well‑bred horses, livestock, and cultivated land—have been made appealing to people. (Explanatory note: for further elucidation, see the commentary on Al ‘Imran, verse 14, in Tafsir‑e‑Namuna, vol. 2, p. 266 (Urdu translation).)

The occurrence of the term “باطل” after “حبط” may indicate that their actions possess only an outward appearance without any inner reality; on this basis, their outcome amounts to nothing. It is then further stated that, in principle, their deeds were void and devoid of substance from the very beginning. At most, it may be observed that the true nature of many things is not fully recognized in this world; however, in the other realm—where all concealed realities are unveiled—their actual condition will become manifest, revealing that such actions, in essence, possessed no real value from the outset.

In the interpretation of the foregoing verses, a tradition has been cited in the work al‑Durr al‑Manthur, which clarifies their meaning. The tradition is as follows: قال رسول اللّٰہ صل اللّٰہ علیہ و آلہ: اذا کان یوم القیامة صارت امت ثلاث فرق: فرقة یعبدون اللّٰہ خالصاً و فرقة یعبدون اللّٰہ ریاءً و فرقۃ یعبدون اللّٰہ یعیون بہ دنیا. فیقول للذی کان یعبد اللّٰہ للدنیا: بعزتی و جلالی ما اردت بعبادتی؟ فیقول الدنیا، فیقول لاجرم لا ینفعک ما جمعت و لا ترجع الیہ انطلقوا بہ الی النار. و یقول للذی یعبد اللّٰہ ریاء: بعزتی و جلالی ما اردت بعبادتی؟ قال الریاء، فیقول انما کانت عبادتک التی کنت ترائی بھا لا یصعد الی منھا شییء و لا ینفعک الیوم، انطلقوا بہ الی النار. و یقول للذی کان یعبد اللّٰہ خالصاً: بعزتی و جلالی ما اردت بعبادتی؟ فیقول بعزتک و جلالک لانت اعلم منی کنت اعبدک لوجھک و لدارک قال: صدق عبدی انطلقوا بہ الی الجنة The Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him and his family, said: on the Day of Resurrection, my community will be divided into three groups: one group will have worshipped Allah with sincerity; another group will have worshipped Him for the sake of ostentation; and a third group will have worshipped Him for the attainment of worldly gain. At that time, God will say to the one who worshipped Him for the sake of the world: by My might and majesty, what did you intend by My worship? He will reply: the world. God will say: what you accumulated shall not benefit you, nor shall you return to it; then it will be commanded: take him to the Fire. And to the one who worshipped God for ostentation, God will say: by My might and majesty, what did you intend by My worship? He will reply: display and showing off. God will say: the worship that you performed as ostentation brought nothing to Me, and today it will not benefit you; then it will be commanded: take him to the Fire. And to the one who worshipped God with sincerity, it will be said: by My might and majesty, what did you intend by My worship? He will reply: by Your might and majesty, You know better than I that I worshipped You solely for Your sake and for the abode of the Hereafter. God will say: My servant has spoken the truth; take him to Paradise. (Reference: Tafsir al‑Mizan, vol. 1, p. 186.)

With respect to the interpretation of the verse under consideration, there exists considerable اختلاف among exegetes. Diverse opinions have been advanced regarding the particulars of the wording, the pronouns, the relative constructions, and the demonstrative expressions contained within it. In accordance with the methodological approach adopted here, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to enumerate all such views; rather, two interpretations that appear most plausible are presented in order of importance. The first interpretation begins from the opening of the verse: is one who stands upon a clear proof from his Lord, followed by a witness from Him, and preceded by the Book of Musa as a guide and mercy—comparable to one who is devoid of such attributes, signs, and manifest evidences (اَفَمَنْ کَانَ عَلیٰ بَیِّنَةٍ مِنْ رَبِّہِ وَیَتْلُوہُ شَاھِدٌ مِنْہُ وَمِنْ قَبْلِہِ کِتَابُ مُوسیٰ إمَامًا وَرَحْمَةً). According to this view, the referent is the Prophet Muhammad; his manifest proof is the Qur’an, while the witness to his prophethood consists of truthful believers, foremost among them Ali, and prior to all this, his characteristics and signs were set forth in the Torah. Thus, the authenticity of his mission is established through three clear channels: first, the Qur’an itself as an evident proof; second, the preceding divine scriptures, within which his signs were described and whose adherents were aware of him and awaited his appearance; and third, his devoted followers and sincere believers, whose conduct and testimony themselves constitute a sign of the truth of his message, for the validity of a doctrine is often reflected in the character of its adherents. Following this discourse, the verse implicitly invites seekers of truth toward faith, indicating that such individuals will believe in this Prophet endowed with manifest proof (اُوْلٰئِکَ یُؤْمِنُونَ). Subsequently, the fate of the deniers is described: whoever from among the various factions disbelieves in it, the Fire shall be their appointed abode (وَمَنْ یَکْفُرْ بِہِ مِنَ الْاَحْزَابِ فَالنَّارُ مَوْعِدُہُ). Finally, the address turns to the Prophet, conveying a general lesson for all: therefore, do not entertain any doubt concerning it (فَلَا تَکُنْ فِی مِرْیَةٍ مِنْہُ), for it is the truth from your Lord (اِنَّہُ الْحَقُّ مِنْ رَبِّکَ); yet most people, owing to ignorance, prejudice, and self‑conceit, do not believe (وَلَکِنَّ اَکْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا یُؤْمِنُونَ). The second interpretation holds that the primary objective of the verse is to describe the condition of sincere believers. According to this view, the phrase “اَفَمَنْ کَانَ عَلیٰ بَیِّنَةٍ مِنْ رَبِّہِ” refers not specifically to the Prophet, but to all those who follow the truth with clear vision and firm evidence, and who accept the message brought to them on the basis of manifest proofs and testimonies, including those found in earlier scriptures. This interpretation has the advantage that the predicate of the subject is explicitly stated within the verse itself, without the need to posit any ellipsis, and that the referent of “اُوْلٰئِکَ” is directly indicated within the same context. Thus, the opening portion from “اَفَمَنْ کَانَ عَلیٰ بَیِّنَةٍ” to “اُوْلٰئِکَ یُؤْمِنُونَ” forms a complete and self‑contained sentence without requiring any reconstruction. Although other details within the verse may not align entirely with this second interpretation, it nevertheless remains a plausible reading, though it is ranked subsequent to the first in strength. In any case, the verse points to the distinguishing features of Islam and of true believers, highlighting their reliance on firm evidences in the acceptance of this path, while at the same time depicting the adverse fate of arrogant deniers.

Some exegetes have maintained that, in the verse under consideration, “شاھد” refers to the angel of divine revelation, Jibril (peace be upon him), while others have interpreted it as referring to the Prophet of Islam himself. Still others have explained it as denoting the tongue of the Prophet, taking “یتلوہ” from the root of “تلاوت” in the sense of recitation rather than “following.” However, many prominent exegetes have identified it with Ali (peace be upon him). In this regard, numerous traditions transmitted from the Imams (peace be upon them) support the interpretation that “شاھد” refers to Amir al‑Mu’minin Ali (peace be upon him), who was the first to believe in the Prophet of Islam and the Qur’an, who accompanied the Messenger of Allah through all stages, never withheld self‑sacrifice even for a moment, and remained steadfast in his support until the end. (See, for example, al‑Burhan, Nur al‑Thaqalayn, Majma‘ al‑Bayan, and other exegetical works.) In one tradition, it is reported that Ali (peace be upon him) said: verses of the Qur’an were revealed concerning the prominent figures of Quraysh, either singly or in multiples. Someone asked: O Amir al‑Mu’minin, which verse was revealed concerning you? He replied: have you not read the verse in Surah Hud, “اَفَمَنْ کَانَ عَلیٰ بَیِّنَةٍ مِنْ رَبِّہِ وَیَتْلُوہُ شَاھِدٌ مِنْہُ”? The Messenger of Allah is the divine proof (بیّنة), and I am the witness (شاھد). (al‑Burhan, vol. 2, p. 213) A similar expression is found in the final verse of Surah al‑Ra‘d, which reinforces this understanding: وَیَقُولُ الَّذِینَ کَفَرُوا لَسْتَ مُرْسَلًا قُلْ کَفَیٰ بِاللهِ شَھِیدًا بَیْنِی وَبَیْنَکُمْ وَمَنْ عِنْدَہُ عِلْمُ الْکِتَابِ “The disbelievers say: you are not a messenger. Say: sufficient is Allah as a witness between me and you, and he who possesses knowledge of the Book.” In numerous traditions transmitted through both Sunni and Shi‘i sources, “ومن عندہ علم الکتاب” has been interpreted as referring to Ali (peace be upon him). As previously indicated, it is necessary to recall that one of the most effective means of discerning the truth of a doctrine is to examine the character of its adherents, supporters, and defenders. It is commonly said that one may recognize a figure through those who gather around him. When one observes that individuals of piety, awareness, faith, sincerity, and God‑consciousness assemble around a particular leader or school, it becomes evident that such a leader or doctrine stands upon the highest degree of truth. By contrast, when opportunists, deceivers, and the irreligious converge around a given cause, it is difficult to regard it as grounded in truth. It should also be noted that interpreting “شاھد” as referring to Ali (peace be upon him) does not preclude the inclusion of other individuals such as Abu Dharr, Salman, and Ammar ibn Yasir within its broader meaning. Such interpretations often indicate the most complete and exemplary instance of a general category—namely, that the term refers to a class of individuals, the foremost among whom is this preeminent exemplar. This understanding is supported by a tradition reported from Imam Muhammad al‑Baqir (peace be upon him), who stated: “the witness refers to Amir al‑Mu’minin (peace be upon him), and thereafter, successively, to his successors.” (al‑Burhan, vol. 2, p. 213) Even though this narration specifically mentions the infallible figures, it indicates that those interpretations which identify “شاھد” exclusively with Ali (peace be upon him) are to be understood as referring to the most eminent and primary instance of a wider category.

As we have noted, one of the proofs of the truthfulness of the Prophet, in the verse under consideration, is derived from the testimony of earlier scriptures. However, only the Book of Musa is mentioned, whereas it is known that glad tidings of the advent of the Prophet of Islam are also found in the Gospel. This may be because, in the regions where the Qur’an was revealed and where Islam emerged—namely Mecca and Medina—the ideas and teachings of the People of the Book were, for the most part, dominated by Jewish traditions, while Christian communities resided in more distant areas such as Yemen, al‑Sham, and Najran (which was located in the mountainous regions of northern Yemen, at a considerable distance from Sana‘a). Alternatively, it may be due to the fact that the attributes and descriptions of the Prophet were presented more comprehensively and extensively in the Torah. In any case, the designation of the Torah as an “Imam” may be because the laws of the Shari‘ah of Musa (peace be upon him) were fully contained within it, to the extent that even Christians derived many of their teachings from the Torah.

Regarding the phrase “فَلَاتَکُنْ فِی مِرْیَةٍ,” two possibilities have been mentioned concerning its addressee. The first possibility is that the address is directed to the Prophet Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him and his family; that is, he is instructed not to entertain even the slightest doubt regarding the truth of the Qur’an or the message of Islam. It is evident, however, that the Prophet—who directly witnessed revelation and for whom the descent of the Qur’an was a reality surpassing sensory perception—could not harbor any doubt about the truth of this message. This therefore exemplifies a well‑known rhetorical form in the Qur’an, in which the address is directed to the Prophet while the intended audience is humanity at large. In Arabic usage, this resembles the expression “ایّاک اعنی واسمعی یا جارة” (I address you, but let the neighbor hear), meaning that the speech is outwardly directed to one individual while its import is general. Such a mode of address is employed in rhetoric for emphasis, importance, or other stylistic purposes, whereby the apparent addressee differs from the actual intended audience. The second possibility is that the address is directed to every morally responsible and rational individual; that is, “فلا تک ایها المکلّف العاقل فی مریة” — O rational and accountable human being, do not entertain doubt in the truth of the Qur’an in the presence of these clear evidences. This interpretation gains plausibility particularly if the phrase “من کان علی بیّنة من ربّه” is understood not as referring exclusively to the Prophet, but rather to all sincere believers. Nevertheless, the first interpretation appears more consistent with the overall context of the verse.

See ayat 22 for tafseer.

See ayat 22 for tafseer.

See ayat 22 for tafseer.

See ayat 22 for tafseer.

In the preceding verse, the discourse concerned the Qur’an and the prophethood of the Messenger; thereafter, the verses under discussion present a detailed account of the characteristics of the deniers and their ultimate fate. The first verse states: “and who is more unjust than the one who fabricates a lie against Allah” (وَمَنْ اَظْلَمُ مِمَّنْ افْتَریٰ عَلَی اللهِ کَذِبًا). This implies that denying the call of the true Prophet amounts to denying the words of God and attributing falsehood to Him. In principle, denying the Prophet is equivalent to denying God, and imputing falsehood to one who speaks only by divine authority is tantamount to ascribing falsehood to God Himself. As has been repeatedly noted, the Qur’an, in various places, designates different groups as “the most unjust” (اظلم), despite the apparent diversity of their actions. However, these all ultimately derive from a single root, namely polytheism and the denial of divine signs, which constitute the gravest form of false attribution. Subsequently, the verse describes their condition on the Day of Resurrection: they will be presented before their Lord with all their deeds and conduct (اُوْلٰئِکَ یُعْرَضُونَ عَلیٰ رَبِّھِمْ). At that time, the witnesses will testify and declare: “these are the ones who fabricated lies against their Lord” (وَیَقُولُ الْاَشْھَادُ ھٰؤُلَاءِ الَّذِینَ کَذَبُوا عَلیٰ رَبِّھِمْ), and it will then be proclaimed: “indeed, the curse of Allah is upon the wrongdoers” (اَلَالَعْنَةُ اللهِ عَلَی الظَّالِمِینَ). With regard to these “witnesses,” various interpretations have been offered—such as angels, record‑keeping scribes, or prophets—but in light of other Qur’anic verses that present the prophets as witnesses over deeds, it appears that they are included, if not specifically intended, within a broader category that encompasses all who bear testimony. The subsequent verse delineates three defining characteristics of such wrongdoers: first, they obstruct others from the path of God in various ways—by sowing doubt, issuing threats, or offering temptations (الَّذِینَ یَصُدُّونَ عَنْ سَبِیلِ اللهِ). Second, they seek to distort the straight path by introducing alterations, omissions, subjective interpretations, and concealment of truth (وَیَبْغُونَھَا عِوَجًا). Third, they deny the Hereafter (وَھُمْ بِالْآخِرَةِ ھُمْ کَافِرُونَ), and this denial constitutes the fundamental source of their deviation, for belief in the Resurrection nurtures moral and spiritual discipline. All these elements are subsumed under the comprehensive meaning of “ظلم,” which encompasses every form of deviation from the proper order of truth, whether in belief, conduct, or perception. Despite all this, the following verse affirms that they cannot escape divine punishment nor elude God’s dominion (اُوْلٰئِکَ لَمْ یَکُونُوا مُعْجِزِینَ فِی الْاَرْضِ), nor will they have any protectors besides Him (وَمَا کَانَ لَھُمْ مِنْ دُونِ اللهِ مِنْ اَوْلِیَاءَ). Their punishment, moreover, will be multiplied (یُضَاعَفُ لَھُمُ الْعَذَابُ), because not only were they themselves misguided and corrupt, but they also led others into misguidance; thus, they bear the burden of their own sins as well as those they caused in others, without diminishing the liability of the latter. This principle is corroborated elsewhere in the Qur’an, for example: وَلَیَحْمِلُنَّ اَثْقَالَھُمْ وَاَثْقَالًا مَعَ اَثْقَالِھِمْ On the Day of Resurrection, they shall bear their own burdens and additional burdens along with them. Furthermore, numerous traditions indicate that one who establishes an evil practice incurs the sin of all who follow it, while one who establishes a good practice receives the reward of all who act upon it. The verse then identifies the root cause of their misfortune: they neither possessed the capacity to hear nor to see (مَا کَانُوا یَسْتَطِیعُونَ السَّمْعَ وَمَا کَانُوا یُبْصِرُونَ). In essence, when these two faculties—hearing and sight—fail in their proper function, a person neither apprehends truth nor guides others correctly. This expression signifies not an actual incapacity, but rather a moral and spiritual aversion, as though hearing the truth were so burdensome that they were incapable of bearing it. Such incapacity does not absolve them of responsibility, for it arises from conditions they themselves have cultivated, despite possessing the ability to avoid such a state. The subsequent verse summarizes their ultimate loss: “they are the ones who have lost their own souls” (اُوْلٰئِکَ الَّذِینَ خَسِرُوا اَنفُسَھُمْ), which represents the greatest possible loss for a human being. It further states that the false objects of their devotion will vanish from them and disappear (وَضَلَّ عَنْھُمْ مَا کَانُوا یَفْتَرُونَ). Finally, the concluding verse delivers a definitive judgment: they shall undoubtedly be the greatest losers in the Hereafter (لَاجَرَمَ اَنَّھُمْ فِی الْآخِرَةِ ھُمَ الْاَخْسَرُونَ). The expression “لاجرم” conveys inevitability and certainty, indicating that nothing can avert this outcome. Having deprived themselves of the capacity for true perception, squandered the essential capital of their existence, and burdened themselves with both personal and derivative guilt, their loss is absolute and final.

See ayat 24 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, the condition of a group that had deviated from divine revelation was described; these two verses, in contrast, present the state of the true believers. First, it is stated: those who believe, perform righteous deeds, and humble themselves before their Lord, submitting in tranquility to Him—these are the inhabitants of Paradise, and they shall abide therein eternally (إِنَّ الَّذِینَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ وَاَخْبَتُوا إِلَیٰ رَبِّھِمْ اُوْلٰئِکَ اَصْحَابُ الْجَنَّةِ ھُمْ فِیھَا خَالِدُونَ).

Faith (ایمان), righteous action (عمل صالح), and submission before the call of truth are, in reality, three interrelated principles, for righteous action is the fruit of the tree of faith. A faith that does not yield the fruit of righteous action is so weak and insignificant that it cannot be regarded as of any real value. Likewise, humble submission and trust in the promises of the Lord are not separate from, but rather arise from, faith and righteous action, for true belief and pure conduct constitute the very essence of the human soul and spirit, and they are the source from which such elevated qualities and virtues emerge.

The term “اَخْبَتُوا” is derived from “اخبات,” whose root is “خبت” (on the pattern of “ثبت”), meaning a level and expansive tract of land upon which one may walk with ease and reassurance. For this reason, the term has come to signify tranquility and also humility and submission, for such terrain is both conducive to calm movement and, as it were, submissive and yielding before those who traverse it. Accordingly, the expression “اَخْبَتُوا إلیٰ رَبِّھِمْ” may be understood in any of the following senses—indeed, all three meanings may be intended simultaneously: The true believers are humble before God. They submit themselves entirely before their Lord. They possess inner assurance with respect to the promises of God. In every case, the expression indicates one of the highest qualities of the believers, the effect of which is reflected throughout the entirety of their lives. It is noteworthy that in a tradition from Imam Ja‘far al‑Sadiq (peace be upon him), one of his companions mentioned that there was a man among them named Kulayb who, whenever a saying of the Imam reached him, would immediately declare his submission to it, to such an extent that he became known as “Kulayb al‑Taslim.” The Imam said: may God have mercy upon him, and then added: do you know what “taslim” is? When they remained silent, he said: by God, it is the very “اخبات” mentioned in the divine statement: “الَّذِینَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ وَاَخْبَتُوا إلیٰ رَبِّھِمْ.” In the following verse, God illustrates the condition of these two groups through a clear and vivid parable, stating: the likeness of the two groups is that of the blind and the deaf, in contrast to the seeing and the hearing (مَثَلُ الْفَرِیقَیْنِ کَالْاَعْمَی وَالْاَصَمِّ وَالْبَصِیرِ وَالسَّمِیعِ). Are these two alike in their condition (ھَلْ یَسْتَوِیَانِ مَثَلًا)? Do you not, then, reflect (اَفَلَا تَذَکَّرُونَ)? As is established in the sciences of rhetoric, abstract truths are often clarified by comparison with sensory realities to render them accessible and vivid to general understanding. The Qur’an frequently employs this method, presenting profound and subtle matters through striking and beautiful analogies. In this instance, sight and hearing are the most effective sensory faculties for perceiving the realities of the material world. It is inconceivable that those deprived of both sight and hearing from birth could fully apprehend the realities of this world; such individuals would necessarily live in a condition of profound deprivation. In a similar manner, those who, through obstinacy, hostility to truth, prejudice, self‑interest, and arrogance, have effectively lost the faculties of seeing and hearing are incapable of perceiving the realities associated with the unseen realm, the effects of faith, the sweetness of divine worship, and the greatness of submission to the command of God. Such individuals resemble the blind and the deaf, living in the darkness of ignorance, whereas the believer, endowed with seeing eyes and listening ears, perceives every sign and hears every call, and, in light of this awareness, adopts the path that leads to felicity.

See ayat 28 for tafseer.

See ayat 28 for tafseer.

See ayat 28 for tafseer.

As stated at the beginning of the surah, within it are recounted significant portions from the histories of earlier prophets, intended to awaken reflection, draw attention to the realities of life, warn of the grievous fate of the transgressors, and delineate the path of success and felicity. Foremost among these is the account of the resolute prophet Nuh, whose story is presented across twenty‑six verses with emphasis upon its essential and foundational elements in a striking and admonitory manner. There is no doubt that the mission of Nuh, his sustained and intense struggle against the arrogant of his time, and the ultimate fate of those who opposed him constitute one of the most instructive and poignant lessons in human history. The verses first set forth this great call, stating: “We indeed sent Nuh to his people, and he said: I am for you a clear warner” (وَ لَقَدۡ اَرۡسَلۡنَا نُوۡحًا اِلٰی قَوۡمِہٖۤ۫ اِنِّیۡ لَکُمۡ نَذِیۡرٌ مُّبِیۡنٌ).

As previously noted, the Prophets were both warners and bearers of glad tidings; however, emphasis here is placed specifically upon “انذار” (warning), because the initial impact of any transformative movement begins with the declaration of danger and the issuing of warning. This is so because its effect in awakening those who are heedless and complacent is greater than that of glad tidings. In principle, a human being does not move from his position unless he perceives a serious danger; thus, the warnings and proclamations of danger by the Prophets functioned like a scourge striking the insensitive souls entrenched in misguidance, compelling any who possessed the capacity for movement to arise. For this reason, in many verses of the Qur’an (such as Surah al‑Hajj 49, al‑Shu‘ara 115, al‑‘Ankabut 50, Fatir 42, Sad 70, al‑Ahqaf 9, al‑Dhariyat 50, and others), when describing the mission of the Prophets, the term “نذیر” (warner) is consistently employed. In the subsequent verses, following this initial striking call, the essence of the prophetic mission is summarized in a single statement: “do not worship anyone except Allah” (اَنْ لَا تَعْبُدُوا إِلَّا اللهَ). Immediately thereafter, the theme of warning is reiterated: “indeed, I fear for you the punishment of a painful day” (إِنِّی اَخَافُ عَلَیْکُمْ عَذَابَ یَوْمٍ اَلِیمٍ). In reality, the foundation of the message of all Prophets rests upon the oneness and exclusive worship of God, and for this reason, in the narratives of the Prophets elsewhere in the Qur’an as well, this concise expression of monotheism appears as the summary of their دعوت. Indeed, if individuals and societies were to refrain from worshipping anything besides God—whether external idols or internal ones such as self‑interest, caprice, desire, wealth, status, power, or worldly attachments—then corruption and disorder would not arise within societies. When human beings do not submit to the idol of their own weakness and do not obey it, tyranny and exploitation cannot take root, nor would their consequences—humiliation, subjugation, dependence, and degradation—manifest. All forms of human misery, both individual and collective, ultimately stem from deviation from the worship of God and inclination toward idols and false powers. The reaction of the tyrants, the arrogant, and the possessors of wealth and power to this clear and profound call was, as expected, nothing more than a series of baseless objections and unfounded excuses, characteristic of oppressors in every age. They presented three principal responses to the call of Nuh. First, the leaders and wealthy elites among his people—who were disbelievers—said: “we see you as nothing but a human being like ourselves” (فَقَالَ الْمَلَاُ الَّذِینَ کَفَرُوا مِنْ قَوْمِہِ مَا نَرَاکَ إِلَّا بَشَرًا مِثْلَنَا). Implicit in this objection was the assumption that the bearer of divine revelation ought to be an angel rather than a human being, based on the erroneous notion that a human being is inferior in rank or less capable of conveying divine guidance. The term “الملاء” here refers to the influential elite—the people of authority and wealth to whom others look—yet who are, in reality, devoid of true substance. Such individuals are often the primary source of corruption within societies and are those who lead opposition against the Prophets. Second, they said: we do not see anyone following you except the lowest among us, those lacking awareness and foresight (وَمَا نَرَاکَ اتَّبَعَکَ إِلَّا الَّذِینَ ھُمْ اَرَاذِلُنَا بَادِی الرَّاْیِ). The term “اراذل” denotes those regarded as base or insignificant. However, in truth, the followers of Nuh were neither base nor inferior; rather, since the Prophets defended the oppressed and struggled against the arrogant, it was the marginalized—those deprived of wealth and power—who first responded to their call. In the eyes of the elites, who measured value by wealth and status, such individuals appeared insignificant. Their description as “بادی الرأی” suggests that they accepted the message at first glance, but in reality this reflected their freedom from stubbornness and prejudice. They were often pure‑hearted individuals, particularly youths, who quickly perceived the light of truth and recognized the sincerity of the Prophets through inner awareness. Third, they argued that, aside from being human and having followers who were, in their view, insignificant, Nuh possessed no superiority over them that would justify following him: “we do not see any excellence you have over us” (وَمَا نَرَیٰ لَکُمْ عَلَیْنَا مِنْ فَضْلٍ). Consequently, they concluded: “rather, we think you are liars” (بَلْ نَظُنُّکُمْ کَاذِبِینَ).

In the subsequent verses, the responses given by Nuh (peace be upon him) to these excuse‑making and fabricating individuals are presented. It is first stated: he said, “O my people! Consider: if I stand upon a clear proof from my Lord and He has granted me mercy from Himself for the execution of this mission, but this has been obscured from you due to your inattention—can you still deny my prophethood and refrain from following me?” (قَالَ یَاقَوْمِ اَرَاَیْتُمْ إِنْ کُنتُ عَلیٰ بَیِّنَةٍ مِنْ رَبِّی وَآتَانِی رَحْمَةً مِنْ عِنْدِہِ فَعُمِّیَتْ عَلَیْکُمْ). Exegetes have differed regarding which of the three objections raised by the people of Nuh (peace be upon him) this response addresses; however, upon reflection, it becomes evident that this comprehensive reply serves as an answer to all three. Their first objection was that he was merely a human being; he responded that although he was indeed human like them, divine grace had been bestowed upon him and he had been endowed with clear signs, and therefore his humanity did not preclude his bearing of this great mission, nor was it necessary for him to be an angel. Their second objection was that his followers were superficial and lacking discernment; he countered that, in reality, it was they who lacked understanding in denying such manifest truth, for he possessed clear evidences sufficient to convince any sincere seeker, whereas those veiled by arrogance, self‑interest, and worldly ambition had lost the capacity for true perception. Their third objection was that they perceived no superiority in him that would warrant following him; he replied that no greater distinction could exist than the divine mercy granted to him and the clear proofs placed at his disposal, which themselves attest to the truth of his claim. At the conclusion of the verse, it is stated: “shall we compel you to accept it while you are averse to it?” (اَنُلْزِمُکُمُوھَا وَاَنْتُمْ لَھَا کَارِھُونَ). This indicates that acceptance of truth cannot be imposed by force; rather, it depends upon inner receptivity and willingness to reflect upon and embrace the evident proofs presented.

See ayat 31 for tafseer.

See ayat 31 for tafseer.

As observed in the preceding verses, the self‑interested and pretext‑seeking people raised various objections against Nuh (peace be upon him), to which he offered clear and reasoned responses. In the verses under consideration, he continues to address their claims. First, he presents a fundamental proof of his prophethood, declaring: “O my people, I do not ask you for any wealth in return for this message” (وَیَا قَوْمِ لَا أَسْأَلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ مَالًا). “My reward rests solely with Allah” (إِنْ أَجْرِي إِلَّا عَلَى اللهِ). This statement plainly demonstrates that his دعوت is entirely free from material motivation. His aim is purely spiritual, seeking only divine recompense. No false claimant would willingly endure hardship, opposition, and distress without any worldly gain. Thus, this serves as a decisive criterion by which true leaders may be distinguished from opportunistic pretenders, whose actions are invariably connected—directly or indirectly—with material advantage. He then responds to those who demanded that the poor and socially humble believers be expelled from his company. With resolute finality, he declares: “I am not one to drive away those who have believed” (وَمَا أَنَا بِطَارِدِ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا). This is because “they shall meet their Lord” (إِنَّهُمْ مُلَاقُو رَبِّهِمْ); they possess dignity and worth in the sight of God and will stand before Him in the Hereafter. Accordingly, rejecting them on the basis of worldly considerations would be wholly unjustifiable. Although it is possible to interpret this statement as implying that God Himself will judge their inner sincerity, the more appropriate understanding is that their worth and accountability lie directly with God, not with human prejudice. He further declares: “I see you as a people who are ignorant” (وَلَٰكِنِّي أَرَاكُمْ قَوْمًا تَجْهَلُونَ). Their ignorance lies in their معيار of evaluation: they have lost the true standard of virtue and now judge superiority by wealth, social status, external rank, and age. In their estimation, those who are materially poor and socially humble are deemed insignificant and distant from divine favor. This is a clear misjudgment and a sign of profound ignorance. Moreover, their assumption that a prophet should be an angel further reflects their misguided thinking, for a human messenger is necessary to understand and address human needs, struggles, and conditions. In the next verse, he reinforces this argument: “O my people, who would protect me from Allah if I were to expel them?” (وَيَا قَوْمِ مَنْ يَنصُرُنِي مِنَ اللهِ إِن طَرَدتُّهُمْ). To reject righteous believers is not a trivial matter; it entails serious accountability before God. On the Day of Resurrection, such individuals would stand against him, and no one would be able to defend him. It is also possible that divine punishment could befall him even in this world. Thus, he admonishes them: “Will you not then reflect?” (اَفَلَا تَذَكَّرُونَ). Here, it is worth noting the distinction between “تفکّر” and “تذکّر”: the former refers to acquiring new knowledge through reflection, whereas the latter denotes recalling a truth already known—often rooted in human nature and innate disposition. The matters presented by Nuh (peace be upon him) belong to this latter category; they are truths that can be recognized through one’s innate awareness, yet have become obscured by arrogance, prejudice, selfishness, and heedlessness. Finally, in response to their expectation that he prove superiority through extraordinary claims, he clarifies: “I do not say to you that the خزائن الله are with me, nor do I claim knowledge of the unseen, nor do I say that I am an angel” (وَلَا أَقُولُ لَكُمْ عِندِي خَزَائِنُ اللهِ وَلَا أَعْلَمُ الْغَيْبَ وَلَا أَقُولُ إِنِّي مَلَكٌ). Such claims are characteristic of false pretenders; a true prophet never asserts them. The خزائن الله and علم الغیب belong exclusively to God, and being an angel is incompatible with the human condition required for guidance. Any claimant who asserts such attributes would thereby prove his own falsehood. In the concluding part of the verse, he again emphasizes the dignity of the marginalized believers: “I do not say of those whom you look upon with contempt that Allah will not grant them any good” (وَلَا أَقُولُ لِلَّذِينَ تَزْدَرِي أَعْيُنُكُمْ لَن يُؤْتِيَهُمُ اللهُ خَيْرًا). On the contrary, true خیر may belong precisely to them, even though they lack wealth and status. Their inner sincerity and faith determine their value before God. “اللهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا فِي أَنفُسِهِمْ”. As a messenger, his duty is to judge according to outward evidence, while knowledge of inner realities belongs to God alone. Should he act otherwise—by making false claims or rejecting sincere believers—he would indeed be counted among the wrongdoers (إِنِّي إِذًا لَّمِنَ الظَّالِمِينَ).

As has been repeatedly emphasized, absolute and unrestricted knowledge of the unseen (غیب) is exclusive to God. However, to the extent that He deems appropriate, He discloses portions of this knowledge to the Prophets and the Awliya. As stated in Surah al‑Jinn, verses 26–27: عَالِمُ الْغَیْبِ فَلَا یُظْھِرُ عَلَیٰ غَیْبِہِ اَحَدًا، إِلَّا مَنْ ارْتَضَیٰ مِنْ رَسُولٍ God is the Knower of the unseen, and He does not disclose His unseen knowledge to anyone, except to a messenger whom He chooses. Accordingly, there is no contradiction between the verses under discussion—which negate independent knowledge of the unseen for the Prophets—and other verses and traditions that attribute certain knowledge of the unseen to the Prophets (peace be upon them) or the Imams (peace be upon them). Direct and intrinsic knowledge of the unseen belongs exclusively to God, while whatever knowledge others possess is granted through divine instruction. Therefore, it is always contingent upon divine will and limited to the extent God determines. (Explanatory note: for further clarification, see Tafsir‑e‑Namuna, vol. 3, p. 351, and vol. 4, p. 357 (Urdu translation).)

In these verses, one once again encounters the recurring historical reality that those who possess power, wealth, and a materialistic outlook tend to evaluate all things through a purely material lens. Consequently, in their estimation, honor and dignity are measured solely by wealth and social rank. It is therefore unsurprising that they regarded the poor yet sincere believers as “اراذل” (base or lowly) and looked upon them with contempt. This pattern was not confined to the people of Nuh (peace be upon him), who considered the oppressed believers—especially the awakened and resolute youths who gathered around him—as ignorant, short‑sighted, and insignificant. Rather, history testifies that the same logic was employed against other prophets as well, particularly in relation to the Prophet Muhammad and the earliest believers. Indeed, this tendency remains observable even in the present age: arrogant and Pharaoh‑like elites, relying upon their worldly power, continue to accuse sincere believers with similar labels, repeating the language and attitudes of earlier oppressors. However, when a corrupt environment is purified through a divine revolution, such false معیار (standards) of value are cast aside into the refuse of history along with other illusions. In their place emerge genuine and human معیار—those upon which the true structure of life rests, which are grounded in objective realities, and from which a pure, flourishing, and liberated society derives its strength. Among these authentic معیار are: faith, knowledge, awareness, self‑sacrifice, piety, chastity, martyrdom, courage, experience, vigilance, sound leadership, and organizational capability.

Some exegetes, such as the author of Tafsir al‑Manar, upon reaching this verse, briefly refer to those who affirm knowledge of the unseen for entities other than God or who seek the resolution of their difficulties from such beings. They state that these two matters—knowledge of the unseen and the possession of divine خزائن—are explicitly negated by the Qur’an with respect to the Prophets, yet certain innovators among Muslims and People of the Book attribute them to saints and holy persons. However, if what is intended by this assertion is the absolute negation of all forms of knowledge of the unseen—even that which is imparted through divine teaching—then such a position is in clear contradiction with the explicit statements of the Qur’an. And if the intention is to deny seeking intercession or supplication from the Prophets and Awliya in the sense that they may pray to God for the resolution of difficulties, then this too stands in opposition to both Qur’anic teachings and well‑established traditions in both Shi‘i and Sunni sources.

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

In these verses, reference is made to the continuation of the dialogue between Nuh (peace be upon him) and his people. The first verse reports their statement: “O Nuh! You have engaged in disputation with us and have greatly prolonged our disputation; now desist, for you have spoken to us excessively, and there remains no scope for further discussion” (قَالُوا یَانُوحُ قَدْ جَادَلْتَنَا فَاَکْثَرْتَ جِدَالَنَا). They further declared: “If you are truthful, then bring upon us that which you have promised” (فَاْتِنَا بِمَا تَعِدُنَا إنْ کُنتَ مِنَ الصَّادِقِینَ). This resembles the conduct of individuals who, when confronted with argument and accompanied by implicit warning, dismiss both reasoning and admonition, urging the other party to cease discussion and to bring forth whatever consequences he claims without delay. This implies that they neither acknowledge the validity of the arguments nor fear the warnings, nor are they willing to listen further. Such a response to the compassionate and lucid discourse of the divine messengers—discourse akin to pure and refreshing water—reflects extreme obstinacy, prejudice, and ignorance. From the speech of the people of Nuh, it is also evident that he exerted prolonged and sustained effort for their guidance, availing himself of every possible occasion to instruct and admonish them. His striving reached such an extent that the misguided community began to express weariness and aversion toward his words and exhortations. This reality is further clarified in other Qur’anic passages concerning Nuh, particularly in Surah Nuh, verses 5–13, wherein this theme is elaborated in detail: قَالَ رَبِّ إنِّی دَعَوْتُ قَوْمِی لَیْلًا وَنَھَارًا فَلَمْ یَزِدْھُمْ دُعَائِی إِلَّا فِرَارًا وَإِنِّی کُلَّمَا دَعَوْتُھُمْ لِتَغْفِرَ لَھُمْ جَعَلُوا اَصَابِعَھُمْ فِی آذَانِھِمْ وَاسْتَغْشَوْا ثِیَابَھُمْ وَاَصَرُّوا وَاسْتَکْبَرُوا اسْتِکْبَارًا ثُمَّ إِنِّی دَعَوْتُھُمْ جِھَارًا ثُمَّ إِنِّی اَعْلَنتُ لَھُمْ وَاَسْرَرْتُ لَھُمْ إِسْرَارًا My Lord! I called my people to You night and day, yet my calling only increased them in flight from faith. Whenever I invited them so that You might forgive them, they thrust their fingers into their ears and wrapped their garments around themselves. They persisted in opposition and displayed arrogance and rebellion. Then I called them openly, and I also conveyed the message to them publicly and privately; I continued to exhort them persistently, but they did not, in any manner, incline their ears toward my words. The term “جَادَلْتَنَا” in the verse is derived from “مجادلہ,” which originally signifies the twisting and tightening of a rope; hence, a hunting falcon is described as “اجدل” because it moves with intricate turns. Subsequently, this term came to denote disputation in which the interlocutor engages in complex argumentative exchange. Although “جدال,” “مراء,” and “حجاج” are semantically related, it has been observed that “مراء” carries an element of censure, being used when one obstinately argues in support of falsehood, whereas “جدال” and “مجادلہ” do not necessarily entail such condemnation. As for the distinction between “جدال” and “حجاج,” the former pertains to refuting the opponent and turning him away from his position, while the latter denotes presenting argumentation in support of a doctrine and inviting others to it. In response to such disregard, obstinacy, and futile speech, Nuh (peace be upon him) gave a concise reply: “It is only Allah who will bring it upon you, if He wills” (قَالَ إِنَّمَا یَاْتِیکُمْ بِہِ اللهُ إنْ شَاءَ). Thus, the fulfillment of these warnings and the descent of punishment lie beyond his authority and are not within his control; he is merely a messenger submitted to the divine command. Therefore, they should not demand punishment from him. Rather, they should know that when the decree of punishment arrives, “you will not be able to escape His dominion nor find any refuge” (وَمَا اَنْتُمْ بِمُعْجِزِینَ). The term “اعجاز” derives from rendering another incapable, and is employed in various contexts: at times referring to obstructing another’s action, at times to overcoming an opponent, or to securing oneself against him. All such meanings may be encompassed in the present verse, indicating that they cannot in any manner evade the divine punishment. It is then further stated: “and my counsel will not benefit you, even if I desire to advise you, if Allah wills to lead you astray” (وَلَا یَنفَعُکُمْ نُصْحِی إنْ اَرَدْتُّ اَنْ اَنصَحَ لَکُمْ إنْ کَانَ اللهُ یُرِیدُ اَنْ یُغْوِیَکُمْ). Finally, it is declared: “He is your Lord, and to Him you shall return” (ھُوَ رَبُّکُمْ وَإِلَیْہِ تُرْجَعُونَ), indicating that all their existence and being lie within His dominion, and that they will ultimately return to Him.

From the study of this verse, a question immediately arises—one that has also been noted by many exegetes—namely, how it can be possible that God intends to lead someone astray. Would this not imply compulsion and coercion, and is such a notion compatible with the established principle that human beings possess free will and volition? The answer is that, as has been clarified in the preceding discussions and repeatedly emphasized, a person may persist in certain actions to such an extent that their ultimate consequence becomes enduring misguidance and a permanent state of deviation, removing any inclination to return to the truth. Continuous obstinacy, persistent insistence upon sin, and hostility toward truthful and sincere guides place such a heavy veil over human understanding that no capacity remains to perceive even the slightest ray of truth and reality. Since this condition is the result of actions performed by human beings themselves, it in no way supports the notion of compulsion; rather, it constitutes an expression of human choice. What pertains to God is that He has placed such effects within these actions. The verses of the Qur’an also allude to this reality, as has been indicated in connection with Surah al‑Baqarah, verse 7, and in other contexts. In the final verse under discussion, a statement appears in the form of a parenthetical remark, reinforcing the themes presented in the preceding and subsequent verses concerning the account of Nuh. It is stated: the opponents say that this (Muhammad صلى الله علیہ وآلہ وسلم) has fabricated it himself and attributed it to God (اَمْ یَقُولُونَ افْتَرَاہُ). In response, it is said: if I have fabricated it and falsely attributed it to God, then the burden of that offense lies upon me (قُلْ إِنْ افْتَرَیْتُہُ فَعَلَیَّ إجْرَامِی), but I am free from what you commit of wrongdoing (وَاَنَا بَرِیءٌ مِمَّا تُجْرِمُونَ).

The term “اِجْرام” is derived from the root “جرم” (on the pattern of “جہل”), which, as previously indicated, originally signifies the act of plucking unripe fruit. Subsequently, it came to be used for every reprehensible or undesirable action, and it is likewise applied to inducing another toward sin. Since the human being, in essence and by nature, is connected to spirituality and purity, when he commits sin he becomes severed from that divine bond.

With regard to the final verse under discussion, some exegetes have suggested that it does not pertain to the Prophet Muhammad, blessings and peace be upon him and his family, but rather to Nuh (peace be upon him), since all the surrounding verses relate to him and the subsequent verses also continue his account; therefore, it may appear more appropriate that this verse likewise refers to Nuh, and they consider its interpretation as a parenthetical statement to be contrary to the apparent context. However, upon careful consideration, it becomes evident that: firstly, a nearly identical expression, in the same wording, occurs in Surah al‑Ahqaf, verse 8, concerning the Prophet Muhammad; secondly, all that is mentioned about Nuh (peace be upon him) in these verses appears in the third‑person form, whereas the present verse is expressed in the second‑person address, and the rhetorical shift (التفات) from narration to direct address in this instance would be contrary to ظاهر; furthermore, if this verse were attributed to Nuh (peace be upon him), then expressions such as “یقولون,” which is in the present tense, and “قل,” which is in the imperative form, would require interpretive reconstruction. Thirdly, a tradition reported in Tafsir al‑Burhan from Imam Muhammad al‑Baqir and Imam Ja‘far al‑Sadiq indicates that this verse was revealed in response to the disbelievers of Mecca. On the basis of these considerations, it becomes clear that the verse pertains to the Prophet Muhammad, and was revealed as a reply to the accusations of false attribution directed against him. It should also be noted that the presence of a parenthetical statement does not imply irrelevance to the main discourse; rather, such statements serve to reinforce and support the principal argument while momentarily interrupting the continuity of expression, thereby providing rhetorical emphasis, engagement, and stylistic refinement. It is evident that such insertions are never entirely disconnected from the primary discourse, for otherwise they would contravene the established principles of eloquence and rhetoric, whereas eloquent speech characteristically incorporates such parenthetical expressions.

From a close reading of this verse, an objection may arise—one that has also been noted by many exegetes—namely, how it could be logically and rationally acceptable for the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله علیہ وآلہ وسلم) or Nuh (peace be upon him) to say to the disbelievers that if this statement is false, then its sin rests upon them. Does the acceptance of the sin of falsehood imply that their statement is true and corresponds to reality, and that people are therefore obliged to follow and obey them? The clarification of this matter can be derived from careful reflection upon the preceding verses. In reality, the intended meaning is that these statements, which are grounded in numerous rational proofs, even if—hypothetically—they were not from God, then the sin of such attribution would rest upon the speaker. However, the rational arguments themselves remain established in their own right, and those who oppose them will invariably fall into sin—indeed, into a sin that is continuous and enduring, as indicated by the use of “تُجْرِمُونَ,” a present‑tense form that typically denotes استمرار and دوام.

See ayat 39 for tafseer.

See ayat 39 for tafseer.

See ayat 39 for tafseer.

In these verses, the account of Nuh (peace be upon him) is presented. In reality, this account comprises several stages, each corresponding to a particular phase of Nuh’s struggle against the arrogant. The preceding verses described the stage of his persistent and resolute دعوت, during which he employed all available means. This phase extended over a prolonged period and resulted in only a small group embracing faith; although numerically limited, this group was outstanding in terms of quality and steadfastness. The verses under consideration refer to the second stage of this movement, marking the conclusion of the phase of تبلیغ and the commencement of preparation for the purification of society from the corrupt. It is stated: Nuh was informed by revelation that none of his people would believe except those who had already believed (وَاُوحِیَ إلیٰ نُوحٍ اَنَّہُ لَنْ یُؤْمِنَ مِنْ قَوْمِکَ إلاَّ مَنْ قَدْ آمَنَ). This indicates that the ranks had become completely distinct; further دعوت and reformation would yield no benefit, and the time had come to prepare for the final purification of society. At the end of the verse, Nuh is consoled: “do not grieve over what they used to do” (فَلَاتَبْتَئِسْ بِمَا کَانُوا یَفْعَلُونَ). This verse also implies that Allah discloses aspects of unseen realities to His prophets when necessary, as Nuh was informed that no additional individuals from among his people would believe. In any case, these sinful and obstinate individuals were now deserving of punishment—a punishment that would cleanse the world of their فساد and permanently liberate the believers from their influence. The decree of their drowning had already been issued, yet every effect requires appropriate means; thus, Nuh was instructed to construct a ship for the salvation of the faithful. Through this process, the believers would be further strengthened, and conclusive proof would be established against others. Accordingly, “construct the Ark under Our eyes and by Our revelation” (وَاصْنَعْ الْفُلْکَ بِاَعْیُنِنَا وَوَحْیِنَا). The expression “بِاَعْیُنِنَا” signifies that all efforts and endeavors are conducted under divine observation, thereby imparting reassurance and strength. The awareness of divine presence both empowers the human being and intensifies the sense of responsibility. The term “وَحْیِنَا” indicates that even the design and construction of the Ark were guided by divine revelation, which was necessary, since Nuh was not aware of the nature and magnitude of the impending deluge. At the conclusion of the verse, Nuh is warned not to intercede on behalf of the wrongdoers, for their destruction had been decisively decreed: (وَلَاتُخَاطِبْنِی فِی الَّذِینَ ظَلَمُوا إنَّھُمْ مُغْرَقُونَ). This demonstrates that intercession is not universally applicable but is subject to certain conditions; those who do not meet these conditions cannot be eligible for intercession or forgiveness. As for the people of Nuh, instead of reflecting even momentarily upon his message, they responded with mockery and ridicule. Whenever a group from among them passed by and saw him engaged in building the Ark, they would deride him: (وَیَصْنَعُ الْفُلْکَ وَکُلَّمَا مَرَّ عَلَیْہِ مَلَاٴٌ مِنْ قَوْمِہِ سَخِرُوا مِنْہُ). The term “ملاء” refers to the elites—those who, despite their influence, habitually ridicule the oppressed and regard them as inferior due to their lack of wealth and power. Their contempt persists irrespective of the nobility of beliefs, principles, or actions of others, and thus admonition and warning fail to affect them; their only remedy lies in divine punishment. It is reported that the elites of Nuh’s people adopted various forms of ridicule. Some mocked him for abandoning prophethood in favor of carpentry; others derided the construction of a ship on dry land; still others questioned the scale of the vessel. These conversations were not confined to isolated instances but became a subject of widespread discussion. They spoke derisively of Nuh and his followers, attributing their persistence to folly. In contrast, Nuh continued his task with unwavering determination, undeterred by their baseless remarks. The structure of the Ark gradually took shape, and at times he would respond: “If you mock us, then we too shall mock you as you mock” (قَالَ إنْ تَسْخَرُوا مِنَّا فَإنَّا نَسْخَرُ مِنْکُمْ کَمَا تَسْخَرُونَ). He alluded to the day when they would be overwhelmed by panic amid the storm, unable to find refuge, crying for rescue while surrounded by waves. On that day, the believers would indeed look upon their heedlessness with a form of ironic reversal of mockery. It is then declared: “you will soon come to know upon whom a humiliating punishment will descend, and upon whom a lasting torment will befall” (فَسَوْفَ تَعْلَمُونَ مَنْ یَاْتِیہِ عَذَابٌ یُخْزِیہِ وَیَحِلُّ عَلَیْہِ عَذَابٌ مُقِیم). This indicates that although the suffering inflicted by their opposition may appear harsh, it is temporary and accompanied by dignity, whereas divine punishment is both disgraceful and perpetual, and the two cannot be compared.

From the foregoing verses, it becomes clear that divine punishment does not possess a retaliatory character; rather, it serves the purpose of purifying the human community and eliminating those who are no longer worthy of continued existence, thereby allowing the righteous to endure. The implication is that an arrogant and corrupt community, for which no hope of belief remains, no longer possesses a rightful place within the order of creation and must therefore come to an end. Such was the condition of the people of Nuh, for the verses indicate that once there remained no expectation of further belief among them, the command was given to prepare for the construction of the Ark, and intercession or plea for forgiveness for the wrongdoers was prohibited. This state is also evident in the supplication and imprecation of this great prophet, as recorded in Surah Nuh: وَقَالَ نُوحٌ رَبِّ لَاتَذَرْ عَلَی الْاَرْضِ مِنَ الْکَافِرِینَ دَیَّارًا إنَّکَ إنْ تَذَرْھُمْ یُضِلُّوا عِبَادَکَ وَلَایَلِدُوا إلاَّ فَاجِرًا کَفَّارًا “My Lord! Do not leave upon the earth any inhabitant from among the disbelievers, for if You leave them, they will lead Your servants astray, and they will not beget except a transgressor, a disbeliever.” In principle, every being within the system of creation is brought into existence for a specific purpose. When a being deviates entirely from its purpose and closes upon itself all avenues of reform, its continued existence becomes devoid of justification. Thus, its cessation becomes inevitable. As expressed metaphorically: I possess neither freshness nor leaf, neither blossom nor fruit; I am left wondering why the cultivator has allowed me to remain.

Self‑interested and arrogant elites invariably ridicule those matters that do not serve their desires and passions. For this reason, deriding those particular truths that pertain to the lives of the oppressed constitutes an integral aspect of their conduct. It has often been observed that, in order to enliven their sinful gatherings and lend them an appearance of amusement, they seek out a poor yet faithful individual whom they may make the object of mockery and ridicule; and if such individuals are not present in a given assembly, they turn to speaking of one or more of them in their absence, making them the subject of derisive conversation and laughter. They consider themselves to be the ultimate possessors of intellect, and in their estimation, their unlawful wealth is itself evidence of their merit, personality, and status. Accordingly, they regard others as incompetent, insignificant, and devoid of worth. However, the Qur’an launches severe condemnation against such arrogant and haughty individuals, particularly censuring their mockery in strong terms. For example, in Islamic history it is reported that Abu Aqil al‑Ansari, a believing individual, earned his livelihood through manual labor. On one occasion, he remained awake throughout the night, drawing water from the wells of Medina and delivering it to people’s homes, thereby earning a small quantity of dates as wages. He then brought these dates to the Messenger of Islam, Muhammad, for the army preparing for the expedition of Tabuk. Some arrogant hypocrites present there ridiculed him intensely. At that point, the following Qur’anic verse was revealed, striking them with decisive force: الَّذِینَ یَلْمِزُونَ الْمُطَّوِّعِینَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِینَ فِی الصَّدَقَاتِ وَالَّذِینَ لَایَجِدُونَ إِلاَّ جُھْدَھُمْ فَیَسْخَرُونَ مِنْھُمْ سَخِرَ اللهُ مِنْھُمْ وَلَھُمْ عَذَابٌ اَلِیمٌ Those who disparage the voluntary contributors among the believers in matters of charity, and those who find nothing to give except their limited effort, and who therefore mock them—Allah will mock them, and for them is a painful punishment (al‑Tawbah: 79).

There is no doubt that the Ark of Nuh was not an ordinary vessel, because it accommodated not only the true believers but also pairs from every species of animals, and provisions sufficient to sustain both humans and animals for an extended period were present within it. Such a vast ship must have been unparalleled in its time; it was capable of withstanding the massive waves of a deluge whose magnitude was comparable to that of the world itself, without being destroyed. For this reason, some exegetical traditions state that the length of the Ark was one thousand two hundred cubits and its width six hundred cubits (one cubit being approximately half a meter). Furthermore, certain Islamic narrations report that forty years prior to the onset of the flood, a condition arose among the women of the people of Nuh such that no children were born to them; this was, in fact, a preliminary stage of their punishment.

See ayat 43 for tafseer.

See ayat 43 for tafseer.

See ayat 43 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses it was observed how Nuh (peace be upon him) and the true believers began constructing the Ark of salvation, how numerous difficulties confronted them, and how the unbelieving and arrogant majority mocked them. Through such mockery, the scoffers in fact prepared themselves for the flood that would cleanse the face of the earth from the impure existence of the arrogant disbelievers. The verses under consideration describe the third phase of this account, presenting a vivid portrayal of the descent of punishment upon that oppressive community. It is first stated: this condition continued until Our command came and the signs of punishment began to appear, and water gushed forth from the oven (حَتَّی إذَا جَاءَ اَمْرُنَا وَفَارَ التَّنُّورُ). The term “تنور” denotes the place where bread is baked. Exegetes have differed regarding the appropriateness of the emergence of water from the oven as a sign of the approaching flood. Some have suggested that it constituted a specific sign from God for Nuh so that he and his followers would prepare themselves and board the Ark with the necessary provisions. Others have interpreted “تنور” metaphorically, referring to the furnace of divine wrath becoming inflamed, an expression used in Arabic and Persian languages to signify the شدت of غضب. However, the more plausible interpretation is that the term is employed in its literal and customary sense, possibly referring to a particular oven, and intended to indicate that when water began to surge from a place ordinarily associated with fire, Nuh and his companions realized that conditions were rapidly changing and that a decisive upheaval was imminent. It is possible that the heedless community also observed water surging from their own ovens, yet, as always, they ignored these meaningful signs and did not pause even momentarily to reflect that perhaps an extraordinary event was forthcoming and that Nuh’s warnings might indeed be true. At this juncture, Nuh was commanded: “load upon it a pair from every kind” (قُلْنَا احْمِلْ فِیھَا مِنْ کُلٍّ زَوْجَیْنِ اثْنَیْنِ), so that the species might not perish, and “your family except those against whom the decree has already been passed, and the believers” (وَاَھْلَکَ إلاَّ مَنْ سَبَقَ عَلَیْہِ الْقَوْلُ وَمَنْ آمَنَ); yet “none believed with him except a few” (وَمَا آمَنَ مَعَہُ إلاَّ قَلِیل). This indicates on the one hand that Nuh’s unbelieving wife and his son, who had deviated from the path of faith, were not eligible to board the Ark, as the fundamental condition for entry was ایمان; and on the other hand it reveals that despite prolonged and persistent efforts extending over many years, only a small number accepted his message. According to some reports, their number was approximately eighty individuals, and some have even cited fewer. This demonstrates the extraordinary perseverance of this great prophet, who endured immense toil for the guidance of even a small group. Nuh then gathered the believers and instructed them, as the moment of the destructive flood approached: “In the name of Allah be its course and its anchorage” (بِاِسْمِ اللهِ مَجْرَاھَا وَمُرْسَاھَا), that is, to remember God at all times in motion and at rest, for “my Lord is indeed Forgiving and Merciful” (إنَّ رَبِّی لَغَفُورٌ رَحِیمٌ). Thereafter, the final stage commenced: dark clouds covered the sky like pieces of night, thunder roared continuously, lightning flashed intensely, and torrential rain began to fall with increasing شدت. The earth also burst forth with water, and streams gushed from every side, so that the waters of the heavens and the earth united. Soon the entire surface of the earth became a vast sea, with enormous waves rising like mountains; in this state “the Ark sailed with them amid waves like mountains” (وَھِیَ تَجْرِی بِھِمْ فِی مَوْجٍ کَالْجِبَالِ). Meanwhile, the son of Nuh stood apart. Nuh called out: “O my son! embark with us and do not be with the disbelievers” (وَنَادیٰ نُوحٌ ابْنَہُ وَکَانَ فِی مَعْزِلٍ یَابُنَیَّ ارْکَبْ مَعَنَا وَلَاتَکُنْ مَعَ الْکَافِرِینَ). Despite his مقام as a prophet and a compassionate guide, he continued to fulfill his duty until the final moment, hoping his words might influence his son. However, the influence of misguided companions prevailed, and the son arrogantly replied: “I shall seek refuge on a mountain which will protect me from the water” (قَالَ سَآوِی إلیٰ جَبَلٍ یَعْصِمُنِی مِنَ الْمَاءِ). Nuh responded: “Today there is no protection from the command of Allah except for whom He has mercy” (قَالَ لَاعَاصِمَ الْیَوْمَ مِنْ اَمْرِ اللهِ إلاَّ مَنْ رَحِمَ). At that moment, a wave intervened between them and swept the son away, and he became among the drowned (وَحَالَ بَیْنَھُمَا الْمَوْجُ فَکَانَ مِنَ الْمُغْرَقِینَ).

From the ظاهر of many Qur’anic verses, it appears that the flood of Nuh (peace be upon him) was not confined to a particular region but extended over the entire earth, since the term “ارض” is used in an absolute sense, as in: رَبِّ لَاتَذَرْ عَلَی الْاَرْضِ مِنَ الْکَافِرِینَ دَیَّارًا. Similarly, in Surah Hud it is stated: وَقِیلَ یَااَرْضُ ابْلَعِی مَائَکِ. Numerous historical accounts likewise suggest that the flood of Nuh was universal, and on this basis it is often said that all present human lineages descend from the three sons of Nuh—Ham, Sam, and Yafith—who survived. In natural history, there are references to periods of extensive flooding, sometimes termed eras of torrential rains; if these are not necessarily assigned to a period prior to the emergence of living beings, they may be considered compatible with the flood of Nuh. It has also been suggested in the natural history of the earth that the axis of the planet undergoes gradual تغییر, such that the North and South Poles interchange with the equator, and vice versa. If the vast quantities of ice located at the polar regions were to melt, the level of water in rivers and seas would rise significantly, inundating extensive landmasses, and the waters would emerge from the earth wherever fissures existed in the form of erupting springs. This expansion of water would in turn give rise to extensive cloud formation and increased rainfall. The fact that Nuh (peace be upon him) took specimens of animals within the Ark is also regarded as supporting the view of the flood’s universality. Likewise, certain traditions report that Nuh resided in Kufa, while other reports indicate that the flood extended as far as Mecca and the Ka‘bah; such accounts may also be considered as supporting evidence for a universal event. Nevertheless, despite these considerations, it cannot be entirely excluded that the flood of Nuh was confined to a specific region. This is because the term “ارض” in the Qur’an is frequently used not only for the entire globe but also for a particular expanse of land. For example, in the account of Bani Israel it is stated: وَاَوْرَثْنَا الْقَوْمَ الَّذِینَ کَانُوا یُسْتَضْعَفُونَ مَشَارِقَ الْاَرْضِ وَمَغَارِبَھَا, where “ارض” refers to a particular territory. It is also possible that animals were taken into the Ark in order to preserve species within the affected region, especially given that the relocation of animals across distant areas would not have been feasible at that time. Similarly, other contextual indications may be understood as supporting the possibility that the flood was regional in scope. It is also noteworthy that the flood of Nuh constituted a punishment directed at a specific rebellious community, and there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that the message of Nuh (peace be upon him) had reached the entirety of the inhabited world. Given the وسائل and means available in that period, it appears unlikely that the دعوت of a single prophet could extend simultaneously to all regions of the earth. In any case, the primary objective of the Qur’an in recounting this instructive narrative is to convey essential تربیتی lessons embedded within it. From this perspective, it is not of fundamental importance whether the flood was global or confined to a particular region; rather, the emphasis lies upon the moral and instructive dimensions of the event.

From the preceding verses it becomes evident that Nuh (peace be upon him) continued to preach to his son even after the commencement of the flood; this indicates that had he accepted faith, his belief would have been accepted. At this point, a question arises that, in light of other Qur’anic verses—some of which have already been cited—it appears that once punishment descends, the doors of repentance are closed. This is because, on such occasions, rebellious sinners, upon witnessing punishment with their own eyes, lose all اختیار and express repentance out of sheer اضطرار. Such repentance has no value, significance, or substance. The response to this issue may be derived through reflection upon the aforementioned verses. At the initial stage of the flood, there was no clear sign of punishment; rather, what was visible was intense and extraordinary rainfall. It was for this reason that the son of Nuh said to his father that he would take refuge on a mountain in order to escape drowning, assuming the phenomenon to be merely a natural event. In such circumstances, the doors of repentance remaining open does not constitute an anomaly. A second question that may arise in relation to the son of Nuh is why, at such a critical moment, Nuh addressed only his son and did not extend his دعوت to all people. It is possible that he had already fulfilled his duty of general دعوت for all, including his son; however, in relation to his son, he bore an additional responsibility, not only as a prophet but also as a father. It was on this basis that he emphasized his appeal to him in the final moments. According to some exegetes, there is another possible interpretation. They state that the son of Nuh at that moment was neither fully aligned with the disbelievers nor included among the believers; they infer this from the expression “وکان فی معزل” (he stood apart). Although his failure to join the believers rendered him deserving of punishment, his separation from the ranks of the disbelievers warranted that he be addressed with gentleness and compassion in the manner of دعوت. Furthermore, his partial detachment from the disbelievers may have led Nuh to hope that he had become remorseful. Attention to subsequent verses also gives rise to the possibility that the son of Nuh did not openly oppose his father, but rather resembled the منافقین, occasionally expressing outward agreement. It was for this reason that Nuh sought deliverance for him from God. In any case, the verse under discussion does not contradict those verses which state that the doors of repentance are closed at the time of the نزول of punishment.

As is well known, the Qur’an recounts the accounts of past peoples in order to provide moral instruction and to serve purposes of reform and تربیت. The portion of the narrative of Nuh (peace be upon him) that has been examined contains numerous lessons, some of which may be indicated as follows. First, the purification of the earth: although God is Merciful and Compassionate, it must not be forgotten that He is also Wise. The requirement of His wisdom is that when a community becomes corrupt and the دعوت of sincere admonishers and divinely appointed guides has no effect upon them, they no longer possess a rightful claim to continued existence. In such circumstances, God ultimately, through social transformations or natural and inherent revolutions, brings about the destruction of their societal order and eliminates them. This principle is not limited to the people of Nuh nor to any specific time or historical epoch; rather, it is a divine law applicable to all times and communities, including the present age, and it is possible that major global conflicts such as the First and Second World Wars may represent manifestations of such purification. Second, the question of why transformation occurred through a flood: although it is evident that a corrupt people must be destroyed regardless of the means, reflection upon Qur’anic verses reveals a correspondence between punishment and the nature of a community’s actions. Pharaoh relied upon the river Nile and its blessed waters as a source of strength, and that very source became the cause of his destruction. Nimrod trusted in his vast army, yet a small host of creatures overcame him and his companions. The people of Nuh were agriculturists whose prosperity depended largely upon rainfall; they regarded the life‑giving drops of rain as their primary support, yet ultimately it was rainfall that brought about their annihilation. From this it becomes evident how profoundly wisdom and deliberation operate within divine decrees. Likewise, when it is observed that rebellious human beings in the modern era are destroyed through the advanced weaponry upon which they rely, this should not be a matter of surprise. Third, the remembrance of God under all circumstances: the verses indicate that Nuh (peace be upon him) instructed his companions not to neglect the remembrance of God at any point, whether the Ark was in motion or at rest. All actions are to be performed in His name, with His remembrance and reliance upon His pure essence, in every state of movement and stillness. Whatever undertaking is not initiated in His name is incomplete and devoid of blessing, as expressed in the prophetic statement: کل امر ذی بال لم یذکر فیہ بسم اللّٰہ فھوابتر. The essential point is that the mention of God should not be formal or superficial; rather, it signifies that the action itself must be oriented toward a divine purpose. Material objectives come to an end upon reaching their culmination, whereas divine objectives endure, being eternal like the divine essence. Fourth, the weakness of worldly supports: human beings ordinarily seek support in times of difficulty—some rely upon wealth, others upon position, still others upon physical strength or intellectual capacity. However, as indicated in the verses and demonstrated by history, none of these possess even the slightest efficacy before the command of God. Against divine will, all such supports collapse like a spider’s web before a powerful storm. The son of Nuh was similarly deluded, imagining that a mountain would provide him refuge from the divine flood; yet a single wave ended his existence. For this reason, it is stated in certain supplications: ھارب منک الیک — “I flee from You to You,” meaning that even in the face of divine wrath, the only refuge is the divine essence itself. Fifth, the concept of the vessel of salvation: no flood can be survived without a means of rescue, and such a vessel need not be composed of wood or metal. At times, it is embodied in a guiding, life‑giving, and constructive intellectual and spiritual system that protects against the turbulent waves of deviant thought and conveys its adherents to the shore of salvation. Accordingly, traditions transmitted from the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله علیہ وآلہ وسلم) in both Shi‘i and Sunni sources liken his household—the Ahl al‑Bayt (peace be upon them)—to the Ark of Nuh, declaring that whoever boards it attains salvation, and whoever turns away from it is destroyed. It is reported by Hanish ibn Mughira that he came with Abu Dharr to the Ka‘bah, where Abu Dharr proclaimed that he had heard the Messenger of God say: مثل اھل بیتی مثل سفینة نوح من رکبھا نجیٰ. This analogy affirms that in times when intellectual, doctrinal, and social upheavals confront the Muslim community, the sole path to salvation lies in adherence to this guiding framework.

As was briefly indicated in the preceding verses, the surging waves of water ultimately encompassed all regions, and the level of the waters continued to rise progressively. The ignorant sinners assumed that it was an ordinary storm; they sought refuge in elevated places and mountains, yet the waters rose above them, and all places became submerged. The bodies of those transgressors, along with the remnants of their dwellings and means of livelihood, were visible amidst the foam of the waters. Nuh (peace be upon him) entrusted the control of the Ark to God, while the waves carried it from side to side. According to narrations, the Ark remained adrift for a full six months, from the beginning of the month of Rajab until the end of Dhu al‑Hijjah. In another report, it is stated that it remained in motion from the tenth of Rajab until the day of ‘Ashura (cited in Tafsir al‑Qurtubi, vol. 5, p. 3269; Tafsir Abu al‑Futuh al‑Razi, vol. 6, p. 278; Tafsir Majma‘ al‑Bayan, vol. 5, p. 164; and al‑Tabari, vol. 12, p. 29). During this period, the Ark traversed various regions, and according to some traditions, it even passed through the land of Mecca and the vicinity of the Ka‘bah. Eventually, the command was issued for the cessation of punishment and for the earth to return to its normal condition. This command, its process, details, and outcome are presented in the verse in six brief yet highly eloquent statements. It is first declared: “O earth, swallow your water” (وَقِیلَ یَااَرْضُ ابْلَعِی مَائَکِ), and it was said to the sky: “O sky, withhold” (وَیَا سَمَاءُ اَقْلِعِی), “and the water subsided” (غِیضَ الْمَاءُ), “and the matter was concluded” (وَقُضِیَ الْاَمْرُ), “and the Ark came to rest upon al‑Judi” (وَاسْتَوَتْ عَلَی الْجُودِیِّ), and it was proclaimed: “Away with the wrongdoing people” (وَقِیلَ بُعْدًا لِلْقَوْمِ الظَّالِمِینَ). Despite their brevity, these expressions are profoundly effective and evocative; they are vivid, living expressions, and despite their aesthetic beauty, they are deeply stirring. According to some Arab scholars, this verse is among the most eloquent and rhetorically powerful passages of the Qur’an. Historical and narrative reports testify to this, describing how certain disbelievers of Quraysh attempted to compose speech comparable to the Qur’an. They prepared themselves for forty days with the finest provisions and comforts, intending to produce similar expressions, but upon encountering this verse, its impact so overwhelmed them that they acknowledged that no human speech could resemble it, abandoned their effort, and dispersed in despair (cited in Majma‘ al‑Bayan, vol. 5, p. 165; Ruh al‑Ma‘ani, vol. 12, p. 57).

Many exegetes have stated that Mount Judi, upon which the Ark of Nuh (peace be upon him) came to rest and which is mentioned in the aforementioned verses, is the well‑known mountain near Mosul (as reported in Majma‘ al‑Bayan, Ruh al‑Ma‘ani, and Tafsir al‑Qurtubi under the relevant verse). Other exegetes have considered it to be located within the حدود of Sham, or near Amid, or among the northern mountains of Iraq. In the work Al‑Mufradat, Raghib has stated that it is the mountain located between Mosul and Al‑Jazirah (Al‑Jazirah being a locality in northern Iraq, distinct from the present‑day Algeria or Jazirah). It is not unlikely that all these identifications ultimately refer to the same location, since Mosul, Amid, and Al‑Jazirah are all situated within the northern regions of Iraq and lie near Sham. Some exegetes have proposed that “Judi” refers to any firm mountain or stable land, meaning that the Ark came to rest upon solid ground suitable for disembarkation; however, the well‑known and widely accepted interpretation remains the first. In the book A‘lam al‑Qur’an, a detailed investigation of Mount Judi is presented. According to this, Judi is the name of the mountain upon which the Ark of Nuh came to rest, and it is mentioned in Surah Hud, verse 44, in a manner comparable to the accounts found in the Torah. Three principal views regarding its location are recorded. The first view, attributed to Isfahani, states that Mount Judi is located in Arabia and is one of the two mountains within the dominion of the tribe of Tayy’. The second view holds that Mount Judi is the Kardin range, located northeast of Jazirah Ibn ‘Umar and east of the Tigris near Mosul. The Kurds refer to it as Kardo, the Greeks as Jordin, and the Arabs as Judi. In the Chaldean and Syriac translations of the Torah, the place where the Ark came to rest is identified as the fortress of Kardin. Arab geographers have likewise identified the Qur’anic Mount Judi with this mountain, and it has been reported that fragments of the Ark remained upon its summit until the Abbasid period, and that idolaters visited them. There also exists in Babylonian narratives a story similar to that of the flood of Nuh. Additionally, it is possible that a flood occurred in the Tigris region, affecting the inhabitants of that area. Assyrian inscriptions, known as Masir inscriptions, are found on Mount Judi, in which the name “Araratu” appears. The third view, based on translations of the present Torah, identifies the resting place of the Ark with the mountains of Ararat, specifically Mount Masis in Armenia. The author of Qamus al‑Kitab al‑Muqaddas has regarded the first view as erroneous and states that, according to traditions, the Ark came to rest upon that mountain known among Arabs as Judi, among Iranians as Kuh‑e Nuh, and among Turks as Kardagh, meaning slope, situated near the Aras River. It is also stated that until the fifth century, Armenians were not aware of Mount Judi, and that subsequently translators of the Torah may have erred by rendering the Kurdish mountain as Ararat, leading to this interpretation among Armenian scholars. It is also suggested that this notion arose because the Assyrians referred to the mountains north and south of Lake Van as “Ararat” or “Araratu.” It is reported that after the flood ended, Nuh (peace be upon him) constructed a mosque upon the summit of Mount Judi. Armenian traditions also state that at the foot of the mountain lies a locality known as Thamanin or Thaman, which was the first place where the companions of Nuh disembarked (as cited in A‘lam al‑Qur’an by Khazaili, p. 281).

See ayat 47 for tafseer.

See ayat 47 for tafseer.

It was stated that the son of Nuh did not heed the counsel of his father, and until his final breath he did not abandon his obstinacy and futile conduct, ultimately perishing in the waves of the flood. In the verses under discussion, another dimension of this narrative is presented. When Nuh (peace be upon him) saw his son amidst the waves, paternal compassion was stirred, and he recalled the divine promise concerning the salvation of his family. He turned toward the divine presence and said: “My Lord! indeed my son is of my family, and surely Your promise is true, and You are the most just of judges” (وَنَادیٰ نُوحٌ رَبَّہُ فَقَالَ رَبِّ إنَّ ابْنِی مِنْ اَھْلِی وَإنَّ وَعْدَکَ الْحَقُّ وَاَنْتَ اَحْکَمُ الْحَاکِمِینَ). This promise refers to that which is mentioned earlier in the same surah, verse 40: قُلْنَا احْمِلْ فِیھَا مِنْ کُلٍّ زَوْجَیْنِ اثْنَیْنِ وَاَھْلَکَ إلاَّ مَنْ سَبَقَ عَلَیْہِ الْقَوْلُ, where Nuh was commanded to take on board pairs of every kind and his family, except those against whom the decree had already been issued. Nuh (peace be upon him) assumed that the expression “إلاَّ مَنْ سَبَقَ عَلَیْہِ الْقَوْلُ” referred only to his unbelieving wife, and that his son Kan‘an was not included within it; therefore, he presented this supplication. However, he received an immediate response—an admonitory response that revealed a profound reality, namely that the bond of creed and principle transcends the bond of lineage. It was said: “O Nuh! he is not of your family” (قَالَ یَانُوحُ إنَّہُ لَیْسَ مِنْ اَھْلِکَ), “indeed, he is an unrighteous act” (إنَّہُ عَمَلٌ غَیْرُ صَالِحٍ). Thus, due to the severance of doctrinal and spiritual affiliation, the biological relationship ceased to hold any significance. It was further stated: “so do not ask Me about that of which you have no knowledge” (فَلَاتَسْاَلْنِی مَا لَیْسَ لَکَ بِہِ عِلْمٌ), “indeed, I admonish you lest you become among the ignorant” (إنِّی اَعِظُکَ اَنْ تَکُونَ مِنَ الْجَاھِلِینَ). Nuh (peace be upon him) realized that such a supplication was not appropriate in the divine presence, and that the salvation of such a son could not be included within the promise regarding his family. Accordingly, he turned again to God and said: “My Lord! I seek refuge in You from asking You that of which I have no knowledge” (قَالَ رَبِّ إنِّی اَعُوذُ بِکَ اَنْ اَسْاَلَکَ مَا لَیْسَ لِی بِہِ عِلْمٌ), “and unless You forgive me and have mercy upon me, I shall be among the losers” (وَإلاَّ تَغْفِرْ لِی وَتَرْحَمْنِی اَکُنْ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِینَ).

Some exegetes have suggested that there is an implied word in this verse, and that its intended meaning is: “انہ ذو عمل غیر صالح,” that is, your son is one who possesses unrighteous conduct. However, upon reflection, it is observed that at times a human being becomes so deeply immersed in a particular action that he appears to embody that very action itself. This phenomenon is frequently encountered in the literatures of various languages; for example, it is said that a certain individual is “entirely generosity” or “entire corruption,” indicating that he is so profoundly engaged in that trait that his very being has become synonymous with it. In the same manner, the son of the prophet remained in the company of the wicked and became so deeply absorbed in their corrupt actions and erroneous beliefs that his very existence came to represent an “unrighteous act.” Although the expression under discussion is highly concise, it reflects a significant reality: O Nuh, had evil, oppression, and فساد been merely superficial aspects of this individual, there might have remained the possibility of intercession; however, since he has become entirely immersed in corruption and ruin, he is no longer deserving of such consideration, and therefore no request should be made on his behalf. Some exegetes have advanced the view that the individual in question was not, in reality, the biological son of Nuh (peace be upon him), or that he was the illegitimate child of his wife. This interpretation does not appear to be correct, because the statement “انہ عمل غیر صالح” functions as a causal explanation for “انہ لیس من اھلک,” that is, when it is stated that “he is not of your family,” the meaning is that, in terms of character and disposition, he is distinct from you, even though his lineage may be connected to you.

In the foregoing verse, attention to the dialogue of Nuh (peace be upon him) and the divine response to him raises the question as to why Nuh did not initially recognize that his son was not included within the divine promise. This may be explained by noting that the condition of the son was not entirely clear; at times he appeared among the believers and at other times among the disbelievers, and his hypocritical disposition gave rise to outward ambiguity for observers. Moreover, Nuh (peace be upon him) possessed a profound sense of responsibility toward his son, combined with the natural and inherent affection that every father bears for his child, and prophets are not exempt from this human disposition. It was due to this combination of responsibility and affection that he made such a supplication. However, when the true state of affairs became apparent to him, he immediately turned toward the divine presence in repentance and sought forgiveness. Although no sin had been committed on his part, the مقام of prophethood requires a heightened degree of attentiveness in speech and action; thus, this instance is regarded as a case of ترک اولیٰ. For this reason, he sought forgiveness from God. From this discussion, another question is also clarified, namely whether prophets commit sin when they seek forgiveness in such contexts.

From the foregoing verses, another elevated lesson in human تربیت emerges from the account of Nuh (peace be upon him). This is a lesson that holds no meaningful place within materialist systems, yet within a divine and spiritual framework it assumes foundational significance. In this perspective, material relationships—such as lineage, kinship, friendship, and companionship—are always subordinate to spiritual bonds. Within this system, familial and genealogical ties hold no significance in comparison to ideological and spiritual affiliation. Where such ideological connection exists, even a distant individual such as Salman al‑Farsi—who was neither from the family of the Prophet, nor from Quraysh, nor from Mecca, nor even originally Arab—comes to be regarded as part of the Prophet’s household, as expressed in the well‑known tradition: سلمان منا اھل البیت. Conversely, the immediate biological son of a prophet such as Nuh is rejected due to the severance of ideological connection: انہ لیس من اھلک. This reality may appear difficult to accept from a materialistic standpoint, yet it is a principle observable across all revealed religions. For this reason, the traditions of the Ahl al‑Bayt contain explicit and emphatic statements concerning those who claim affiliation in name alone but whose lives do not reflect adherence to their teachings and practical programs. These traditions further elucidate the same principle articulated in the verses under discussion. It is reported from Imam Ali ibn Musa al‑Rida (peace be upon him) that he once asked his companions how people interpret the verse: انہ عمل غیر صالح. One of those present replied that some consider it to mean that the son of Nuh, Kan‘an, was not truly his biological son. The Imam responded: “It is not so; he was certainly his son. However, when he disobeyed God, his affiliation with his father was negated. Likewise, whoever among us does not obey God is not of us.” Similarly, various traditions indicate that individuals who outwardly identify as Muslims or as adherents of the school of the Ahl al‑Bayt may, through their conduct, be excluded from that affiliation. Among such statements are: “من غش مسلما فلیس منا,” indicating that one who deceives fellow Muslims is not of us; “لیس بولی لی من اکل مال مؤمن حراما,” expressing that one who unjustly consumes the wealth of a believer is not among the loyal; and statements affirming that those who oppress others, neglect self‑accountability, or fail to respond to the call for assistance are not to be counted among the true adherents. These traditions invalidate the assumption that nominal affiliation suffices. Rather, they establish that belonging to the path of divine guides is contingent upon faith in the principles of that path and adherence to its practical demands. All relationships and identities must therefore be evaluated according to this معيار, which prioritizes commitment to divine guidance over all other considerations.

See ayat 49 for tafseer.

These are the final verses in this surah concerning the account of Nuh (peace be upon him), and they refer to his disembarkation from the Ark and the resumption of normal life upon the earth. In the first verse it is stated: it was said to Nuh, descend in peace from Us and with blessings upon you and upon communities among those who are with you (قِیلَ یَانُوحُ اھْبِطْ بِسَلَامٍ مِنَّا وَبَرَکَاتٍ عَلَیْکَ وَعَلیٰ اُمَمٍ مِمَّنْ مَعَکَ). There is no doubt that the flood had disrupted all آثار of life; naturally inhabited lands, flourishing pastures, and verdant gardens had all been reduced to desolation. At such a moment, there was a serious concern that Nuh and his companions might face great hardship in sustaining life and securing provisions. However, God reassured these believers that the doors of divine blessing would be opened for them and that they need not be anxious regarding sustenance and livelihood. Furthermore, it was possible that Nuh (peace be upon him) and his followers might have feared for their safety, given the remaining stagnant waters, marshes, and muddy terrain after the flood. God therefore assured them that no danger would befall them, and that the same divine power which had destroyed the wrongdoers through the flood would now provide a favorable environment for the safety and prosperity of the believers. This brief expression demonstrates how the Qur’an addresses even minor concerns with precision and eloquence. The term “اُمم” is the plural of “امت,” indicating that multiple communities were present with Nuh. This may refer either to the fact that each of those with him became the origin of a distinct community, or that the group itself comprised members of different tribes and peoples, collectively forming multiple communities. Another possibility is that the term “اُمم” here refers to the various categories of animals that accompanied Nuh, since the Qur’an itself employs the term “امت” for animals, as in: وَمَا مِنْ دَابَّةٍ فِی الْاَرْضِ وَلَا طَائِرٍ یَطِیرُ بِجَنَاحَیْہِ إِلَّا اُمَمٌ اَمْثَالُکُمْ. According to this understanding, just as Nuh and his companions lived in safety and blessing under divine grace, so too did the animals that disembarked from the Ark continue their existence under divine protection. It is then stated that despite this renewed beginning, there would arise in the future many communities from among the descendants of the believers, who would be granted diverse forms of نعمت, yet would fall into arrogance and heedlessness, after which painful punishment would afflict them (وَاُمَمٌ سَنُمَتِّعُھُمْ ثُمَّ یَمَسُّھُمْ مِنَّا عَذَابٌ اَلِیمٌ). Thus, this selection of the righteous and purification through the flood does not represent a final or permanent reform; rather, until humanity reaches its ultimate stage of development, individuals will continue to misuse free will and at times deviate into فساد, thereby incurring punishment. It is noteworthy that the expression “سَنُمَتِّعُھُمْ” is immediately followed by mention of punishment, indicating that when individuals of weak faith are granted abundant blessings, instead of gratitude and obedience, they often become prone to arrogance and rebellion, breaking their bonds with God. It has been said that those who enjoy worldly prosperity are often led astray, because ignorance and heedlessness dominate them, and they focus solely upon the world, its construction, and its pleasures. Finally, the concluding verse provides a general reference to the entire narrative: these are among the unseen accounts which We reveal to you (تِلْکَ مِنْ اَنْبَاءِ الْغَیْبِ نُوحِیھَا إلَیْکَ); neither you nor your people knew them before this (مَا کُنتَ تَعْلَمُھَا اَنْتَ وَلَا قَوْمُکَ مِنْ قَبْلِ ہٰذَا). Thus, reflecting upon these events and the steadfastness of Nuh (peace be upon him) despite severe trials, the command is given: persevere, for the ultimate outcome belongs to the God‑fearing (فَاصْبِرْ إِنَّ الْعَاقِبَةَ لِلْمُتَّقِینَ).

1. The veracity of prophetic narratives: The Qur’an presents the authentic accounts of the Prophets. The final verse under discussion indicates that the preservation of these narratives from all forms of distortion and deviation is only possible through divine revelation. Otherwise, the historical records of earlier peoples have become so intermixed with legends and fabrications that distinguishing truth from falsehood becomes exceedingly difficult, and the older such histories are, the more distorted they tend to become. Therefore, the presentation of the uncorrupted accounts of the Prophets and past communities itself constitutes evidence of the truth of the Qur’an and the veracity of the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him and his family). 2. Prophets and knowledge of the unseen: Contrary to the view of some, the final verse under consideration indicates that the Prophets did possess knowledge of the unseen, but this knowledge was received solely through divine revelation and only to the extent that God willed. It was not intrinsic or self‑derived knowledge. Thus, those verses which negate knowledge of the unseen refer to the absence of independent knowledge, affirming that whatever knowledge they possessed was granted by God alone. 3. Universality of instruction: The final verse also clarifies another important reality, namely that the narratives of the Prophets and past communities in the Qur’an are not presented solely for the instruction of the Muslim community. Rather, they also serve to console and reassure the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family), strengthening his resolve and fortifying his heart. Being human, he too is to derive guidance from the divine school, preparing himself more fully for his mission against the tyrants of his time and not fearing the many challenges along the path. Just as Nuh (peace be upon him), despite enduring prolonged trials and witnessing only a small number of followers during his exceptionally long life, remained steadfast and resolute, so too the Prophet is instructed to maintain patience and perseverance under all circumstances. At this point, having concluded the remarkable and instructive account of Nuh (peace be upon him), the discourse proceeds to another great prophet, Hud (peace be upon him), after whom this surah is named. Provide your feedback on BizChat

See ayat 52 for tafseer.

See ayat 52 for tafseer.

As has been previously noted, this surah recounts the دعوت of five great prophets, the challenges they encountered along this path, and the outcomes of their efforts. In the preceding verses, the narrative concerned Nuh (peace be upon him), and now it turns to Hud (peace be upon him). All of these prophets shared a common message and a unified objective: to liberate humanity from all forms of bondage and to call them toward توحید in its full and complete sense. Their distinguishing qualities were faith, sincerity, struggle, and steadfastness in the path of God. In contrast, the attitude of the various communities toward them was characterized by severity and narrowness; they subjected the prophets to various forms of persecution and oppression. In the first verse under discussion, it is stated: “And to ‘Ad [We sent] their brother Hud” (وَإلیٰ عَادٍ اَخَاھُمْ ھُودًا). The designation of Hud (peace be upon him) as a “brother” may be understood in two ways. It may reflect the Arab usage in which members of the same tribe are referred to as brothers, given their shared lineage; or it may indicate that Hud related to his people in a manner characterized by fraternal equality, free of dominance or hierarchical distinction, embodying the respectful and compassionate relationship of one brother toward others. Hud (peace be upon him) commenced his دعوت in the same manner as other prophets. His primary call was toward توحید and the rejection of all forms of شرک. He said: “O my people, worship الله” (قَالَ یَاقَوْمِ اعْبُدُوا اللهَ), for “you have no deity other than Him” (مَا لَکُمْ مِنْ إِلٰہٍ غَیْرُہُ). He further emphasized that their beliefs regarding idols were based upon falsehood and constituted attribution without truth: “you are nothing but fabricators” (إِنْ أَنْتُمْ إِلَّا مُفْتَرُونَ). These idols possess no share in divinity, nor do they hold any power over benefit or harm; to attribute such station to them is a grave falsehood. Hud then continued: “O my people, I do not ask of you any reward for it” (یَاقَوْمِ لَا أَسْأَلُکُمْ عَلَیْہِ أَجْرًا). He clarified that his purpose was not the attainment of wealth or status, nor did he seek any material benefit in return for his دعوت. Rather, “my reward is only with the One who created me” (إِنْ أَجْرِی إِلَّا عَلَى الَّذِی فَطَرَنِی). His mission was undertaken in obedience to divine command, and the recompense for such effort was sought exclusively from God. He further remarked that whatever they possessed was itself granted by God, and therefore they had nothing independent to offer, concluding with the appeal: “will you not then reason?” (أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ). Finally, in order to encourage them and awaken within them a sense of truth‑seeking, he employed conditional reference to worldly blessings that God bestows upon the believers. He said: “O my people, seek forgiveness from your Lord” (وَیَاقَوْمِ اسْتَغْفِرُوا رَبَّکُمْ), “then repent to Him” (ثُمَّ تُوبُوا إِلَیْہِ). If they were to do so, “He will send the sky upon you in abundant rain” (یُرْسِلْ السَّمَاءَ عَلَیْکُمْ مِدْرَارًا), ensuring the vitality of their fields and gardens and sustaining their prosperity. The expression “مِدْرَارًا” conveys an intensified and abundant outpouring, suggesting that rainfall would descend in such profusion as though the entire sky were pouring forth. In addition, “He will increase you in strength upon your strength” (وَیَزِدْکُمْ قُوَّةً إِلَى قُوَّتِکُمْ). Thus, Hud negated the misconception that ایمان and تقویٰ diminish human power; rather, they augment both physical and spiritual strength, leading to societal prosperity, increased population, improved economic conditions, and independence. Accordingly, he warned them not to turn away from the path of truth and not to persist in wrongdoing: (وَلَا تَتَوَلَّوْا مُجْرِمِینَ).

The history of the prophets demonstrates that all of them began their دعوت with توحید and with the repudiation of every form of شرک and idolatry. In reality, no meaningful reform of human society is possible without this foundational call, because social unity, cooperation, mutual support, sacrifice, and altruism all derive their vitality from the principle of the oneness of the object of worship. As for شرک, it constitutes the source of every form of fragmentation, disunity, contradiction, conflict, selfishness, egocentrism, and dependency, and the connection of these notions with the broader concept of شرک and idolatry is self‑evident. A person who is self‑centered and self‑interested sees only himself, and for this very reason he partakes in شرک. In contrast, توحید integrates the individual existence of a person into the vast ocean of society. The موحد perceives nothing but a single comprehensive unity, viewing all human beings and servants of God as part of one collective society. Those who seek superiority are associated with another form of شرک. Likewise, those who are perpetually in conflict with their fellow human beings and who regard their own interests as distinct from the interests of others embody forms of duality or multiplicity which are nothing other than various manifestations of شرک. For this reason, all prophets initiated their comprehensive programs of reform from this very point. Their first دعوت was the دعوت of توحید—توحید of the object of worship, followed by unity of word, unity of action, and unity of society.

A true leader and guide can remain entirely free from all forms of accusation and continue steadfastly upon his path only when he has no material dependence or need upon his followers. In such a case, he can proceed with complete independence and correct every deviation among his followers. Otherwise, that very dependence becomes a chain upon his hands and feet, restricting both his speech and thought. Deviant and misguided individuals attempt to exert pressure through this means, threatening to withdraw material support or offering increased assistance. No matter how sincere and pure‑hearted a leader may be, he remains human, and thus there exists the possibility that his resolve may falter at such a stage. For this reason, in the above verses and in other passages of the Qur’an, it is stated that the prophets explicitly declared at the very outset of their دعوت that they had no expectation of material reward or compensation from their followers. The conduct of the prophets in this regard serves as a model for all leaders, particularly for spiritual and religious guides. However, since such leaders devote their entire time to the service of religion and the community, it is necessary that their essential needs be provided in an appropriate manner. For this purpose, institutional provisions such as support systems and the communal treasury (Bayt al‑Mal) have been established, and one of the fundamental objectives of this treasury is precisely to ensure the rightful support of such individuals.

From the above verses it also becomes evident that, in the view of the Qur’an, a clear relationship exists between spiritual and material matters. Here, seeking forgiveness for sin, turning toward God, and repentance are presented as means for achieving prosperity, joy, vitality, and an increase in strength. This reality is reflected in many other Qur’anic verses as well. Among them are the words of Nuh (peace be upon him) in Surah Nuh: فَقُلْتُ اسْتَغْفِرُوا رَبَّکُمْ إنَّہُ کَانَ غَفَّارًا یُرْسِلْ السَّمَاءَ عَلَیْکُمْ مِدْرَارًا وَیُمْدِدْکُمْ بِاَمْوَالٍ وَبَنِینَ وَیَجْعَلْ لَکُمْ جَنَّاتٍ وَیَجْعَلْ لَکُمْ اَنْھَارًا “Thus I said: seek forgiveness from your Lord; indeed, He is ever Forgiving, so that He may send abundant rain upon you from the sky, and support you with wealth and children, and grant you gardens and rivers.” (Nuh: 10–12). It is noteworthy that in Islamic tradition it is reported that Rabi‘ ibn Sabih narrates: I was in the presence of Hasan (peace be upon him) when a man entered and complained of drought in his land. Hasan (peace be upon him) said to him: seek forgiveness. Another came and complained of poverty; he also said to him: seek forgiveness. A third came and said: pray that God grant me a son; he again said: seek forgiveness. Rabi‘ states that I was astonished and said: whoever comes to you with a difficulty or requests a blessing, you respond in the same way and instruct all of them to seek forgiveness. He replied: I have not spoken from my own opinion; rather, I have derived this from the words of God, and it is the same teaching that He conveyed through His prophet Nuh, after which he recited these verses from Surah Nuh. Those who are accustomed to treating such matters superficially may pass over them lightly, accepting them without understanding the deeper spiritual relationships that exist within them and without further reflection or analysis. However, if one reflects more deeply, one may perceive the تربیتی connections between these matters, such that material and spiritual realities become interwoven like the fibers of a single fabric, or like the roots, trunk, and fruits of a tree. What society is there that is afflicted with sin, betrayal, hypocrisy, theft, injustice, and indolence, and yet remains prosperous and flourishing? Which society is there that loses the spirit of cooperation and mutual assistance, becoming instead characterized by conflict, hostility, and bloodshed, and yet remains economically strong and fertile? Which society is there whose people are immersed in desires and passions, and yet can remain powerful and resilient in the face of challenges? It may be stated with clarity that there is no moral principle except that it has a beneficial and reformative effect upon the material life of people. Likewise, there is no sound belief or faith that does not contribute to the prosperity, independence, strength, and vitality of society. Those who attempt to separate moral values, religious belief, and faith in توحید from material realities have neither properly understood spiritual matters nor material conditions. If religion is reduced to mere external forms, formalities, and empty rituals devoid of meaning, it is evident that it will have no influence upon the material structure of society. However, if spiritual beliefs penetrate deeply into the human soul, manifesting themselves in actions, movements, speech, and all aspects of life, then their reformative impact upon society will be unmistakable. It is possible that certain aspects of the relationship between استغفار and the attainment of material blessings may not be fully comprehensible; nevertheless, it is clear that much of this relationship is accessible to human understanding. In the contemporary era, this reality has been observed, for example, in the Islamic Revolution of Iran, where spiritual convictions and moral strength demonstrated their efficacy against the most powerful military forces and global structures of domination, indicating the profound impact of religious belief and positive spiritual ethics upon social and political life.

The apparent meaning of this expression is that God, as a consequence of repentance and seeking forgiveness, will increase your strength with additional strength. Some have interpreted this as referring specifically to an increase in human or physical strength, as is also indicated in the verses of Surah Nuh. Others have understood it as pointing to the augmentation of material strength through spiritual قوة. However, the expression in the verse is absolute and unrestricted, and thus it encompasses every form of increase in strength, whether material or spiritual, incorporating all such interpretations within its scope.

See ayat 57 for tafseer.

See ayat 57 for tafseer.

See ayat 57 for tafseer.

See ayat 57 for tafseer.

The reaction of the arrogant and defiant people of ‘Ad to their brother Hud (peace be upon him), his counsel, and his guidance is presented in a striking manner. It is stated that they said: “O Hud! you have not brought us any clear proof” (قَالُوا یَاھُودُ مَا جِئْتَنَا بِبَیِّنَةٍ); “we will never abandon our gods on account of your words” (وَمَا نَحْنُ بِتَارِکِی آلِھَتِنَا عَنْ قَوْلِکَ); “nor will we believe in you” (وَمَا نَحْنُ لَکَ بِمُؤْمِنِینَ). After these three irrational statements, they went further and said: “we say nothing except that some of our gods have afflicted you with harm” (إِنْ نَقُولُ إلَّا اعْتَرَاکَ بَعْضُ آلِھَتِنَا بِسُوءٍ), implying that he had become mad due to the supposed wrath of their deities. There is no doubt that, as is the method and duty of all prophets, Hud (peace be upon him) must have presented various signs and arguments for the affirmation of his truthfulness. However, due to their arrogance and obstinacy, they, like other stubborn communities, denied such evidences and dismissed them as sorcery or mere coincidence, unworthy of consideration as proof. Apart from this, the refutation of idolatry itself does not require extraordinary evidence, for any person possessing even a modest degree of reason, free from prejudice, can recognize its invalidity. Questions such as the call toward the One God, return to Him, seeking forgiveness, and the rejection of polytheism are all matters that can be established through rational argument. Thus, their denial of “بَیِّنَةٍ” reflects only their unwillingness to accept truth. Their statement that they would never abandon their idols demonstrates the depth of their obstinacy, for a rational person accepts truth regardless of its source. Furthermore, their accusation of madness—especially attributing it to the influence of their idols—reveals the absurdity and superstition underlying their thought. How can lifeless and senseless objects, dependent themselves upon their worshippers, deprive a rational human being of intellect? Their only “evidence” for this accusation was that Hud opposed their inherited customs and challenged their social norms. If such opposition were to be considered madness, then all reformers and revolutionaries who stand against falsehood would likewise be deemed insane. Indeed, history, both past and present, is full of such accusations directed at those who confront superstition, domination, and oppression. In response, Hud (peace be upon him) fulfilled his duty by presenting a decisive and powerful reply grounded in both reason and firmness. He declared: “I call Allah to witness, and you bear witness, that I am free from what you associate” (قَالَ إِنِّی اُشْھِدُ اللهَ وَاشْھَدُوا اَنِّی بَرِیءٌ مِمَّا تُشْرِکُونَ). This amounted to a direct challenge: if these idols possess any power, let them inflict harm upon him. Why do they remain silent when he openly opposes them? He then intensified the challenge by stating: “so plot against me all of you, then give me no respite” (فَکِیدُونِی جَمِیعًا ثُمَّ لَا تُنْظِرُونَ). Despite their numerical strength and apparent power, he regarded them as incapable, for he relied entirely upon God. Thus he declared: “Indeed, I have placed my trust in Allah, my Lord and your Lord” (إِنِّی تَوَکَّلْتُ عَلَی اللهِ رَبِّی وَرَبِّکُمْ). This itself serves as evidence of his truthfulness, for only one who is firmly rooted in certainty can stand alone against a powerful and hostile community without fear or hesitation. He further explained that not only they, but every living being, is under divine control: (مَا مِنْ دَابَّةٍ إِلَّا ھُوَ آخِذٌ بِنَاصِیَتِھَا). Yet this absolute power is not arbitrary or unjust; rather, “Indeed, my Lord is upon a straight path” (إِنَّ رَبِّی عَلٰی صِرَاطٍ مُسْتَقِیمٍ), meaning that all divine actions are governed by wisdom, justice, and order.

The term “ناصیة” originally denotes the hair on the front part of the head, and it is derived from the root “نصو” (on the pattern of “نصر”), conveying the sense of connection and attachment. The expression “اخذ ناصیة” (to seize the hair of the forelock) is used metaphorically to indicate domination, power, and overwhelming control over something. Thus, in the verse where it is stated that no living being exists except that its “ناصیة” is seized, the meaning is an indication of the absolute and irresistible power of God over all things. No being possesses the capacity to withstand His will, for when the forelock of a human or animal is grasped, it is rendered helpless and incapable of resistance. This mode of expression serves to make arrogant and self‑conceited individuals—such as proud idol‑worshippers and those desiring oppressive authority—aware that if they are granted temporary opportunity, it should not lead them to imagine that they can stand in opposition to the Lord. Rather, they must recognize this reality and descend from the intoxication of pride.

The statement “اِنَّ رَبِّی عَلٰی صِرَاطٍ مُّسْتَقِیْمٍ” constitutes a highly eloquent expression and is among the most refined formulations describing the just nature of divine power. Ordinarily, those who possess power are inclined toward falsehood and oppression; however, despite His infinite power, God is always upon the straight path of justice. His way is ever that of wisdom, order, balance, and precise reckoning. It should also be noted that the discourse of Hud (peace be upon him) before the polytheists conveys another principle: the more obstinate the adversaries become in their opposition, the more a true leader must increase in steadfastness and resolve. The people had attempted to instill fear in Hud through their idols; in response, he strongly warned them of the overwhelming power of God. Ultimately, Hud declared: if you turn away from the path of truth, it will not bring me any harm, for I have delivered to you the message with which I was sent (فَإِنْ تَوَلَّوْا فَقَدْ اَبْلَغْتُکُمْ مَا اُرْسِلْتُ بِہِ إِلَیْکُمْ). This statement emphasizes that a leader should not consider the rejection of his message as a form of defeat, for the fulfillment of duty itself constitutes success, even if the message is not accepted. This serves as a lesson for all true leaders and guides on the path of truth: they should never become distressed or weary in their mission, even if people fail to respond positively. Subsequently, Hud warns them sternly of divine punishment, saying that if they do not accept the call of truth, God will soon destroy them and replace them with another community, and they will not be able to cause Him any harm (وَیَسْتَخْلِف رَبِّی قَوْمًا غَیْرَکُمْ وَلَا تَضُرُّونَہُ شَیْئًا). This reflects a law of creation: when a people prove themselves unworthy of the blessings of guidance or other divine favors, those blessings are withdrawn and given to another deserving group. It is also stated: indeed, my Lord is Guardian over all things (إِنَّ رَبِّی عَلٰی کُلِّ شَیْءٍ حَفِیظٌ). Nothing escapes His attention, nor does He neglect the appropriate moment. He does not forget His prophets or His devoted servants, nor does any account remain hidden from His knowledge. Rather, He encompasses all things in knowledge and holds mastery over everything.

See ayat 60 for tafseer.

See ayat 60 for tafseer.

In the concluding section of the verses relating to the account of the people of ‘Ad and their prophet Hud (peace be upon him), the Qur’an, while referring to their painful punishment and torment, first states: when Our command concerning their punishment arrived, We delivered Hud and those who believed with him by a mercy from Us (وَلَمَّا جَاءَ اَمْرُنَا نَجَّیْنَا ھُودًا وَالَّذِینَ آمَنُوا مَعَہُ بِرَحْمَةٍ مِنَّا). Then, by way of further emphasis, it is said: and We saved them from a severe and harsh punishment (وَنَجَّیْنَاھُمْ مِنْ عَذَابٍ غَلِیظٍ). It is noteworthy that before describing the punishment of the disbelieving, rebellious, and oppressive people, the deliverance of the believing community is mentioned, so that it may not be supposed—as suggested in a commonly known expression—that when divine punishment descends, both the innocent and the guilty are equally destroyed. Rather, since God is Wise and Just, it is impossible that even a single believer would be punished along with the disobedient and sinful. Instead, divine mercy transfers such individuals to a place of safety prior to the execution of punishment. As has been observed, before the flood came, the Ark of Nuh (peace be upon him) had already been prepared, and before the destruction of the people of Lut (peace be upon him), he and his followers departed under divine command. Regarding the repetition of the expression “نَجَّیْنَا,” various interpretations have been offered. Some have maintained that the first instance refers to deliverance from worldly punishment, while the second refers to salvation from the punishment of the Hereafter, which is consistent with the attribute “غلیظ.” Others have pointed to a subtle rhetorical feature, namely that since the discourse initially concerned divine mercy, it would not be appropriate for the mention of punishment to immediately follow; thus, the repetition of “نَجَّیْنَا” creates a separation while preserving the intensity and emphasis of the punishment. It is also significant that in the Qur’an the attribute “غلیظ” is used on several occasions in connection with punishment, and reflection upon these instances indicates that such an attribute is more closely associated with the punishment of the Hereafter. Even the most severe worldly punishment remains insignificant in comparison to the punishment of the next world. There is also a noteworthy correspondence that the people of ‘Ad were of great physical stature and strength, likened to tall palm trees, and their constructions were similarly large, robust, and imposing. Accordingly, the punishment inflicted upon them was also of a severe and overwhelming nature. The Qur’an then summarizes their principal transgressions in three points. First, they denied the signs of their Lord and obstinately rejected the message conveyed to them: (وَتِلْکَ عَادٌ جَحَدُوا بِآیَاتِ رَبِّھِم). Second, they actively opposed and disobeyed the messengers: (وَعَصَوْا رُسُلَہُ). The use of the plural “رسل” here may indicate either that all prophets convey a unified message, such that rejecting one amounts to rejecting all, or that they were invited to believe in previous prophets and refused. Third, they followed the command of every arrogant and obstinate tyrant: (وَاتَّبَعُوا اَمْرَ کُلِّ جَبَّارٍ عَنِیدٍ). The term “جبار” refers to one who tyrannically dominates, acts violently, and disregards reason, or who compels others to follow him through arrogance and force. The term “عنید” denotes one who persistently opposes truth and refuses to accept it under any circumstance. These characteristics are typical of tyrants and arrogant leaders in every age. A question may arise as to why the term “جبار,” which has such negative connotations, is also used as a divine attribute, as in Surah al‑Hashr (23). The answer lies in its linguistic roots: it may denote overwhelming power and dominion, or the act of restoring and rectifying deficiencies. In its negative usage, it refers to oppressive arrogance; in its positive usage, when applied to God, it indicates absolute power or the ability to remedy deficiencies without injustice. The context and accompanying attributes determine the intended meaning. Finally, the concluding verse summarizes the outcome of the people of ‘Ad: they were followed in this world by a curse due to their deeds, and nothing remained of them except disgrace and an infamous legacy (وَاُتْبِعُوا فِی ھٰذِہِ الدُّنْیَا لَعْنَةً). On the Day of Resurrection, it will be proclaimed that they denied their Lord (وَیَوْمَ الْقِیَامَةِ اَلَاإنَّ عَادًا کَفَرُوا رَبَّھُمْ), and again it will be declared: “Away with ‘Ad, the people of Hud” (اَلَابُعْدًا لِعَادٍ قَوْمِ ھُود). Although the term “‘Ad” alone would suffice for identification, the addition of “قوم ھود” emphasizes that these were the very people who inflicted harm upon their sincere prophet Hud (peace be upon him), rejected him, and thus became deserving of distance from divine mercy.

Some Western historians, including Sprenger, have tried to deny the historical existence of the people of 'Ad. Perhaps the reason for this is that besides Islamic sources, there is no mention of them anywhere else, and their name and trace have not been found in the books of the Old Testament (Torah, etc.). However, sources exist which indicate that the story of 'Ad was well-known in the pre-Islamic era (Jahiliyyah) of Arabia, and pre-Islamic poets have spoken about the people of Hud. To the extent that in the era of Jahiliyyah, tall and strong buildings were attributed to 'Ad, and they were called "'Adi". Some historians are of the opinion that the term "'Ad" applies to two tribes. One tribe is historical; it lived in the Arabian Peninsula. This tribe was destroyed, and its traces were also erased. In human history, nothing has been preserved of their life except for a few unreliable legends. These historians have interpreted the expression "عاد الاولیٰ" (the first 'Ad) in the Quran, Surah Najm, verse 50, as a reference to this. As for the people who belong to the historical era, it is probable that they existed some 700 years before the birth of Christ, or even earlier. This nation was also called 'Ad. This nation lived in the land of Ahqaf or Yemen. They were tall, strong-bodied, and powerful people. For this reason, they were considered great warriors. Furthermore, these people had made great progress in civilization and culture. They were the owners of populated cities, green lands, and lush gardens, as the Quran says in their description: التی لم یخلق مثلھا فی البلاد۔ The like of which had not been created in other cities of the world. (Fajr: 8) On this basis, some orientalists have said that the people of 'Ad lived in the region of Barhut (this area is in the vicinity of Hadramaut, Yemen) and that due to volcanic eruptions, many of them perished, and the rest were scattered here and there. In any case, this nation lived a life of luxury and comfort for a long time, but as is the custom of most people raised in luxury and comfort, they became intoxicated with arrogance and negligence, and by oppressing others and adopting colonialist tactics, they misused their power. They made the arrogant and the obstinate tyrants their leaders. They established the religion of idol worship and not only did they give no value whatsoever to the advice and counsel of their Prophet, Hazrat Hud (peace be upon him), his clarification of ideas and thoughts, and his efforts to complete the argument for them, but they also rose up to silence the voice of this great man who sought the truth. At times they attributed insanity and foolishness to him, and at other times they tried to frighten him with the wrath of their gods, but he stood firm like a mountain against this arrogant and powerful nation. Ultimately, he purified approximately four thousand individuals and brought them to his true religion, but the others persisted in their stubbornness and hostility. As will be mentioned in Surah Dhariyat, Haqqah, and Qamar, a very severe and destructive storm was finally imposed upon them for seven nights and six days. This storm ruined their palaces, and the strong gusts of wind scattered their corpses here and there like autumn leaves. The true believers had already been taken out from there; God Almighty saved them, and their life became a great lesson for all tyrants and despots. (Reference: Tafsir al-Mizan, Tafsir Majma' al-Bayan, and the book A'lam al-Qur'an 1)

This expression, and similar expressions, occur in multiple Qur’anic verses concerning different communities. After describing the condition of these peoples, the Qur’an states, for example: اَلَا بُعْدًا لِثَمُودَ, اَلَا بُعْدًا لِمَدْیَنَ کَمَا بَعِدَتْ ثَمُودُ, فَبُعْدًا لِلْقَوْمِ الظَّالِمِینَ, فَبُعْدًا لِقَوْمٍ لَا یُؤْمِنُونَ, and likewise, in the account of Nuh: وَقِیلَ بُعْدًا لِلْقَوْمِ الظَّالِمِینَ. In all these verses, such imprecatory expressions signify distance from the mercy of God for those who have committed grave transgressions. Even in contemporary times, similar slogans are raised against oppressive, tyrannical, and exploitative individuals and groups. However, the Qur’anic expression is uniquely comprehensive and profound, for when it is declared that a group is to be “far removed,” it encompasses multiple dimensions: distance from divine mercy, distance from felicity, distance from all خیر and blessing, and separation from the community of God’s servants. Indeed, their exclusion from خیر and سعادت is itself a consequence of their prior inner alienation from God and from His creation—an alienation that is spiritual, intellectual, and practical in nature. This reflects the principle that every belief and action manifests its counterpart in the next world in a form corresponding to its nature. Thus, estrangement in this world becomes the source of estrangement from divine mercy, forgiveness, pardon, and نعمت in the hereafter. From a grammatical perspective, the term “بُعْدًا” in the verse functions as a cognate accusative (مفعول مطلق) of an implied expression such as “اَبْعَدَھُمُ اللهُ.” Although, in principle, the مصدر of the pattern “اَفْعَلَ” would be “اِبْعَادًا,” it is permissible in Arabic usage that, at times, instead of employing the derived مصدر, the simpler triliteral form is used, as in expressions such as: واللّٰہ انبتکم من الارض نباتاً.

As has been previously noted, the conditions of the people of ‘Ad concluded, with all their instructive lessons, in a concise manner, and now the narrative turns to the people of Thamud. According to historical accounts, this community resided in Wadi al‑Qura, situated between Medina and Sham. Once again, it is observed that when the Qur’an refers to their prophet, Salih (peace be upon him), it describes him as their “brother,” a remarkably eloquent, effective, and graceful expression, the implications of which have been indicated earlier. It conveys the image of a compassionate and sincere brother who desires nothing but the well‑being of his people. Thus it is stated: “And to Thamud [We sent] their brother Salih” (وَإلیٰ ثَمُودَ اَخَاھُمْ صَالِحًا). The fundamental method of Salih (peace be upon him) was the same as that of the other prophets: a program that begins with توحید and the rejection of every form of شرک and idolatry, which constitute the root of all human afflictions. He said: “O my people! worship الله, you have no deity other than Him” (قَالَ یَاقَوْمِ اعْبُدُوا اللهَ مَا لَکُمْ مِنْ إلَہٍ). Thereafter, in order to awaken within them a sense of gratitude and recognition, he reminded them of the great divine blessings encompassing their existence. It was stated: “He it is who created you from the earth” (ھُوَ اَنشَاَکُمْ مِنَ الْاَرْضِ). From insignificant dust emerged this noble and refined human existence; does reason permit that one should abandon such a Creator and Sustainer and turn instead to contemptible idols? After drawing attention to the نعمت of creation, another blessing associated with the earth is mentioned: “and He entrusted you with its cultivation” (وَاسْتَعْمَرَکُمْ فِیھَا). The term “استعمار” in Arabic originally signifies entrusting someone with the task of inhabiting and developing the earth, which naturally implies the provision of the necessary means and resources. This understanding is affirmed by lexicographers such as Raghib and by numerous exegetes. Another interpretation suggests that the term may refer to granting a prolonged lifespan; however, in light of lexical evidence, the former meaning appears more appropriate. In any case, both interpretations apply to the people of Thamud, for they possessed fertile lands, flourishing gardens, and engaged in agricultural innovation, and they were also characterized by long lifespans and physical strength. Their architectural achievements were notable, as indicated by the Qur’anic statement: وَکَانُوا یَنْحِتُونَ مِنَ الْجِبَالِ بُیُوتًا آمِنِینَ. It is significant that the Qur’an does not merely state that God constructed the earth and placed it at their disposal; rather, it emphasizes that the responsibility for its development was entrusted to them. This implies that while all necessary resources and means have been provided, human beings must engage in effort and labor to cultivate the earth and benefit from its resources; without striving, they cannot attain their due share. From this, it may also be inferred that for the growth and prosperity of a community, it is essential that they be granted opportunity, entrusted with responsibility, and provided with the necessary resources and tools. Accordingly, the call concludes: “so seek His forgiveness and then turn to Him; indeed, my Lord is near and responsive” (فَاسْتَغْفِرُوہُ ثُمَّ تُوبُوا إلَیْہِ إنَّ رَبِّی قَرِیبٌ مُجِیبٌ).

As indicated in the foregoing verses, it becomes evident that, in the view of the Qur’an, there exists a profound relationship between the spiritual and the material dimensions of life. The prophets pointed out to their communities that seeking forgiveness (استغفار), returning to God, and repentance are not merely inward spiritual acts, but have tangible consequences such as the flourishing of land, abundance, well‑being, and an increase in collective strength. This connection is emphasized in numerous Qur’anic passages, including the statement of Nuh (peace be upon him): فَقُلْتُ اسْتَغْفِرُوا رَبَّکُمْ إنَّہُ کَانَ غَفَّارًا یُرْسِلْ السَّمَاءَ عَلَیْکُمْ مِدْرَارًا وَیُمْدِدْکُمْ بِاَمْوَالٍ وَبَنِینَ وَیَجْعَلْ لَکُمْ جَنَّاتٍ وَیَجْعَلْ لَکُمْ اَنْھَارًا. It is noteworthy that this principle is also reflected in Islamic traditions. It is reported that Rabi‘ ibn Sabih narrates that he was in the presence of Hasan (peace be upon him) when several individuals approached him with different concerns—one complained of drought, another of poverty, and a third requested supplication for the blessing of a child. In each case, Hasan (peace be upon him) advised them to seek forgiveness. When Rabi‘ ibn Sabih expressed surprise at this uniform response, Hasan explained that this guidance was derived from the Qur’an, specifically from the teachings conveyed through Nuh (peace be upon him). Those who take such matters superficially may overlook the deeper connection that exists between moral, spiritual, and material conditions. However, upon careful reflection, it becomes evident that there exists an organic relationship between these dimensions—akin to the interwoven threads of a fabric, or the interconnected parts of a tree consisting of roots, trunk, and fruit. It may be asked: what society, steeped in sin, betrayal, hypocrisy, theft, injustice, and indolence, can remain prosperous and flourishing? What community, having lost the spirit of cooperation and mutual assistance, replaced by conflict, violence, and discord, can maintain economic vitality and fertile lands? What people, immersed in desires and passions, can remain strong and resilient in the face of external challenges? It must be stated clearly that there exists no moral principle without beneficial and corrective effects upon material life, and no sound belief or faith that does not contribute to the development, strength, independence, and prosperity of society. Those who attempt to separate ethical conduct, religious belief, and faith in توحید from material realities have failed to grasp both the spiritual and the material dimensions of human life. If religion is reduced to mere formalities—external rituals devoid of meaning and substance—it will naturally exert no influence upon the material structure of society. However, when spiritual convictions penetrate deeply into the human soul and manifest in actions, conduct, speech, and every aspect of life, their reformative impact upon society becomes evident and undeniable. Although certain aspects of the connection between استغفار and the descent of material blessings may not be fully comprehensible, it remains clear that many dimensions of this relationship can be understood. Contemporary experience also provides illustrative examples of how spiritual conviction and ethical strength can influence social and political realities, demonstrating that religious belief and positive moral values can play a decisive role in shaping collective outcomes.

See ayat 65 for tafseer.

See ayat 65 for tafseer.

See ayat 65 for tafseer.

Now we observe how the opponents of Salih (peace be upon him) responded to his living and reality‑oriented logic. In order to neutralize him—or at least to render his words ineffective—they resorted to a psychological strategy, attempting to deceive him. They said: “O Salih! indeed you were among us one in whom hope was placed before this” (قَالُوا یَاصَالِحُ قَدْ کُنتَ فِینَا مَرْجُوًّا قَبْلَ ھٰذَا), meaning that in times of difficulty they had relied upon him, sought his counsel, trusted his intellect and understanding, and had no doubt regarding his sincerity and goodwill. But, they added, he had now disappointed their expectations. By opposing idol worship and the deities that constituted the tradition of their forefathers and a matter of pride for their community, he had, in their view, shown disregard for ancestral reverence and social norms. They said: “Do you forbid us from worshipping that which our fathers worshipped?” (اَتَنْھَانَا اَنْ نَعْبُدَ مَا یَعْبُدُ آبَاؤُنَا). They further asserted that regarding the monotheistic message to which he called them, they were not merely in doubt but in a state of deep suspicion (وَإِنَّنَا لَفِی شَکٍّ مِمَّا تَدْعُونَا إلَیْہِ مُرِیبٍ). Here it becomes evident that misguided communities often justify their erroneous beliefs and practices by invoking the authority of their ancestors, seeking refuge in inherited traditions. This is an ancient pattern repeatedly employed by deviant societies to defend their superstitions, and it persists even in modern times. However, Salih (peace be upon him) did not lose hope of guiding them, nor were their deceptive arguments able to affect his resolute spirit. He replied with clarity and conviction: “O my people! consider: if I stand upon a clear proof from my Lord and He has granted me mercy from Himself,” (قَالَ یَاقَوْمِ اَرَاَیْتُمْ إنْ کُنتُ عَلَیٰ بَیِّنَةٍ مِنْ رَبِّی وَآتَانِی مِنْہُ رَحْمَةً), then can he remain silent and fail to convey the divine message or oppose wrongdoing? If he were to disobey God, who could protect him from divine punishment? (فَمَنْ یَنصُرُنِی مِنْ اللهِ إنْ عَصَیْتُہُ). He further stated that their arguments would not affect him except to strengthen his conviction regarding their loss and misguidance (فَمَا تَزِیدُونَنِی غَیْرَ تَخْسِیرٍ). Subsequently, he pointed to a clear sign in support of his دعوت: “O my people! this is the she‑camel of Allah as a sign for you” (وَیَاقَوْمِ ھٰذِہِ نَاقَةُ اللهِ لَکُمْ آیَةً). He commanded them to allow it to graze freely upon the land (فَذَرُوھَا تَاْکُلْ فِی اَرْضِ اللهِ), and warned them not to harm it in any way, for doing so would result in immediate and painful punishment (وَلَاتَمَسُّوھَا بِسُوءٍ فَیَاْخُذَکُمْ عَذَابٌ قَرِیبٌ).

The term “ناقہ” in the lexicon denotes a she‑camel. In the present verse, and in several other Qur’anic verses, it is attributed to God; such attribution, in rhetorical usage, signifies honor and distinction, as reflected in instances such as “ناقة الله” and “ارض الله,” as well as expressions like “شھر الله” and “بیت الله.” This attribution indicates that the she‑camel possessed distinctive characteristics. Considering that it is presented in the verse as a sign (آیة) and a proof of truth, it becomes clear that it was not an ordinary she‑camel but a miraculous phenomenon in one or more aspects. However, the Qur’an does not describe its specific qualities in detail; it merely establishes that it was extraordinary. The Qur’an mentions in at least two places that Salih (peace be upon him) instructed his people regarding the distribution of water, assigning one day for the she‑camel and another for the people, as expressed: ھٰذِہِ نَاقَةٌ لَھَا شِرْبٌ وَلَکُمْ شِرْبُ یَوْمٍ مَعْلُومٍ, and likewise: وَنَبِّئْھُمْ اَنَّ الْمَاءَ قِسْمَةٌ بَیْنَھُمْ کُلُّ شِرْبٍ مُحْتَضَرٌ. A similar reference appears in: فَقَالَ لَھُمْ رَسُولُ اللهِ نَاقَةَ اللهِ وَسُقْیَاھَا. The precise manner in which this division of water constituted a miraculous feature is not fully specified. One possibility is that the she‑camel consumed an extraordinary quantity of water, effectively taking up the entire water supply of the spring. Another possibility is that when it approached to drink, other animals refrained from approaching the water source. It is also conceivable that the settlement possessed only a limited water supply, as is the case with certain small communities that rely upon a single spring and must gather water gradually for use. However, other Qur’anic verses indicate that the people of Thamud did not inhabit a region of scarce water; rather, they possessed gardens, springs, fields, and date‑palm groves, as expressed: اَتُتْرَکُونَ فِی مَا ھَاھُنَا آمِنِینَ، فِی جَنَّاتٍ وَعُیُونٍ، وَزُرُوعٍ وَنَخْلٍ طَلْعُھَا ھَضِیمٌ. Thus, although the Qur’an mentions the matter in a general manner, certain narrations transmitted through both Shi‘i and Sunni traditions report that among the extraordinary features of this she‑camel was its emergence from a mountain. Other characteristics are also reported, though their detailed discussion lies beyond the present scope. In any case, despite the repeated counsel of Salih (peace be upon him), the people ultimately resolved to eliminate the she‑camel. Its extraordinary nature had begun to awaken the people, inclining them toward Salih, and therefore certain rebellious elements—whose interests were threatened and who feared the awakening of the populace—devised a plot to destroy it. They appointed individuals to carry out this act, and one or more of them attacked and killed the she‑camel (فَعَقَرُوھَا). The term “عقرواھا” is derived from “عقر,” which denotes the essence or foundation of a thing; in this context, it refers to killing or slaughtering the camel. It can also signify cutting its limbs or hamstringing it. All of these meanings ultimately converge upon the same result: its destruction.

This matter is worthy of attention that in Islamic traditions, the one who killed the she-camel was only one person, but despite this, the Quran attributes this act to all the opponents of Prophet Salih (alayh al-salam) and, using the plural form, says: ”fa-'aqaruha”. This is because the Quran considers being inwardly pleased with a matter and having an ideological connection to it as participation in it. In reality, the conspiracy for this act was not an individual one. Even the one who carried it out did not do so merely on his own strength; rather, the power of the community was behind him and was encouraging him. Certainly, such an act cannot be deemed individual; rather, it is considered a group and collective act. Amir al-Mu'minin Hazrat Ali (alayh al-salam) says: Wa innama 'aqara naaqata Thamud rajulun wahidun fa-'ammahumullahu bil-'adhabi lamma 'ammuhu bir-rida. The she-camel of Salih was killed by one person, but God afflicted the entire rebellious nation with punishment because they were all pleased with it. (Reference: Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 201). Numerous other traditions with this or similar content have been narrated from the Prophet of Islam (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) and the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (alayhim al-salam). From these, the great importance that Islam places on programs formed on the basis of ideological connection and intellectual harmony becomes clear. As an example, we present a portion of these traditions below: The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) said: Man shahida amran fa-karihahu kana ka-man ghaba 'anhu, wa man ghaba 'an amrin fa-radiyahu kana ka-man shahidahu. Whoever witnesses an act but detests it is like one who was absent from it, and whoever is absent from an act but is inwardly pleased with it is like one who was present at that time and participated in it. (Reference: Wasa'il al-Shi'ah, vol. 11, p. 409) Imam Ali ibn Musa al-Rida (alayh al-salam) says: Law anna rajulan qutila fil-mashriqi fa-radiya bi-qatlihi rajulun bil-maghribi la-kana al-radi 'indallahi 'azza wa jalla sharik al-qatil. If a person were killed in the East and a person living in the West were pleased with his murder, then in the sight of God, the Mighty and Majestic, he would be a partner to the murderer. (Reference: Wasa'il al-Shi'ah, vol. 11, p. 410). It is narrated from Hazrat Ali (alayh al-salam) that he said: Al-radi bi-fi'li qawmin kal-dakhili ma'ahum fih, wa 'ala kulli dakhilin fi batilin ithman: ithm al-'amali bihi wa ithm al-rida bih. One who is pleased with the action of a group is like one who is a participant with them in that act. However, the one who has practically participated has two sins: one sin for the act and the other sin for being pleased with that act. (Reference: Wasa'il al-Shi'ah, vol. 11, p. 411.) To know and understand the depth of the ideological and intellectual connection, for which there is no restriction of time and place, it is sufficient to pay attention to this meaningful and startling statement of Hazrat Ali (alayh al-salam) in Nahj al-Balaghah: When Amir al-Mu'minin (alayh al-salam) gained victory over the rebels who had ignited the fire of war in the Battle of Jamal, and his companions and supporters were happy about this victory of Islam against polytheism and ignorance, one of them said: How I wished my brother had been present in this field and had also seen with his own eyes your victory over the enemy. The Imam (alayh al-salam) turned towards him and asked: A-hawa akhika ma'ana? Tell me, was your brother's heart and desire with us? Fa-qala na'am. He replied: Yes. So the Imam (alayh al-salam) said: Fa-qad shahidana (Do not worry) He too was a participant in this battlefield. After that, he (alayh al-salam) said: Wa laqad shahidana fi 'askarina hadha aqwamun fi aslab al-rijali wa arham al-nisa'i, sayar'afu bihim al-zamanu wa yaqwa bihim al-iman. Should I tell you something even greater than this? Today, groups have also participated in our army who are still in the loins of their fathers and the wombs of their mothers (and have not yet set foot in this world), but with the passage of time, they will soon come into the world, and through their strength and power, the strength of faith will increase. (Reference: Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 12). There is no doubt that those who participate in an act and endure all its difficulties and hardships hold a special distinction. However, this does not mean that others do not participate in it at all. Rather, whether in this era or in future eras, all individuals who are connected to that act in terms of thought, perspective, ideology, and religion are, in one respect, participants in it. This issue perhaps has no parallel or equivalent in any global school of thought. It is founded upon an important social reality, which is that people who resemble others in their way of thinking—even if they do not participate in a specific act performed by them—will certainly perform similar acts in their own environment and time. This is because a person's actions are always a reflection of their thoughts. It is not possible for a person to adhere to a school of thought and for it not to be evident in their actions. At the very first step, Islam implements reforms in the human spirit so that the stage of action is automatically reformed. According to the principle we have mentioned in the lines above, when a Muslim learns that a certain good or bad deed is being performed, he immediately tries to adopt a correct stance regarding it, and he makes his heart and soul an ally of good deeds.and hates evil deeds, this internal effort will certainly influence his actions, and his intellectual connection will manifest in the form of a practical relationship. At the end of the verse, after the rebellion, disobedience of his people, and the killing of the she-camel at their hands, Prophet Salih (alayhis salam) warned them of the danger and “said, ‘Enjoy yourselves in your homes for three days’” (فَقَالَ تَمَتَّعُوا فِی دَارِکُمْ ثَلَاثَةَ اَیَّامٍ), and know that after these three days, the divine punishment will surely come. “Consider this matter to be final, I am not lying, this is a true and real promise” (ذٰلِکَ وَعْدٌ غَیْرُ مَکْذُوب).66. When Our command came (regarding the punishment of this nation), We saved Salih and those who believed in him through Our mercy (from the disgrace of that day), because your Lord is the Powerful and the Invincible. 67. And those who did wrong were seized by the (heavenly) blast, and they fell down dead in their own homes, on their faces. 68. In such a way that it was as if they had never been inhabitants of those homes. Know that the people of Thamud denied their Lord. Away with the people of Thamud (from the mercy of the Lord).

See ayat 68 for tafseer.

See ayat 68 for tafseer.

In this verse, the manner of the نزول of punishment upon the rebellious people of Thamud after the completion of the three‑day respite is described. It is stated that when Our command concerning their punishment arrived, We delivered Salih and those who believed with him under the protection of Our mercy (فَلَمَّا جَاءَ اَمْرُنَا نَجَّیْنَا صَالِحًا وَالَّذِینَ آمَنُوا مَعَہُ بِرَحْمَةٍ مِنَّا). They were not only saved from physical and material punishment, but were also delivered from humiliation, disgrace, and dishonor that befell that defiant people on that day (وَمِنْ خِزْیِ یَوْمِئِذٍ). For your Lord is Powerful and Mighty (إِنَّ رَبَّکَ ھُوَ الْقَوِیُّ الْعَزِیزُ); nothing is impossible for Him, and no power has any standing against His will. Thus, the infliction of punishment upon a large community presents no difficulty for the deliverance of the believers. It is a requirement of divine mercy that the innocent are not consumed in the fire of the guilty, nor are the believers afflicted on account of the disbelievers. However, the unjust were seized by the heavenly cry (الصَّیْحَةُ), so overwhelming and terrifying that all of them fell lifeless upon the ground within their dwellings (فَاَصْبَحُوا فِی دِیَارِھِمْ جَاثِمِینَ). They were so completely destroyed and effaced that it was as though they had never inhabited that land (کَاَنْ لَمْ یَغْنَوْا فِیھَا). Indeed, the people of Thamud denied their Lord and disregarded His commands (اَلَاإِنَّ ثَمُودَ کَفَرُوا رَبَّھُمْ)، and it was proclaimed: away with Thamud, removed from the mercy and grace of God (اَلَابُعْدًا لِثَمُود).

In these verses, it becomes evident once again that divine mercy is so benevolent toward the believers that prior to the نزول of punishment, God transfers them to a place of safety and security, and does not subject all, whether guilty or innocent, to a single fate of punishment. It is, however, possible that adverse events—such as floods, epidemics, or earthquakes—may take on a form that encompasses both minor and major groups alike; yet such occurrences are not necessarily to be understood as manifestations of divine punishment. For, according to the logic of divine justice, it is inconceivable that even a single innocent individual would be afflicted along with multitudes of wrongdoers. It is, nonetheless, possible that certain individuals, while residing within a sinful community, remain silent and fail to fulfill their duty of resisting evil, and thus may become subject to the same consequences. However, if they discharge their responsibility, then it is impossible that a calamity sent specifically as punishment would encompass them. In this regard, it should be noted that discussions concerning the relationship between divine punishment and natural events have been addressed in detail in works dealing with monotheism and divine governance, wherein the distinction between general calamities and specific divine retribution is carefully elucidated.

The term “صیحة” in the lexicon signifies an extremely loud sound, one that ordinarily issues from a human or an animal; however, its meaning is not confined to such sources alone, but rather encompasses every form of exceedingly powerful sound. According to Qur’anic verses, several sinful communities were punished through a heavenly “صیحة”; among them were the people of Thamud, the people of Lut (حجر:۷۳), and the people of Shu‘ayb (ہود:۹۴). From other Qur’anic passages, it becomes evident with regard to the people of Thamud that they were punished through a thunderous blast (صاعقة), as stated: فَإنْ اَعْرَضُوا فَقُلْ اَنذَرْتُکُمْ صَاعِقَةً مِثْلَ صَاعِقَةِ عَادٍ وَثَمُودَ. This indicates that the expression “صیحة” refers to the terrifying sound associated with such a thunderbolt. A question arises as to whether such an overwhelming sound could indeed destroy an entire population. The answer is affirmatively established, as it is known that sound waves, when exceeding a certain intensity, are capable of shattering glass, damaging structures, and disrupting the internal systems of the human body. It is observed, for example, that when aircraft break the sound barrier, some individuals are rendered unconscious, miscarriages may occur, and the windows of buildings may shatter. Naturally, if the intensity of sound waves increases beyond such levels, it may result in catastrophic disturbances within the nervous system, the vessels of the brain, and the rhythm of the heartbeat, ultimately causing death. According to the Qur’an, the conclusion of this world itself will occur through a universal “صیحة,” as stated: مَا یَنظُرُونَ إلَّا صَیْحَةً وَاحِدَةً تَاْخُذُھُمْ وَھُمْ یَخِصِّمُونَ. Likewise, the Resurrection will begin through a single awakening call, as expressed: إنْ کَانَتْ إلَّا صَیْحَةً وَاحِدَةً فَإذَا ھُمْ جَمِیعٌ لَدَیْنَا مُحْضَرُونَ.

From the verses under discussion, it is well understood that the punishment of the rebellious and the transgressors does not only have a material aspect but also possesses a spiritual one. This is because the mention of their disgraceful end and deadly fate will become a humiliating chapter of history, whereas the mention of the people of faith will be recorded in history in golden letters.

The term “جاثم” is derived from the root “جثم” (on the pattern of “خشم”) and denotes sitting upon the knees; it is also used in the sense of falling face down upon the ground. The expression “جاثمین” therefore indicates that the overwhelming cry (صیحة) originating from the sky became the cause of their death, while their lifeless bodies lay collapsed upon the earth. Some narrations further suggest that the fire of the thunderbolt (صاعقہ) burned them and reduced them to ashes. However, these two descriptions are not mutually contradictory, since the terrifying impact of the thunderous blast would have taken effect immediately, while the burning consequences—particularly for those within enclosed structures—would have manifested subsequently.

The term “یغنوا” is derived from the root “غنی,” which conveys the meaning of residing or dwelling in a place. It is also not unlikely that the original sense of “غنا” in the meaning of independence is connected to this, since a self‑sufficient person resides permanently in a single location and is not compelled to move from one place to another. The expression “کَانَ لَمْ یَغْنَوْا فِیھَا,” which occurs with respect to the people of Thamud and likewise the people of Shu‘ayb, signifies that their record of existence was erased in such a manner as though they had never inhabited that land at all.

See ayat 73 for tafseer.

See ayat 73 for tafseer.

See ayat 73 for tafseer.

Now it is the turn to recount certain aspects of the life of Ibrahim, the courageous idol-breaker. However, a more detailed account of the full and rich life of this महान Prophet appears in other Surahs of the Qur’an, such as Surah al-Baqarah, Al ‘Imran, al-Nisa’, al-An‘am, and al-Anbiya’. Here, only a portion of his life is mentioned, which is connected with the incident of the people of Lut and the punishment inflicted upon that rebellious and sinful group. It is first stated: “وَلَقَدْ جَائَتْ رُسُلُنَا إبْرَاھِیمَ بِالْبُشْریٰ”. As will be understood from the subsequent verses, these were the same angels sent by God who were tasked with destroying the people of Lut; however, they first came to Ibrahim (علیه السلام) with a message. Regarding the nature of this glad tidings, two possibilities are mentioned, and there is no contradiction in combining them. The first possibility is that it was the glad tidings of the birth of Isma‘il (علیه السلام) and Ishaq (علیه السلام), since a long period of Ibrahim’s life had passed without any offspring, and he desired to have one or more sons who would be Prophets. Therefore, the news of the birth of Isma‘il (علیه السلام) and Ishaq (علیه السلام) was a great glad tidings for him. The second possibility is that Ibrahim (علیه السلام) was deeply disturbed by the فساد and rebellion of the people of Lut; when he learned that the angels had brought a command concerning them, he felt relief. In any case, when the messengers came to him, they greeted him, “قَالُوا سَلَامًا”, and he responded with peace, “قَالَ سَلَام”. It was not long before he brought for them a roasted calf, “فَمَا لَبِثَ اَنْ جَاءَ بِعِجْلٍ حَنِیذٍ”. The word “عجل” means calf, and “حنیذ” means roasted. Some have suggested that “حنید” does not refer to every kind of roasted meat, but specifically to meat placed on stones, with fire lit around it without directly touching it, until it becomes well-roasted and tender. This statement indicates that among the etiquettes of hospitality is the prompt preparation of food for the guest, since a guest, especially a traveler, typically arrives tired and hungry, needing both food and rest. It is therefore appropriate that food be prepared quickly so that the guest may then rest. It may be objected that a calf is too much for a few guests; however, first, the Qur’an does not specify the number of guests, and opinions vary—some say three, others four, others nine or eleven, and even more is possible. Second, Ibrahim (علیه السلام) had followers, friends, workers, and acquaintances, and it is customary that at times, more food than the immediate need of the guests is prepared, from which many people partake. However, at this point, a strange event occurred: Ibrahim (علیه السلام) observed that the newcomers did not extend their hands toward the food. This was entirely unfamiliar to him; thus, he felt estrangement and apprehension, and this matter caused him fear and anxiety, “فَلَمَّا رَاَی اَیْدِیَھُمْ لَاتَصِلُ إلَیْہِ نَکِرَھُمْ وَاَوْجَسَ مِنْھُمْ خِیفَةً”. The origin of this concern lies in an ancient tradition that persists among peoples who adhere to established good customs: if someone eats another’s food—that is, shares their bread and salt—they do not harbor ill intent toward them. Consequently, one who intends harm avoids eating the food of the other. Therefore, Ibrahim (علیه السلام) became suspicious of these guests and thought that perhaps they harbored ill intentions. The “messengers” became aware of this and promptly removed his doubt, saying: “قَالُوا لَاتَخَفْ إنَّا اُرْسِلْنَا إلیٰ قَوْمِ لُوطٍ”, informing him that they had been sent by God and were tasked with punishing a ظلم people, and that angels do not eat food. At this moment, Ibrahim’s wife, Sarah, who was standing there, laughed, “وَامْرَاَتُہُ قَائِمَةٌ فَضَحِکَتْ”. Perhaps she laughed because she too was distressed by the actions of the people of Lut and was pleased upon hearing that their punishment was near. It is also possible that she laughed out of amazement or even fear, since laughter is not confined to moments of joy; sometimes a person laughs under intense fear or distress. The well-known Arabic proverb states: “شر الشدائد ما یضحک.” Alternatively, she may have laughed because the food was present but the guests were not eating. It has also been suggested that she laughed at the glad tidings of a son, although the apparent meaning of the verse negates this, as the tidings of Ishaq were given after this laughter. However, it may be said that the news was first conveyed to Ibrahim, and Sarah heard it and felt initial happiness. She was astonished at the possibility that in such an advanced age, an elderly woman could bear a child from an elderly husband; thus, she questioned this matter in amazement, and it was explicitly affirmed that this child would indeed be from her. Reflection upon the verses of Surah al-Dhariyat supports this meaning. It is noteworthy that some commentators insist that the word “ضحکت” is derived from “ضحک” (on the pattern of “درک”) meaning menstruation in women, suggesting that Sarah’s menstruation resumed at that moment after having ceased and reaching menopause, indicating the possibility of childbirth. They cite the expression “ضحك الارانب” in Arabic, meaning that rabbits began menstruation. However, this interpretation appears unlikely: firstly, it is not known that this usage applies to humans; thus, Raghib in Mufradat explicitly states that this is not the meaning of “ضحکت”, but rather it retains the meaning of laughter, although menstruation may have coincided with it. Secondly, if the word referred to menstruation, Sarah should not have been astonished at the glad tidings of Ishaq, since in that condition childbirth would not be unusual. Yet, the subsequent verses clearly show that she exclaimed in amazement and said: “قَالَتْ یَاوَیْلَتَا اَاَلِدُ وَاَنَا عَجُوزٌ وَھٰذَا بَعْلِی شَیْخًا إنَّ ھٰذَا لَشَیْءٌ عَجِیبٌ”. In any case, this interpretation is far from the evident meaning of the verse. The Qur’an then states: “فَبَشَّرْنَاھَا بِإسْحَاقَ وَمِنْ وَرَاءِ إسْحَاقَ یَعْقُوبَ”. In fact, she was given glad tidings of both a son and a grandson—Ishaq and Ya‘qub—both of whom were Prophets of God. Sarah, the wife of Ibrahim (علیه السلام), who had become entirely despairing of childbirth due to her own and her husband’s advanced age, exclaimed in astonishment as cited above. Her astonishment was justified, because according to Surah al-Dhariyat (29), she had been barren even in youth, and at the time of this glad tidings, she was, according to commentators and the Book of Genesis, about ninety years old or more, while Ibrahim (علیه السلام) was approximately one hundred years old or older. A question arises as to why she cited both her own old age and that of her husband, given that women generally cease menstruation around the age of fifty, indicating an end to childbearing, whereas men may retain reproductive capability into later age. The answer is that although the possibility remains for men, it too weakens significantly with advanced age. Indeed, as indicated in Surah al-Hijr (54), even Ibrahim (علیه السلام) expressed astonishment at this due to his old age. Additionally, from a psychological perspective, Sarah may not have wished to attribute the condition of frailty solely to herself. In any case, the messengers of God immediately alleviated her astonishment and reminded her of the abundant blessings God had already bestowed upon this family, and how He had repeatedly saved them from calamities in miraculous ways. They said: “قَالُوا اَتَعْجَبِینَ مِنْ اَمْرِ اللهِ”، while “رَحْمَةُ اللهِ وَبَرَکَاتُہُ عَلَیْکُمْ اَھْلَ الْبَیْتِ” had been and remained upon this household. It is the same God who saved Ibrahim from the grasp of the tyrant Nimrod and preserved him unharmed in the fire, and who granted courage, strength, perseverance, and wisdom to the brave idol-breaker Ibrahim (علیه السلام) when he single-handedly confronted the tyrants. This divine mercy and grace were not limited to that day and age, but continued upon this family, and what greater blessing could there be than the emergence of the Prophet of Islam (صلی الله علیه و آله وسلم) and the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (علیه السلام) from this lineage. From this, commentators have inferred that a person’s wife is included within the concept of “اہل بیت”, and that the term is not restricted only to children and parents. This inference is correct; moreover, even without this verse, the lexical meaning of “اہل” supports this understanding. However, it is also possible that some may be part of the Ahl al-Bayt while, due to adherence to a distinct creed or path, become excluded in spiritual and moral terms. Finally, the angels emphasized: “إنَّہُ حَمِیدٌ مَجِید”. These two attributes of the Lord serve as a rationale for the preceding statement: “حمید” refers to one whose actions are worthy of praise, indicating His abundant blessings upon His servants for which they express gratitude, while “مجید” refers to one who bestows نعمت even before it is deserved. For a God characterized by these attributes, is it surprising that He would grant such a blessing—namely, honorable offspring—to the family of His Prophet?

See ayat 76 for tafseer.

See ayat 76 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, it has been observed that Ibrahim (علیه السلام) soon realized that the newly arrived guests were not dangerous enemies but rather messengers sent by the Lord, who, according to their own statement, were proceeding toward the people of Lut to fulfill a particular mandate. When Ibrahim’s (علیه السلام) anxiety was dispelled by them and, in addition, he received the glad tidings of a noble son and successor, he immediately became concerned about the people of Lut, regarding whose destruction these envoys had been commissioned. He began to dispute with them and to engage in conversation on this matter, “فَلَمَّا ذَھَبَ عَنْ إبْرَاھِیمَ الرَّوْعُ وَجَائَتْہُ الْبُشْریٰ یُجَادِلُنَا فِی قَوْمِ لُوطٍ”. It may be asked here why Ibrahim (علیه السلام) stood up to argue concerning a sinful and corrupt قوم and began disputation with these messengers of God who had been commissioned by His command (hence the expression “یجادلنا” is used, meaning that he disputed with Us), even though such conduct appears distant from the شأن of a Prophet, particularly one of the عظمت of Ibrahim (علیه السلام). Therefore, the Qur’an immediately states in the following verse: “إنَّ إبْرَاھِیمَ لَحَلِیمٌ اَوَّاہٌ مُنِیبٌ”. In reality, within these three words lies the answer to the aforementioned question. The attribution of these qualities to Ibrahim (علیه السلام) indicates that his disputation was praiseworthy and commendable. This is because it had not yet become clear to him that the definitive and irreversible decree of punishment from God had already been issued. He considered it possible that a ray of hope still remained for the salvation of the قوم, that they might awaken, and that the opportunity for intercession had not yet elapsed. For this reason, he sought a delay in punishment and torment, since he was forbearing (حلیم), deeply compassionate (اَوَّاہ), and ever-returning to God (مُنِیب). Thus, the objection raised by some—that if Ibrahim’s (علیه السلام) disputation was with God, it would be meaningless, and if it was with His sent angels, they themselves had no authority to act independently, hence such disputation could not be valid in any case—is answered as follows: in the face of a definitive decree, there is no room for discussion; however, non-final commands may be altered under changing conditions and circumstances, since the possibility of return and reconsideration is not closed. In other words, such commands are conditional rather than absolute. As for the suggestion that the disputation here pertained to the salvation of the believers, this arises from a misunderstanding of Surah al-‘Ankabut, verses 31–32, where it is stated: “وَلَمَّا جَائَتْ رُسُلُنَا إبْرَاھِیمَ بِالْبُشْریٰ قَالُوا إنَّا مُھْلِکُو اَھْلِ ھٰذِہِ الْقَرْیَةِ إنَّ اَھْلَھَا کَانُوا ظَالِمِینَ قَالَ إنَّ فِیھَا لُوطًا قَالُوا نَحْنُ اَعْلَمُ بِمَنْ فِیھَا لَنُنَجِّیَنَّہُ وَاَھْلَہُ إلاَّ امْرَاَتَہُ کَانَتْ مِنَ الْغَابِرِینَ.” This interpretation is not correct, since it does not correspond to the subsequent verse under discussion. In the following verse, it is stated that the messengers immediately said to Ibrahim (علیه السلام): “یَاإبْرَاھِیمُ اَعْرِضْ عَنْ ھٰذَا”، meaning that he should desist from this proposal and abandon intercession, as it was no longer the appropriate time for it, “إنَّہُ قَدْ جَاءَ اَمْرُ رَبِّکَ”، because the decisive and final command of his Lord had arrived, and “وَإنَّھُمْ آتِیھِمْ عَذَابٌ غَیْرُ مَرْدُود”، the punishment of God would inevitably befall them and could not be averted. The expression “ربک” indicates that this punishment was not merely an act of retribution but stemmed from the ربوبیت of the Lord, which denotes the تربیت and reform of His servants and of human society. It is narrated in certain reports that Ibrahim (علیه السلام) said to the messengers of God: if there are one hundred believers among the قوم, will you still destroy them? They replied: no. He asked about fifty; they said: no. He asked about thirty; they said: no. He asked about ten; they said: no. He asked about five; they said: no. Finally, he asked: if even one believer is present among them? They said: no. Then Ibrahim (علیه السلام) said: surely Lut is among them. They replied: we are fully aware of who is there; we shall save him and his household except his wife, who will remain behind. This narration does not establish that the disputation referred to this particular dialogue, since that conversation concerned believers, whereas Ibrahim’s (علیه السلام) disputation regarding the disbelievers was of a different nature. Accordingly, it becomes clear that the verses of Surah al-‘Ankabut mentioned above are not inconsistent with this interpretation.

See ayat 80 for tafseer.

See ayat 80 for tafseer.

See ayat 80 for tafseer.

In the verses of Surah al-A‘raf, one aspect of the fate of the people of Lut has already been indicated, and its interpretation has been presented there. Here, the series of narratives concerning the Prophets and their communities continues; accordingly, some of the preceding verses related to the account of Lut (علیه السلام) and his قوم. In the present verses, another dimension of the life of this misguided and deviant people is unveiled, so that the fundamental objective of the salvation and felicity of the entire human society may be presented from yet another perspective. It is first stated: when Our messengers came to Lut, he was greatly distressed and troubled by their arrival; his mind and spirit became perturbed, and grief and anxiety encompassed him, “وَلَمَّا جَائَتْ رُسُلُنَا لُوطًا سِیءَ بِھِمْ وَضَاقَ بِھِمْ ذَرْعًا”. According to Islamic narrations and exegeses, Lut (علیه السلام) was at that time working in his field when he suddenly saw handsome young men approaching him; they intended to be his guests. Lut (علیه السلام) wished to extend hospitality to them, yet he was also mindful that in a city immersed in the فساد of sexual deviation, the arrival of such youths would create numerous difficulties and could lead to their dishonor. For this reason, Lut (علیه السلام) faced a severe predicament. These troubling thoughts arose painfully within his mind, and he began to say to himself softly: this is a day of great hardship and distress, “وَقَالَ ھٰذَا یَوْمٌ عَصِیبٌ”. The word “سِیء” is derived from “ساء” and signifies distress and discomfort. “ذرع” has been understood by some to mean the heart, and by others disposition; thus, “ضاق بھم ذرعا” conveys that his heart or disposition became greatly constrained due to the presence of these uninvited guests under difficult circumstances. Fakhr al-Razi, however, quoting al-Azhari, explains that “ذرع” in such contexts signifies strength, originally referring to the distance between the front steps of a camel. When a load heavier than its capacity is placed upon it, the camel naturally shortens its stride; hence, the expression gradually came to signify distress and anxiety resulting from the severity of an event. Certain lexicons, such as Qamus, indicate that this expression is used in situations where the intensity of an event leaves a person without any apparent recourse. The word “عصیب” is derived from “عصب” (on the pattern of “اسب”), meaning to bind one thing to another; since distressing circumstances envelop and constrain a person as if binding them, such a condition is described as “عصیب”. The Arabs also describe a scorching, oppressive day as “یوم العصیب”. In any case, Lut (علیه السلام) had no option but to take these newly arrived guests to his home. However, so that they would not remain unaware, he repeatedly warned them along the way that this city was inhabited by wicked and deviant people, so that, if they were unable to confront them, they might at least recognize the circumstances. According to one narration, God had commanded the angels not to execute punishment until this Prophet had testified three times to the فساد and deviation of his قوم, so that even in the case of a sinful people, the divine command would be implemented in accordance with a just and equitable evaluation. The messengers heard Lut’s testimony three times along the way. It is also reported in several narrations that Lut (علیه السلام) detained his guests in the field until nightfall, hoping thereby to protect them from the gaze of that corrupt and immoral community and to receive them with honor. However, when the enemy is present within one’s own household, what can be done? Lut’s wife, who was faithless and who assisted that sinful قوم, upon learning of the arrival of these young and handsome guests, ascended to the roof; first she clapped her hands, then she lit a fire and, by its smoke, informed certain members of the deviant قوم that prey had been ensnared. The Qur’an then states that his قوم came rushing toward him with eagerness and intense desire to attain their aim, “وَجَائَہُ قَوْمُہُ یُھْرَعُونَ إلَیْہِ”—the same قوم whose pages of life were stained with disgrace and shame, “وَمِنْ قَبْلُ کَانُوا یَعْمَلُونَ السَّیِّئَاتِ”. At this moment, Lut (علیه السلام) had every reason to tremble and cry out in anguish. He declared: I am even prepared to give my daughters to you in marriage; they are purer for you, “قَالَ یَاقَوْمِ ھٰؤُلَاءِ بَنَاتِی ھُنَّ اَطْھَرُ لَکُمْ”. Then he urged: fear God, do not disgrace me concerning my guests, and do not dishonor me by intending evil toward them, “فَاتَّقُوا اللهَ وَلَاتُخْزُونِی فِی ضَیْفِی”. He exclaimed in sorrow: is there not among you any rightly guided, intelligent, and honorable person who might restrain this shameful act, “َلَیْسَ مِنْکُمْ رَجُلٌ رَشِیدٌ”? Yet this corrupt قوم responded to the Prophet of God, Lut (علیه السلام), with bold shamelessness: you well know that we have no claim upon your daughters, “قَالُوا لَقَدْ عَلِمْتَ مَا لَنَا فِی بَنَاتِکَ مِنْ حَقٍّ”, and indeed you know what we desire, “وَإنَّکَ لَتَعْلَمُ مَا نُرِیدُ”. The expression “یُھْرَعُونَ” is derived from “اھراع”, meaning to push or drive forward, as though their rebellious lust was forcibly driving this misguided قوم toward the guests of Lut (علیه السلام). At this point, this venerable Prophet found himself surrounded and besieged. In a state of intense distress and anguish, he cried out: would that I possessed sufficient strength to defend my guests and to subdue people like you, “قَالَ لَوْ اَنَّ لِی بِکُمْ قُوَّةً”, or that I could take refuge in a strong support, that there were a قوم or tribe among my followers or powerful allies through whose assistance I could confront you deviant people, “اَوْ آوِی إلَی رُکْنٍ شَدِید”.

1. The Daughters of Lut (علیه السلام): When the people of Lut surrounded the house of Lut (علیه السلام) and sought to transgress against his guests, he said: my daughters are lawful and pure for you; avail yourselves of them and do not circle around sin. This statement has raised numerous questions among commentators. The first concerns whether the “daughters” refer to the biological and actual daughters of Lut (علیه السلام), when historically he had no more than two or three daughters. How, then, could he present such a proposal to such a large crowd? Or does it refer to all the daughters of the people and the city, since it is customary for the elder of a tribe to regard the daughters of the tribe as his own? The second possibility appears weak, as it is contrary to the apparent meaning; thus, the correct view is the first. Lut’s (علیه السلام) proposal was based on the fact that only a group from the town, not all its inhabitants, had gathered. Moreover, he intended to demonstrate the utmost sacrifice—that he was prepared to give his daughters in marriage in order to prevent sin and to protect the honor and dignity of his guests, in the hope that such unparalleled self-sacrifice might awaken their dormant consciences and lead them back to the path of truth. A second question arises: was it permissible for believing daughters such as those of Lut (علیه السلام) to be married to unbelieving disbelievers, such that he would offer this proposal? This question has been answered in two ways. First, that in the religious law of Lut (علیه السلام), at its earlier stage, such marriages were not prohibited. Second, that Lut (علیه السلام) intended a conditional form of marriage—that is, conditional upon faith: these are my daughters; come to believe, so that I may give them to you in marriage. It thus becomes evident that the objection that Lut (علیه السلام) proposed marriage between his pure daughters and immoral individuals is not valid, since his offer was conditional. This demonstrates the extent of his concern for their guidance. 2. The Meaning of “اطھر”: It should be noted that the term “اطھر” (purer) does not imply that their reprehensible and shameful act was itself pure and that marriage was comparatively purer. Rather, in Arabic and other languages, such expressions are used in comparative contexts; for example, when someone drives excessively fast, one may say: arriving late is better than not arriving at all, or refraining from doubtful food is better than endangering one’s life. In a narration, it is reported that an Imam (علیه السلام), under severe conditions of precaution and threat from the Abbasid caliphs, said: “واللّٰہ افطر یوما من شھر رمضان احب الیٰ من ان یضرب عنقی.” That is, breaking the fast for one day of Ramadan—when the ruling authority had declared ‘Id even though it was not—was preferable to being killed. Although neither being killed nor failing entirely to reach one’s objective is desirable, such expressions are employed in these contexts. 3. The Counsel of a “رجل رشید”: Lut’s (علیه السلام) statement at the conclusion—“is there not among you any رجل رشید”—reveals that the presence of even a single rational and rightly guided individual within a قوم may suffice to restrain it from shameful acts. That is, if even one person of sound intellect and maturity had been among them, they would not have approached his house with malicious intent toward his guests. This highlights the significant role of a “رجل رشید” in the guidance of human society, a reality evidenced repeatedly throughout human history. 4. The Ultimate Stage of Deviation: It is remarkable that this misguided قوم responded to Lut (علیه السلام) by saying: we have no claim or right to your daughters. This indicates the extreme level of their deviation—that a society immersed in sin reaches a state in which it perceives truth as falsehood and falsehood as truth. They did not consider marriage with pure, believing women to fall within their rightful domain, whereas they regarded sexual deviation as their right. When sin becomes habitual, this stage represents one of the most dangerous conditions, wherein individuals come to regard the most shameful and reprehensible acts as their right, while viewing the purest and most lawful means of fulfilling natural desires as illegitimate. 5. The Meaning of “قوة” and “رکن شدید”: A narration from Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq (علیه السلام) interprets “قوة” as referring to the “Qa’im” and “رکن شدید” as his 313 companions and supporters. It may appear unusual that Lut (علیه السلام), in that era, would express a wish for the ظهور of such a figure along with such supporters. However, as seen in various traditions concerning the interpretation of Qur’anic verses, a general principle is often expressed through a clear and prominent instance. In essence, Lut (علیه السلام) was expressing a desire: if only there were a sufficient number of resolute individuals, strong both physically and spiritually—like those who will arise during the قیام of al-Mahdi (علیه السلام) and establish a universal order—then he too would strive to establish a divine order and, with their assistance, wage struggle against فساد and deviation, and suppress such reckless and shameless individuals

See ayat 83 for tafseer.

See ayat 83 for tafseer.

Ultimately, when the messengers of the Lord observed the intense distress of Lut (علیه السلام) and perceived the depth of his inner اضطراب, they unveiled their hidden reality and said to him: “قَالُوا یَالُوطُ إنَّا رُسُلُ رَبِّکَ لَنْ یَصِلُوا إلَیْکَ”, that is, O Lut, we are the messengers of your Lord; do not be distressed and remain assured that they shall never gain access to you. It is noteworthy that the angels do not say that no harm will reach them; rather, they state that no harm will reach you, O Lut. This mode of expression may be due to the fact that they did not regard themselves as separate from Lut (علیه السلام), since they were his guests and any violation against them would constitute a violation against him. Alternatively, it may be intended to emphasize that while they, as divine messengers, are beyond the reach of harm, even you—who share their humanity—will also not be reached by them. In Surah al-Qamar, verse 37, it is stated: “وَلَقَدْ رَاوَدُوہُ عَنْ ضَیْفِہِ فَطَمَسْنَا اَعْیُنَھُمْ”. This verse indicates that when the attacking قوم sought to assault the guests of Lut, their sight was taken away by the command of the Lord, rendering them incapable of carrying out their attack. Certain narrations likewise report that an angel cast a handful of dust upon their faces, causing them to become blind. In any case, when Lut (علیه السلام) became aware of the true identity and mission of his guests, this realization brought soothing relief to his burning heart. Instantly, he felt the burden of sorrow lifted, and his eyes shone with joy—like that of a gravely ill person who suddenly beholds a healer. He breathed a sigh of relief and understood that the period of grief was nearing its end and that the time of deliverance from the grasp of that shameless, bestial قوم, and the moment of relief, had arrived. The guests then immediately instructed him: “فَاَسْرِ بِاَھْلِکَ بِقِطْعٍ مِنَ اللَّیْلِ”, that is, depart with your family during a portion of the night and leave the land. However, it was stipulated: “وَلَایَلْتَفِتْ مِنْکُمْ اَحَدٌ”, that none among you should look back, except that your sinful wife will disobey this command and will be afflicted by the same punishment that befalls them, “إلاَّ امْرَاَتَکَ إنَّہُ مُصِیبُھَا مَا اَصَابَھُمْ”. Regarding the phrase “وَلَایَلْتَفِتْ مِنْکُمْ اَحَدٌ”, several interpretations have been offered by commentators: first, that no one should look back; second, that one should not concern oneself with collecting possessions or wealth but only seek personal salvation; third, that no one from this small caravan should remain behind; and fourth, that when the punishment begins and the زمین trembles, one should avoid looking back and hasten departure. It is possible that all these meanings are encompassed within the verse. With respect to the clause “إلاَّ امْرَاَتَکَ”, two possibilities have been suggested: one, that the exception relates to “وَلَایَلْتَفِتْ مِنْکُمْ اَحَدٌ”, meaning that all, including the wife of Lut (علیه السلام), departed from the city and none looked back except her, due to her emotional attachment to her قوم; she paused, looked back, and—according to a narration—was struck by one of the descending stones and destroyed. The second possibility is that the exception relates to “فَاَسْرِ بِاَھْلِکَ”, meaning that Lut was instructed to take all his family except his wife, who remained in the city. The first interpretation, however, appears more appropriate. Finally, they said to Lut (علیه السلام): “إنَّ مَوْعِدَھُمْ الصُّبْحُ”, that the appointed time for the descent of punishment and the fulfillment of the promise is the morning, and with the first light of dawn the life of this قوم will be destroyed. Therefore, rise and depart as swiftly as possible, “اَلَیْسَ الصُّبْحُ بِقَرِیبٍ”. Some narrations indicate that when the angels stated that the appointed time of punishment was the morning, Lut (علیه السلام), deeply distressed by this corrupt قوم—whose shameful deeds had wounded his heart and filled his spirit with grief—expressed a desire that the destruction occur sooner rather than later. In response, the angels consoled him by saying: is not the morning near? At last, the moment of punishment arrived, and the wait of Lut (علیه السلام) came to an end. As the Qur’an states: “فَلَمَّا جَاءَ اَمْرُنَا جَعَلْنَا عَالِیَھَا سَافِلَھَا وَاَمْطَرْنَا عَلَیْھَا حِجَارَةً مِنْ سِجِّیلٍ مَنْضُودٍ”. When Our command came, We turned the land upside down and rained upon them stones of “سِجِّیل” in continuous succession. The term “سِجِّیل” is originally of Persian origin, derived from “سنگ و گل”, indicating a substance neither wholly stone nor loose clay, but a hardened mixture between the two. The word “مَنْضُود” derives from “نضد”, meaning successive and sequential; thus, the stones fell in such rapid succession that they appeared piled one upon another. These were not ordinary stones but were marked and designated by the Lord, “مُسَوَّمَةً عِنْدَ رَبِّکَ”. Yet, it should not be assumed that such punishment was confined to the people of Lut alone; “وَمَا ھِیَ مِنَ الظَّالِمِینَ بِبَعِیدٍ”, meaning that it is not far from any ظالم group. This deviant and misguided قوم wronged both themselves and their society, mocking human faith and morality and ignoring the pleas of their compassionate guide. Their audacity, shamelessness, and فساد reached such a peak that they sought to violate even the sanctity of their leader’s guests. They overturned every moral order, and thus their cities were overturned; not only were they destroyed, but a rain of stones descended upon them, obliterating their final traces, until nothing remained but desolation, ruined plains, silent graves, and bodies buried beneath stones. Such a fate is not confined to the people of Lut; rather, every deviant and oppressive community ultimately faces a comparable end—whether through storms of stones, destructive forces, or internal strife that devastates societies.

1. Why was the punishment sent down in the morning?: Upon reflecting on the above verses, a question arises in the reader's mind: why was the morning time chosen for the the background of the revelation of Ayat of the punishment, and why did the punishment not descend during the night? This was because when the people who had stormed the house of Prophet Lut (peace be upon him) were blinded and returned to their people and narrated the incident, they began to ponder what the matter was. God gave them respite until the morning so that perhaps they would awaken, turn towards His court, and repent. Or it could be that God did not want them to be attacked by night in the darkness; for this reason, the command was given to hold back the hand of the appointed punishment until the morning. Almost nothing has been written about this in the tafsirs, but what we have mentioned above are a few possibilities worth considering in this regard. 2. Why was it overturned?: We have already said that there should be some correspondence between the punishment and the sin. Since this nation, through sexual deviation, had turned everything upside down, God also overturned their cities. And since, according to narrations, a rain of vile and filthy foulness constantly poured from their mouths, God also rained stones upon them. 3. Why the rain of stones?: Was the rain of stones before their cities were overturned, simultaneous with it, or after it? There is a difference of opinion among the commentators on this matter, and the divine verses are also not explicit in this regard, because this clause is joined with a "waw" [conjunction 'and'], from which the sequence is not known. However, some commentators, for example, the author of Al-Manar, believe that the rain of stones was either before the overturning or simultaneous with it. The philosophy behind this was that those individuals who were here and there in the corners and were not buried in the rubble would not remain safe and sound, and they too would receive the punishment for their evil deeds. The narration which states that when the wife of Prophet Lut (peace be upon him) heard the sound, she turned her head back, and in that state, a stone struck and killed her, indicates that these two events (the overturning and the rain of stones) occurred simultaneously. If we disregard these points, there is no reason to prevent the possibility that the pebbles were rained down upon them after the overturning in order to intensify the punishment and efface their traces, in such a way that their area was hidden beneath them and its traces were wiped out. 4. Why were the stones marked?: We have said that from the phrase "musawwamah ‘inda rabbik," it is clear that these stones were special and marked in the sight of God. But how they were marked, there is a difference of opinion among the commentators on this matter. Some have said that these stones had certain marks on them which indicated that they were not ordinary stones but were sent down specifically for the divine punishment, so that they would not be mistaken for other falling stones. For this reason, some others have said that the stones were not like earthly stones, but were a type of celestial stone sent towards the earth from outside the earth's sphere. Some have also said that in the knowledge of the Lord, they had certain marks such that each one of them would fall precisely on a specific person and at a specific place. This is an indication that the divine punishment and chastisement is so calculated that it is even determined which person will be punished with which stone, and none of His actions are carried out without calculation and regulation. 5. The prohibition of inclination towards the same sex: Intercourse with the same sex, whether among men or women, is considered among the major sins in Islam, and a hadd (prescribed legal punishment) is specified for both. If the sin of homosexuality is among men, whether the active or passive partner, its punishment in Islam is death, and several methods for this act and its execution are described in fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). However, for this punishment, it is necessary that this sin be proven through reliable and definitive means, which are mentioned in Islamic fiqh and in the narrations of the Ma'sumin (the Infallibles). So much so that confessing merely three times is not sufficient; a confession of this act is required at least four times. As for the punishment for the sin of homosexuality among women, after it is proven by four confessions or the testimony of four just witnesses (in light of the conditions mentioned in fiqh), it is one hundred lashes. Some jurists have said that if a married woman commits this sin, her hadd is death. For the implementation of these hudud (prescribed punishments), there are precise and well-defined conditions that are present in the books of Islamic fiqh. The narrations that have been transmitted from the leaders of Islam in condemnation of the sin of homosexuality are so numerous and shocking that by studying them, every person feels that the ugliness and evil of this sin is such that very few sins are considered equal to it. Among them, a narration is transmitted from the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him and his progeny) that: لما عمل قوم لوط ما عملوا بکت الارض الیٰ ربھا حتیٰ بلغ ودعھا الی السماء،بکت السماء حتیٰ بلغ ودعھا العرش، فاوحی اللّٰہ الی السماء ان احصبیھم،واوحی الی الارض ان اخفی بھم۔ When the people of Lut committed this vile act, the earth wept so much to its Lord that its tears reached the sky, and the sky wept so much that its tears reached the Throne. At that time, Allah revealed to the sky to rain stones upon them, and revealed to the earth to...Take them downwards. (Reference: Tafsir Burhan, vol. 2, p. 231) It is apparent that here, shedding tears is by way of simile and metaphor. Another hadith is narrated from Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him) that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) said: man jamiʿa ghulaman jaʾa yawm al-qiyamati junuban la yunqih maʾ al-dunya wa ghadiba Allahu ʿalayhi wa laʿanahu wa aʿaddalahu jahannam wa saʾat masira... thumma qala inna al-dhakara fi yahtazzu al-ʿarshu lidhalik. Whoever has sexual intercourse with a boy will be presented on the Day of Resurrection in the state of impurity (janaba) in the field of assembly, such that all the waters of the world will not be able to purify him, and God will be wrathful with him and will cast him away from His mercy and will curse him, and Hell has been prepared for him, and what an evil place Hell is. After that, he said: When a male has sexual intercourse with a male, the Throne of God trembles. (Reference: Wasail al-Shia, vol. 14, p. 249) In another hadith, it is narrated from Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him) that he said: Those who do this act or have it done are the remaining people of Sodom (the people of Lot). A question was asked: The same city of Sodom that was overturned? He said: Yes, they were four cities: Sodom, Sarim, Lana, and Ghamira (Amorah). (Reference: Wasail al-Shia, vol. 14, p. 253.) In another narration, it is narrated from the Commander of the Faithful (peace be upon him) that he (peace be upon him) said: I heard the Prophet (PBUH & His Pure Progeny) saying: laʿana Allahu al-mutashabbihin min al-rijal bil-nisaʾ wal-mutashabbihat min al-nisaʾ bil-rijal. May the curse of God be upon those men who make themselves resemble women (who have sexual intercourse with men) and may the curse of God be upon those women who make themselves resemble men. (Reference: Wasail al-Shia, vol. 14, p. 255.)

Although in the Western world, where sexual permissiveness is widespread, such vices are not regarded with aversion—in fact, it has been reported that in certain countries, such as Britain, legislative bodies have, with extreme boldness, granted legal sanction to such acts—yet the prevalence of these practices in no way diminishes their inherent reprehensibility and moral ugliness, and their ethical, psychological, and social harms remain fully intact. At times, some adherents of materialistic schools, who are themselves afflicted by such deviations, attempt to justify their conduct by claiming that, from a medical perspective, there is no defect in it. However, they overlook the fundamental reality that every form of sexual deviation exerts an effect upon the entire structure of human existence and disrupts its natural equilibrium. The explanation of this is that human beings, by nature and disposition, are inclined toward the opposite sex, and this inclination is deeply rooted within human nature and serves as a guarantee for the continuity of the human نسل. Any activity that deviates from this natural inclination produces a form of disorder and psychological deviation within the individual. A man who is inclined toward his own جنس, or one who offers himself for such acts, cannot be considered a complete man. In works on sexual matters, homosexuality (HOMOSEXUALISM) is regarded as one of the most significant forms of deviation. If such practices continue, the inclination toward the opposite sex gradually diminishes, and those who engage in such acts increasingly develop feminine dispositions. Both participants ultimately become afflicted with severe sexual ضعف and, in technical terms, frigidity, to such an extent that after a period they may lose the natural capacity for relations with the opposite sex. Considering that the sexual instincts of men and women influence not only their physical organisms but also their psychological states and specific moral characteristics, it becomes evident how profoundly deprivation from natural inclinations impacts both body and spirit. It is even possible that individuals affected by such deviations may suffer such severe sexual weakness that they lose the capacity for procreation. Such individuals are often not psychologically sound, experiencing a kind of alienation from themselves and a sense of detachment from the society in which they live. Gradually, they lose their قوت ارادی, which is a prerequisite for all forms of success, and a state of confusion and اضطراب becomes entrenched within their روح. If such individuals do not promptly undertake reform and do not seek assistance from both physical and spiritual physicians, and if this behavior becomes habitual, abandoning it becomes difficult. Nevertheless, once a firm determination is made, it is never too late to relinquish this habit, though strong resolve is indispensable. In any case, psychological disorientation may gradually lead such individuals toward intoxicants and alcohol, resulting in further moral deviation—constituting an even greater misfortune. It is noteworthy that Islamic narrations have alluded to these harms in brief yet meaningful expressions. Among them is a narration attributed to Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq (علیه السلام), in which he was asked: “لم حرم اللّٰہ اللواط.” He replied: “من اجل انہ لوکان اتیان الغلام حلالا لاستغنی الرجال عن النساء وکان فیہ قطع النسل وتعطیل الفروج وکان فی اجازة ذلک فساد کثیر.” If intercourse with boys were lawful, men would become independent of women, thereby interrupting the continuity of the human نسل and leading to the abandonment of natural relations, and such permissibility would result in numerous moral and social فساد. (Wasa’il al-Shi‘a, vol. 14, p. 252). It is also noteworthy that among the legal consequences established in Islam for such individuals is that, for the active participant, marriage to the mother, sister, or daughter of the passive participant becomes permanently prohibited, in the event that the act took place prior to marriage. Finally, it is important to note that numerous factors contribute to the inclination toward sexual deviation. At times, the behavior of parents toward their children, neglect in supervising same-sex children, or patterns of living such as shared sleeping arrangements, may contribute to this condition. In certain cases, one form of moral deviation may lead to another. It is reported in relation to the people of Lut that one of the causes of their corruption was stinginess and miserliness. Since their city lay along the route of caravans traveling to Sham, and they wished to avoid hosting travelers and guests, they initially pretended to intend sexual assault in order to repel them. Gradually, this behavior became habitual, and the inclination toward deviation was awakened within them, eventually engulfing them entirely. (Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 12, p. 147). Even trivial and inappropriate forms of joking sometimes observed among boys or girls regarding their own جنس may, in certain cases, lead toward such deviations. In any case, it is necessary to exercise full vigilance regarding these matters, and those who are afflicted by such sins should seek prompt deliverance and ask God for success in overcoming them.

In Islamic narrations and historical accounts, alongside sexual deviations, other disgraceful and shameful actions and a base moral character of the people of Lut have also been described. In this regard, Safinat al-Bihar states: “It has been said that their gatherings were filled with various forms of reprehensible conduct, such as insults, frivolity, obscene speech, and mockery. They would strike one another’s backs, engage in gambling, use musical instruments, throw stones at passersby, and expose their private parts openly before people.” It is evident that in such a corrupt environment, deviation and vice emerge daily in new forms and continue to expand in scope. In such a milieu, the very concept of wrongdoing is gradually extinguished, and people advance along this path to the extent that no act remains, in their perception, blameworthy or reprehensible. Even more unfortunate are those societies which, in an age of scientific and intellectual advancement, proceed along the same path; at times, their actions become so shameless and degrading that the deeds of the people of Lut fade from memory in comparison.

See ayat 86 for tafseer.

See ayat 86 for tafseer.

With the conclusion of the instructive account of the people of Lut, the discussion turns to the people of Shu‘ayb and the inhabitants of Madyan. These were the same people who had abandoned the path of Tawhid and had become lost in the rugged terrain of shirk and idol worship. They not only worshipped idols but also venerated dirhams and dinars and their material wealth; consequently, they corrupted their commercial activities and flourishing trade through dishonesty, fraudulent measurement, and unjust practices. It is first stated: “وَإلیٰ مَدْیَنَ اَخَاھُمْ شُعَیْبًا”. As previously explained, the expression “اخاھم” (their brother) signifies the profound محبت of the Prophets for their people—not merely because they belonged to the same tribe, but because they were like compassionate and sincere brothers to them. Madyan (on the pattern of “Maryam”) was the name of the settlement of Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام) and his people. This city was located to the east of the Gulf of Aqaba, and its inhabitants were among the descendants of Isma‘il. They engaged in trade with Egypt, Lebanon, and Palestine. In later geography, the region came to be known as Ma‘an, and some have extended the designation of Madyan to those residing between the Gulf of Aqaba and Mount Sinai. The term “Madyan” also appears in the Torah, referring to certain tribes; it is common for a single term to denote both a city and its inhabitants. This Prophet, compassionate and devoted, began—like all Prophets at the outset of their دعوت—by calling them to the most fundamental principle of religion, namely Tawhid. He said: “قَالَ یَاقَوْمِ اعْبُدُوا اللهَ مَا لَکُمْ مِنْ إلَہٍ غَیْرُہ”. The call to Tawhid is, in essence, a call to demolish all forms of طاغوت and eradicate all traditions rooted in ignorance; without it, no genuine social or moral reform is possible. At that time, a severe economic فساد prevailed among the people of Madyan, rooted in the spirit of shirk and material worship. Referring to this, it is declared: “وَلَاتَنقُصُوا الْمِکْیَالَ وَالْمِیزَان”. The terms “مکیال” and “میزان” denote measures and scales; their deficiency signifies the violation of people’s rights. The prevalence of such practices indicates that their economic life lacked order, justice, and proper regulation, and that their society was characterized by exploitation, injustice, and oppression. Immediately after this command, this great Prophet points to its underlying rationale. He explains that accepting this counsel would open the gates of prosperity: trade would flourish, prices would stabilize, and society would attain peace and well-being. Thus he states: “إنِّی اَرَاکُمْ بِخَیْر”. This may also be interpreted to mean: I see that you are already endowed with abundant blessings and prosperity; therefore, there is no justification for descending into corruption, violating rights, and showing ingratitude for divine نعمت. He further warns: “وَإنِّی اَخَافُ عَلَیْکُمْ عَذَابَ یَوْمٍ مُحِیطٍ”, expressing fear that persistence in shirk, ingratitude, and fraudulent dealings may lead to an encompassing punishment. The term “محیط” describes a day whose punishment surrounds completely; it may refer both to punishment in the Hereafter and to all-encompassing punishment in this world. Subsequently, the Qur’an reiterates, with greater emphasis, the reform of their economic system. Having already prohibited deficiency in measure, the command now calls for the full delivery of rights: “وَیَاقَوْمِ اَوْفُوا الْمِکْیَالَ وَالْمِیزَانَ بِالْقِسْط”. Justice in measure and weight must govern the entire social order. Then it extends further: “وَلَاتَبْخَسُوا النَّاسَ اَشْیَائَھُم”. The term “بخس” signifies unjust diminution, and its broader implication encompasses all violations of individual and collective rights across societies and eras. Such ظلم can manifest in numerous forms, including exploitation disguised as assistance or economic domination. Finally, it declares: “وَلَاتَعْثَوْا فِی الْاَرْضِ مُفْسِدِین”. This encompasses all forms of فساد: corruption in economic dealings, usurpation of rights, disruption of social balance, defamation of property and persons, and infringement upon honor, dignity, and life. The expression “لا تعثوا” itself means “do not spread فساد,” and the addition of “مفسدین” serves as further emphasis. These verses clearly demonstrate that sound belief in Tawhid is essential for a just economic system and that the فساد of economic structures leads to widespread social ruin. At the conclusion, they are reminded that wealth acquired through ظلم and exploitation cannot grant true security or sufficiency. Rather, whatever lawful gain remains—however modest—if accompanied by faith in God and His Messenger, is far superior: “بَقِیَّةُ اللهِ خَیْرٌ لَکُمْ إنْ کُنتُمْ مُؤْمِنِینَ”. The expression “بَقِیَّةُ اللهِ” may signify that lawful gain, being in accordance with divine command, belongs to God; or that such provision ensures the دوام and برکت of divine نعمت; or that it alludes to the enduring spiritual reward that remains even when worldly possessions perish, as indicated in: “وَالْبَاقِیَاتُ الصَّالِحَاتُ خَیْرٌ عِنْدَ رَبِّکَ ثَوَابًا وَخَیْرٌ اَمَلًا”. The phrase “إنْ کُنتُمْ مُؤْمِنِینَ” suggests that only those who possess faith in God, His wisdom, and the philosophical foundation of His commands can truly comprehend this reality. Numerous narrations interpret “بَقِیَّةُ اللهِ” as referring to al-Mahdi (علیه السلام) or other Imams. For instance, in a report attributed to Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (علیه السلام), it is stated that the first words uttered by al-Qa’im upon his emergence will be this verse, followed by his declaration: I am بقیة الله and His proof and vicegerent among you. Thus, believers will greet him with: السلام علیک یا بقیة الله فی ارضہ. It has been repeatedly observed that although Qur’anic verses may have been revealed concerning specific contexts, their meanings are comprehensive and extend to broader applications. While in this verse the immediate reference is to the people of Shu‘ayb and “بَقِیَّةُ اللهِ” denotes lawful profit and divine reward, every beneficial entity that God leaves for humanity as a source of خیر and سعادت may be described as “بَقِیَّةُ اللهِ”. All divine Prophets, righteous guides, and even those who return successfully from just struggle may be included within this concept. Since al-Mahdi (علیه السلام), as the final leader after the Prophet of Islam (صلی الله علیه وآلہ وسلم), represents one of the most manifest instances of this concept, he is especially worthy of the title “بَقِیَّةُ اللهِ”. Finally, it is stated through Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام): “وما انا علیکم بحفیظ”, indicating that his responsibility is limited to conveying the message, warning, and admonition; he is neither accountable for their deeds nor tasked with compelling them to follow the path. They are free to choose their course and bear its consequences.

See ayat 90 for tafseer.

See ayat 90 for tafseer.

See ayat 90 for tafseer.

Now we observe how this obstinate قوم responded to the call of this heavenly reformer. They, who regarded their idols as the heritage of their forefathers and a sign of their authentic civilization, and who derived substantial benefits and profits from fraudulent dealings and short‑measurement, said in response to Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام): “قَالُوا یَاشُعَیْبُ اَصَلَاتُکَ تَاْمُرُکَ اَنْ نَتْرُکَ مَا یَعْبُدُ آبَاؤُنَا”، that is, O Shu‘ayb, does your prayer command you that we abandon what our forefathers worshipped, “اَوْ اَنْ نَفْعَلَ فِی اَمْوَالِنَا مَا نَشَاءُ”، or that we relinquish our freedom regarding our wealth? “إنَّکَ لَاَنْتَ الْحَلِیمُ الرَّشِید”، you are indeed a forbearing and sensible man—such words do not befit you. A question arises as to why they referred specifically to Shu‘ayb’s prayer. Some commentators have stated that this was because Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام) frequently performed prayer and taught that prayer restrains a person from evil and indecent conduct. However, those ignorant individuals who failed to comprehend the relationship between prayer and the abandonment of wrongdoing mocked this principle, asking whether these invocations and movements could command them to abandon the traditions and religious culture of their ancestors or surrender their autonomy regarding their wealth. It has also been suggested that “صلوٰة” here is a reference to religion itself, since prayer is its most prominent symbol. If they had reflected properly, they would have realized that prayer cultivates a sense of responsibility, تقویٰ, restraint, God-consciousness, and recognition of truth within the human being. It reminds a person of God and His just judgment, purifies the heart from arrogance and egotism, and directs one away from a limited and corrupted world toward a higher realm of purity and virtue. For this reason, it prevents a person from shirk, idol worship, blind imitation of forefathers, short‑measurement, and various forms of deception. Another question concerns whether the statement “إنَّکَ لَاَنْتَ الْحَلِیمُ الرَّشِید” was intended as a sincere acknowledgment or as mockery. Although both interpretations have been mentioned, attention to the earlier sarcastic remark “اَصَلَاتُکَ تَاْمُرُک” suggests that this too was uttered in ridicule. Their implication was that a forbearing and rational person does not express an opinion until thoroughly examining a matter, and a sensible individual does not undermine the customs of a people or restrict the freedom of wealthy individuals. Thus, they insinuated that Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام) lacked sufficient understanding and sound judgment. In response to those who regarded his message as folly, Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام) said: “قَالَ یَاقَوْمِ اَرَاَیْتُمْ إنْ کُنتُ عَلیٰ بَیِّنَةٍ مِنْ رَبِّی وَرَزَقَنِی مِنْہُ رِزْقًا حَسَنًا”. O my قوم, if I stand upon clear evidence from my Lord, and He has granted me a pure provision, is it reasonable that I should act contrary to His command or fail to seek your well-being? The implied conclusion is that he would not turn away from worship and the conveyance of the divine message under such circumstances. Through this statement, Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام) emphasizes that his purpose is purely spiritual, human, and educational. He knows truths that they do not, and human beings are often hostile toward what they do not understand. The repeated address “یاقوم” serves to soften their disposition and encourage acceptance, emphasizing his bond with them—that he belongs to them and seeks for them what he seeks for himself. He further declares: “وَمَا اُرِیدُ اَنْ اُخَالِفَکُمْ إلیٰ مَا اَنْھَاکُمْ عَنْہ”. I do not intend to do myself what I forbid you from doing. I do not prohibit you from fraud and deception while engaging in them myself, nor forbid idol worship while practicing it. This statement refutes the accusation that he sought personal gain through his message. Finally, he states: “اِنْ اُرِیدُ إلاَّ الْإصْلَاحَ مَا اسْتَطَعْت”، declaring that his sole objective is reform to the extent of his ability—reform of belief, morality, action, relationships, and social systems. He adds: “وَمَا تَوْفِیقِی إلاَّ بِالله”، indicating that he relies entirely upon God for success, and “عَلَیْہِ تَوَکَّلْتُ وَإلَیْہِ اُنِیبُ”، that he trusts in Him and constantly turns to Him. He then directs them to an ethical principle, warning that hostility, prejudice, and obstinacy may lead a person to ignore all benefits and forget consequences. He says: “وَیَاقَوْمِ لَایَجْرِمَنَّکُمْ شِقَاقِی اَنْ یُصِیبَکُمْ مِثْلُ مَا اَصَابَ قَوْمَ نُوحٍ اَوْ قَوْمَ ھُودٍ اَوْ قَوْمَ صَالِح”، lest their opposition lead them to suffer the same fate as the people of Nuh, Hud, or Salih, and “وَمَا قَوْمُ لُوطٍ مِنْکُمْ بِبَعِیدٍ”، reminding them that the people of Lut are not distant from them in time, place, or conduct. Although the forms of فساد differed—sexual deviation among the people of Lut and economic corruption among the people of Shu‘ayb—both societies were alike in undermining moral values, corrupting social order, and spreading vice. Finally, Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام) gives two concluding directives: “وَاسْتَغْفِرُوا رَبَّکُمْ”، seek forgiveness from your Lord to cleanse yourselves from sin, and “ثُمَّ تُوبُوا إلَیْہِ”، return to Him in repentance. Indeed, the path of return remains open regardless of the severity of sin, because “إنَّ رَبِّی رَحِیمٌ وَدُود”، my Lord is Merciful and Loving. Then it is stated: “قَالُوۡا یٰشُعَیۡبُ مَا نَفۡقَہُ کَثِیۡرًا مِّمَّا تَقُوۡلُ وَ اِنَّا لَنَرٰىکَ فِیۡنَا ضَعِیۡفًا ۚ وَ لَوۡ لَا رَہۡطُکَ لَرَجَمۡنٰکَ ۫ وَ مَاۤ اَنۡتَ عَلَیۡنَا بِعَزِیۡزٍ۔” They said: O Shu‘ayb, we do not understand much of what you say, and we consider you weak among us; were it not for your small clan, we would have surely stoned you, and you are not mighty against us. “قَالَ یٰقَوۡمِ اَرَہۡطِیۡۤ اَعَزُّ عَلَیۡکُمۡ مِّنَ اللّٰہِ ؕ وَ اتَّخَذۡتُمُوۡہُ وَرَآءَکُمۡ ظِہۡرِیًّا ؕ اِنَّ رَبِّیۡ بِمَا تَعۡمَلُوۡنَ مُحِیۡطٌ۔” He said: O my قوم, is my clan more respected in your sight than God, while you have cast Him behind your backs? Indeed, my Lord encompasses all that you do. “وَ یٰقَوۡمِ اعۡمَلُوۡا عَلٰی مَکَانَتِکُمۡ اِنِّیۡ عَامِلٌ ؕ سَوۡفَ تَعۡلَمُوۡنَ ۙ مَنۡ یَّاۡتِیۡہِ عَذَابٌ یُّخۡزِیۡہِ وَ مَنۡ ہُوَ کَاذِبٌ ؕ وَ ارۡتَقِبُوۡۤا اِنِّیۡ مَعَکُمۡ رَقِیۡبٌ۔” O my قوم, act according to your position; I too am acting. Soon you will know upon whom will come a humiliating punishment and who is the liar. Wait, and I too am waiting with you.

See ayat 93 for tafseer.

See ayat 93 for tafseer.

This eminent Prophet, Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام), who, owing to his measured, eloquent, and captivating discourse, is titled “Khateeb al-Anbiya’,” delivered speech that opened pathways for the spiritual and material life of these people. He addressed them with great patience, composure, dignity, and sincerity; yet it is evident how this misguided قوم responded. In four statements—reflecting obstinacy, ignorance, and heedlessness—they replied. First, they said: “قَالُوا یَاشُعَیْبُ مَا نَفْقَہُ کَثِیرًا مِمَّا تَقُولُ,” that is, O Shu‘ayb, much of what you say we do not understand. Essentially, they claimed that his words lacked coherence and substance, containing nothing worthy of consideration or reflection; therefore, there was nothing in them that merited action, and he should not exert himself further. Second, they declared: “وَإنَّا لَنَرَاکَ فِینَا ضَعِیفًا,” that is, we consider you weak among us. Thus, if he imagined that he could impose his reasoning upon them through strength, they regarded this as a misconception. They added that their restraint from confronting him was not due to fear of his power; rather, “وَلَوْلَارَھْطُکَ لَرَجَمْنَاک,” meaning that were it not for the consideration of his small clan, they would have stoned him. The use of the word “رھط” (which in Arabic denotes a small group, generally ranging from a few individuals to a limited number) indicates that they did not regard his tribe as powerful; rather, other considerations merely prevented them from acting. Finally, they asserted: “وَمَا اَنْتَ عَلَیْنَا بِعَزِیزٍ,” that is, you are not mighty against us. Although he might be counted among the elders of his tribe, in their estimation he held no significance due to the message he conveyed. Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام), rather than reacting with anger or withdrawing in the face of their insults, responded with the same eloquence and rational clarity. He said: “قَالَ یَاقَوْمِ اَرَھْطِی اَعَزُّ عَلَیْکُمْ مِنَ الله,” asking whether his small clan was more esteemed in their sight than God. If they refrained from harming him out of regard for a few individuals, why did they not accept his message out of regard for God? He further said: “وَاتَّخَذْتُمُوہُ وَرَائَکُمْ ظِھْرِیًّا,” indicating that they had cast God and His command behind their backs, demonstrating complete disregard. He concluded by emphasizing: “إنَّ رَبِّی بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ مُحِیط,” reminding them that his Lord fully encompasses and is aware of all their actions. A proficient speaker is one who addresses every objection raised by the opponent, and since they had implicitly threatened him with stoning, Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام) responded firmly: “وَیَاقَوْمِ اعْمَلُوا عَلَی مَکَانَتِکُم,” meaning, O my قوم, act according to your capacity and do whatever lies within your power; “إنِّی عَامِلٌ,” for I too shall continue my course. He warned: “سَوْفَ تَعْلَمُونَ مَنْ یَاْتِیہِ عَذَابٌ یُخْزِیہِ وَمَنْ ھُوَ کَاذِب,” that soon it would become evident upon whom a humiliating punishment would descend and who was the liar—whether himself or they. Finally, he declared: “وَارْتَقِبُوا إنِّی مَعَکُمْ رَقِیبٌ,” that they may await the outcome, for he too was waiting alongside them. Thus, he placed their reliance upon power, wealth, and influence in contrast with his reliance upon truth and divine support, affirming that the ultimate resolution of the matter would soon become manifest.

See ayat 95 for tafseer.

The accounts of the Prophets and the narratives of past communities are always instructive and enlightening for later generations. This is because the trials of their lives, which at times continued for decades or even centuries, are condensed into a few pages of history and placed within the reach of all, so that every individual may derive lessons from them in their own life. The life of this great Prophet, Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام), likewise offers many instructive lessons, for example:

In this account, we have observed that after دعوتِ توحید, Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام) called his people to justice and fairness in financial and commercial affairs. This indicates that the economic issues of a society cannot be regarded as trivial or insignificant. It demonstrates that the Prophets were not commissioned solely for moral and ethical matters; rather, the rectification of social and economic فساد was also an essential component of their دعوت. Indeed, this matter was of such importance that they placed it alongside the call to Tawhid.

The misguided people of Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام) expressed astonishment in asking whether his prayer instructed him to refrain from idol worship, short‑measurement, and deception. It appears that they imagined that such acts of devotion and recitation bore no relation to these matters. However, it is evident that there exists a profound and intrinsic connection between the two. If prayer is performed in its true sense—namely, when a person stands before the Divine presence with the entirety of their being—it becomes a means of spiritual ascent and development, a medium for the تربیت of the soul, and a source through which the rust of sin is removed from the heart. Such حضور strengthens the individual’s will and fortifies determination, while at the same time purifying them from arrogance and pride.

As has become evident from the above verses, the members of the people of Shu‘ayb were self‑centered and self‑conceited. They considered themselves intelligent and perceptive, while regarding Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام) as ignorant; they mocked him, dismissed his words as meaningless, and considered his شخصیت weak. This self‑admiration and self‑preoccupation darkened their lives and ultimately brought them to ruin. Indeed, not only human beings, but even animals—if overtaken by a form of self‑perception—may become obstructed in their path. It is related that a rider once arrived at a canal, but to his astonishment, his horse refused to cross a small and shallow stream. Despite repeated प्रयास, he was unable to compel it to proceed. A wise man happened to pass by and advised him: disturb the water so that it becomes turbid; the problem will then be resolved. He acted accordingly, and the horse crossed with ease. People were greatly surprised and asked the wise man for an explanation. The wise man replied that when the water was clear, the horse saw its own reflection within it and imagined it to be another presence; thus, it was unwilling to step upon itself. However, once the water became clouded, the reflection disappeared, and it was able to pass without hesitation.

In this account, it has been observed that one of the causes of the misguidance of this condemned قوم was that, due to personal enmity and hostility, they disregarded truth and forgot essential realities. In contrast, a wise and truth‑seeking individual is one who listens to the truth from any source and accepts it, even if the speaker happens to be their most formidable enemy.

Even today, there are many individuals who believe that one may be considered a Muslim merely by holding belief, even if one does not act upon it. There are also many who desire that religion should not act as a barrier to their unrestrained desires, and that it should leave them entirely free in all respects. The account of Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام) likewise shows that his people sought such a form of religion. Thus, they said to him that they were neither prepared to abandon the idols of their forefathers nor willing to relinquish their freedom in matters concerning their wealth and possessions. They had forgotten that, in principle, the fruit of the tree of faith is action, and that the religion and law brought by the Prophets were intended to reform human moral فساد, practical weaknesses, and deviations. Otherwise, a tree devoid of branches, leaves, and fruit serves no purpose except to be used as firewood. It is a deeply regrettable reality that, in the present age, such a notion has taken root among a segment of Muslims. They regard Islam merely as a collection of abstract beliefs confined to the mosque; as soon as they step outside its doors, they bid it farewell. In their offices, markets, and commercial dealings, Islam has no role or presence whatsoever. In many Muslim lands—even those that once formed the center of the emergence of Islam—this bitter reality is evident: Islam has become confined to a set of doctrines and a few lifeless rituals. There is little trace of intellectual awareness, social justice, cultural رشد, civilizational insight, or Islamic اخلاق. Although, fortunately, due to certain Islamic movements—particularly among the younger generation—a renewed effort has emerged to unite genuine Islam with the integration of faith and action. As a result, statements such as “Islam has nothing to do with our actions” or “Islam pertains only to the heart, not to life” are now heard less frequently. Likewise, the views of eclectic thinkers—those who do not adhere fully to any single system—who claim that they derive their beliefs from Islam and their economic system from Marxism, reflect the same pattern of thought as the misguided people of Shu‘ayb. Such a perspective is also worthy of censure. Nevertheless, this division between belief and practice is not new; it has existed since ancient times and continues to persist today, and it is something against which effort and struggle are required.

The people of Shu‘ayb were afflicted with the misconception that no one had the right to impose even the slightest limitation upon an individual regarding the use and disposal of their wealth. They would express astonishment to Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام), asking how a person of his perceived wisdom could place restrictions upon their freedom in dealing with their property. Whether this statement was made in mockery or as an expression of their genuine belief, it clearly indicates that they regarded any limitation upon financial activity as contrary to reason. This, however, constituted one of their greatest errors. If individuals were granted absolute freedom in the management of their wealth, the entire society would inevitably become engulfed in فساد, misfortune, and disorder. Financial affairs must necessarily be governed by balanced and equitable regulations, as presented by the divine Prophets. Without such principled constraints, society would fall into فساد and ultimate destruction.

This statement of Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام), “اِنْ اُرِیدُ إلَّا الْإصْلَاحَ مَا اسْتَطَعْت”, does not represent merely his personal شعار; rather, it embodies the guiding principle of all the Prophets and all authentic leaders. Their words and actions testify to this objective. They were not sent to merely engage or entertain people, nor simply to absolve their sins, nor solely to lead them into Paradise, nor to support the powerful, nor to lull the minds of the masses into complacency. Rather, their purpose and mission was comprehensive and genuine reform. By reform, they intended a far-reaching and all-encompassing transformation: the reform of thought and belief, the reform of اخلاق, the reform of the cultural order of society, as well as economic and political reform. In essence, the rectification of all dimensions of human life was the central aim before them. In striving to achieve this objective, their reliance was exclusively upon God. They did not fear conspiracies or threats. As Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام) stated: “وَمَا تَوْفِیقِی إلَّا بِاللهِ عَلَیْہِ تَوَکَّلْتُ وَإلَیْہِ اُنِیب”.

See ayat 99 for tafseer.

See ayat 99 for tafseer.

See ayat 99 for tafseer.

The accounts of the Prophets and the narratives of past communities are always inspiring and instructive for later generations. This is because the trials of their lives, which at times continued for decades or even centuries, are condensed into a few pages of history and made accessible to all, so that every individual may derive lessons from them in their own life. The life of this great Prophet, Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام), likewise offers numerous lessons. For example: 1. The Importance of Economic Matters: In this account, it has been observed that after دعوتِ توحید, Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام) invited his people to justice and fairness in financial and commercial dealings. This demonstrates that the economic affairs of a society cannot be regarded as trivial or insignificant. It indicates that the Prophets were not sent merely to address moral issues; rather, the reform of social and economic conditions was also a central component of their دعوت, so significant that it was placed alongside the call to Tawhid. 2. Prayer Calls to Tawhid and Purity: The misguided people of Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام) expressed astonishment and asked whether his prayer enjoined abstention from idol worship, short-measurement, and deceit. They perhaps assumed that such acts of devotion bore no relation to these matters, whereas there exists a profound connection between them. If prayer is performed in its true sense—when a person stands before the Divine presence with their entire being—it becomes a means of spiritual elevation, a source for the تربیت of the soul, and a means of cleansing the heart from the آثار of sin. It strengthens determination and willpower, and removes arrogance and pride. 3. Self-Conceit Leads to Stagnation: As indicated in the verses, the people of Shu‘ayb were self-admiring and self-conceited. They considered themselves wise, regarded Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام) as ignorant, mocked him, dismissed his words as meaningless, and considered his personality weak. This self-centeredness darkened their lives and led them to destruction. It is said that even an animal, if caught in a form of self-perception, may become impeded in its path. The example is given of a horse that refused to cross a shallow stream when the water was clear, because it saw its own reflection and hesitated. When the water was disturbed and the reflection vanished, it crossed easily. 4. Principles Should Not Be Sacrificed to Prejudice: One of the causes of the misguidance of this قوم was that, due to personal hostility and enmity, they ignored truths. A rational and truth-seeking individual is one who accepts truth from any source, even if it is expressed by an enemy. 5. Faith and Action Are Inseparable: Many people suppose that belief alone suffices for one to be considered a Muslim, even in the absence of action. Others desire that religion should not restrain their desires and should grant them complete freedom. The account of Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام) shows that his people held a similar perspective: they were unwilling to abandon idol worship or surrender their unrestricted control over wealth. They overlooked the principle that the fruit of faith is action, and that the mission of the Prophets was to reform moral فساد, practical deficiencies, and deviations. A tree without branches, leaves, or fruit serves no purpose except to be burned. It is regrettable that such thinking has become entrenched among some groups in the present age. They regard Islam merely as a set of abstract beliefs confined to the mosque, abandoning it upon leaving its premises. In their professional and commercial lives, Islam has little or no presence. In many Muslim societies, Islam has been reduced to a collection of beliefs and limited rituals, with little manifestation of knowledge, social justice, cultural development, or ethical conduct. However, encouragingly, certain movements—particularly among younger generations—are striving to restore the integration of faith and action. 6. Unrestricted and Absolute Ownership Leads to Corruption: The people of Shu‘ayb believed that no one had the right to impose any limitation upon the use of wealth. They considered restrictions on financial conduct to be irrational. This was one of their greatest errors. If individuals are allowed absolute freedom in economic matters, society is inevitably drawn into فساد and destruction. Financial affairs must be governed by balanced and principled regulations, as taught by the divine Prophets. 7. The Objective of the Prophets Was Reform: The statement of Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام), “اِنْ اُرِیدُ إلَّا الْإصْلَاحَ مَا اسْتَطَعْت”, reflects not only his own mission but the mission of all Prophets and true leaders. Their goal was not mere engagement, absolution, or appeasement, but comprehensive reform: reform of belief, اخلاق, cultural systems, economic structures, and political conditions. Their reliance was solely upon God, and they did not fear threats or conspiracies, as expressed in: “وَمَا تَوْفِیقِی إلَّا بِاللهِ عَلَیْہِ تَوَکَّلْتُ وَإلَیْہِ اُنِیب”.

After the conclusion of the account of Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام) and the people of Madyan, attention is now directed to an aspect of the story of Musa ibn ‘Imran (علیه السلام). Here, reference is made to his confrontations with Pharaoh, and within this Surah it constitutes the seventh narrative concerning the divine Prophets. Among all the Prophets, the account of Musa (علیه السلام) appears most extensively in the Qur’an; in more than thirty Surahs, the story of Musa (علیه السلام), Pharaoh, and the Banu Isra’il is mentioned over one hundred times. A distinctive feature of the account of Musa (علیه السلام), in comparison with the narratives of Prophets such as Salih, Shu‘ayb, and Lut (علیهم السلام), whose stories have already been discussed, is that those Prophets primarily rose against misguided communities, whereas the case of Musa (علیه السلام) involved confrontation with a dominant and corrupt political authority. In principle, just as clear water requires the purification of its source, so long as corrupt governments remain in power, no society can attain سعادت and well-being. Divine leaders, therefore, must first dismantle these centers of فساد. It should be noted that here only a brief segment of the life of Musa (علیه السلام) is presented; yet, despite its brevity, it conveys a profound message for humanity. In the first verse, it is stated: “وَلَقَدْ اَرْسَلْنَا مُوسیٰ بِآیَاتِنَا وَسُلْطَانٍ مُبِینٍ”, meaning that Musa (علیه السلام) was sent with divine signs and a manifest authority. The term “سلطان” derives from the notion of domination or mastery, and may refer either to outward power or to intellectual and rational authority—such authority that leaves the opponent without any avenue of escape. In this context, it appears that “سلطان” is employed in the latter sense, while “آیات” refers to the clear miracles granted to Musa (علیه السلام). He was sent “إلَی فِرْعَوْنَ وَمَلَائِہِ”, that is, to Pharaoh and his chiefs. As has been noted, the term “ملاٴ” refers to those whose outward appearance impresses the eye, though they may be inwardly empty; in Qur’anic usage, it often denotes elites and influential figures surrounding oppressive power. These associates of Pharaoh, perceiving that the mission of Musa (علیه السلام) threatened their illegitimate interests, refused to submit to his arguments and signs and instead “فَاتَّبَعُوا اَمْرَ فِرْعَوْنَ”. Yet “وَمَا اَمْرُ فِرْعَوْنَ بِرَشِیدٍ”, for Pharaoh’s command could not guide them toward growth or salvation. Pharaoh did not attain his position effortlessly; rather, he employed every form of intrigue and manipulation, inciting the people against Musa (علیه السلام). At times, he claimed that Musa sought to expel them from their land: “یُرِیدُ اَنْ یُخْرِجَکُمْ مِنْ اَرْضِکُمْ”. At other times, he appealed to their religious sentiments, declaring: “إنِّی اَخَافُ اَنْ یُبَدِّلَ دِینَکُمْ”. He also warned: “اَوْ اَنْ یُظْھِرَ فِی الْاَرْضِ الْفَسَادَ”. Thus, he alternated between accusation, intimidation, displays of power, and deceptive self-presentation as a benevolent leader. Since, on the Day of Resurrection, every قوم will be gathered with its leader, Pharaoh—who served as the guide of the misguided in his era—will lead his followers even then: “یَقْدُمُ قَوْمَہُ یَوْمَ الْقِیَامَةِ”. However, instead of leading them to refreshing water, he will lead them into the Fire: “فَاَوْرَدَھُمْ النَّارَ”, and “وَبِئْسَ الْوِرْدُ الْمَوْرُودُ”. The very notion of “ورود” originally denotes approaching water, yet here it is applied to entering a place, emphasizing the contrast between life-giving water and destructive fire. The terms “وِرد” and “مورود” refer respectively to the place of arrival and that which is approached; thus, the expression conveys that the Fire is a most evil destination in place of water—a place that consumes rather than quenches. Furthermore, “وَاُتْبِعُوا فِی ھٰذِہِ لَعْنَةً وَیَوْمَ الْقِیَامَةِ” indicates that they are followed by divine curse both in this world and on the Day of Resurrection. Their legacy in history remains marked as that of a tyrannical and misguided people, suffering loss in both realms. Finally, it is declared: “بِئْسَ الرِّفْدُ الْمَرْفُودُ”. The word “رفد” originally signifies assistance and support, and later came to denote a given grant or endowment; thus, here it refers ironically to the terrible “gift” bestowed upon them—the Fire itself.

See ayat 104 for tafseer.

See ayat 104 for tafseer.

See ayat 104 for tafseer.

See ayat 104 for tafseer.

In this Surah, the accounts of seven past nations have been presented, along with certain aspects of the histories of their Prophets. Each of these narratives illuminates significant dimensions of human life and contains numerous instructive lessons. Referring collectively to these accounts, it is stated: “ذٰلِکَ مِنْ اَنْبَاءِ الْقُرٰی نَقُصُّهُ عَلَیْکَ”, indicating that these are among the reports of the towns which are being recounted. These are the very towns, some of which still remain standing, while others have been cut down and destroyed like a harvested field, “مِنْهَا قَائِمٌ وَحَصِیدٌ”. The term “قَائِمٌ” refers to those settlements that continue to exist, such as the land of Egypt, once inhabited by the people of Pharaoh, which remained intact even after the destruction of that oppressive قوم, with its gardens, fields, and impressive structures still persisting. In contrast, “حَصِیدٌ” denotes those regions that have been utterly destroyed, such as the lands of the people of Nuh and the people of Lut, where one was submerged beneath water and the other overturned and subjected to a rain of stones. However, it should not be assumed that this destruction constituted injustice on the part of God; rather, “وَمَا ظَلَمْنٰهُمْ وَلٰكِنْ ظَلَمُوا اَنْفُسَهُمْ”. They wronged themselves. They sought refuge in idols and false deities, yet when the command of the Lord arrived, none of these could avail them in the least, “فَمَا اَغْنَتْ عَنْهُمْ آلِهَتُهُمُ الَّتِی يَدْعُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللهِ مِنْ شَیءٍ لَمَّا جَاءَ اَمْرُ رَبِّكَ”. Indeed, these deceptive objects of worship added nothing to them except destruction and loss, “وَمَا زَادُوهُمْ غَیْرَ تَتْبِیبٍ”. Thus, the punishment of the Lord toward those towns, when they were immersed in ظلم, followed this pattern: “وَكَذٰلِكَ اَخْذُ رَبِّكَ اِذَا اَخَذَ الْقُرٰی وَهِيَ ظَالِمَةٌ”. Surely, His seizing is painful and severe, “اِنَّ اَخْذَهُ اَلِیمٌ شَدِیدٌ”. This represents a universal and enduring divine principle: whenever a community becomes immersed in ظلم, transgresses the bounds of divine commands, and disregards the guidance and admonition of the Prophets, it is ultimately seized by divine punishment. It is evident that this pattern is not confined to past nations but constitutes a permanent law, serving as a warning to all people that none are exempt from this principle. The term “ظلم” here encompasses all forms of sin. The attribution of “ظلم” to towns and settlements—“وَهِيَ ظَالِمَةٌ”—though it pertains to their inhabitants, conveys the subtle point that their immersion in oppression and wrongdoing was so pervasive that the entire environment came to be characterized by it. These narratives, therefore, serve as signs for those who fear the punishment of the Hereafter: “اِنَّ فِی ذٰلِكَ لَآیَةً لِمَنْ خَافَ عَذَابَ الْآخِرَةِ”. In comparison with the Hereafter, all matters of this world—even its punishments—are insignificant. Those who believe in the Day of Resurrection are deeply moved by such accounts, derive lessons, and perceive the path clearly before them. The verse further describes the Day of Resurrection: “ذٰلِكَ یَوْمٌ مَجْمُوعٌ لَهُ النَّاسُ” and “وَذٰلِكَ یَوْمٌ مَشْهُودٌ”. It is a day upon which all people will be gathered and a day that is witnessed by all. This indicates that just as divine laws operate universally in this world, so too will all humanity be gathered collectively in that ultimate assembly. The expression “یَوْمٌ مَجْمُوعٌ لَهُ النَّاسُ” suggests that this day is not merely a ظرف in which people assemble, but rather an مقصد toward which humanity progresses. Similarly, in Surah al-Taghabun it is stated: “یَوْمَ یَجْمَعُكُمْ لِیَوْمِ الْجَمْعِ ذٰلِكَ یَوْمُ التَّغَابُنِ”. Since some may regard the advent of that Day as distant or uncertain, the Qur’an affirms: “وَمَا نُؤَخِّرُهُ اِلَّا لِاَجَلٍ مَعْدُودٍ”. Its delay is only for a fixed and limited term, in accordance with divine wisdom, so that the processes of testing and development in this world may be completed, and the final stage of human progression may be realized. The term “مَعْدُود” indicates limitation and thus nearness, for what can be counted is by nature finite. Therefore, the delay of that Day should not cause the oppressors to become complacent or deluded; regardless of its seeming postponement, it will inevitably arrive.

See ayat 108 for tafseer.

See ayat 108 for tafseer.

See ayat 108 for tafseer.

In the preceding verse, reference was made to the Day of Resurrection and the gathering of all people in that عظیم tribunal; in the present verses, one aspect of the fate of people on that day is described. It is first stated: “یَوْمَ یَاْتِ لَاتَکَلَّمُ نَفْسٌ إلاَّ بِإذْنِہِ”, that when that Day arrives, no soul will speak except by His permission. It may appear that this verse, which affirms speech by divine permission, conflicts with other verses that negate speech in an absolute sense, such as: “الْیَوْمَ نَخْتِمُ عَلیٰ اَفْوَاہِھِمْ وَتُکَلِّمُنَا اَیْدِیھِمْ وَتَشْھَدُ اَرْجُلُھُمْ بِمَا کَانُوا یَکْسِبُونَ”, and “ھٰذَا یَومُ لَایَطِیقُونَ”. For this reason, some commentators have maintained that speech on that Day, in the conventional sense, has no meaning, since speech is ordinarily a means of conveying inner states; however, when all realities are manifest and nothing remains hidden, such mediation becomes unnecessary. In other words, the Hereafter is the realm of recompense rather than action, and thus voluntary speech analogous to that of this world may not occur. However, deriving such a conclusion does not accord with the apparent meaning of other Qur’anic verses, which explicitly recount dialogues between believers and sinners, between leaders of falsehood and their followers, between Satan and those deceived by him, as well as exchanges between the inhabitants of Paradise and Hell. Some verses even indicate that certain sinners will utter false statements in response to questioning, as in: “وَیَوْمَ نَحْشُرُھُمْ جَمِیعًا... وَاللهِ رَبِّنَا مَا کُنَّا مُشْرِکِینَ... انظُرْ کَیْفَ کَذَبُوا عَلیٰ اَنفُسِھِمْ”. Therefore, the more appropriate reconciliation, as suggested by many commentators, is that the events of that Day occur in multiple stages, each with distinct characteristics. In some stages, speech is entirely suspended, and even mouths are sealed, while limbs and organs, bearing the آثار of deeds, testify. In other stages, the restriction is lifted, and individuals speak by divine permission, confessing their sins, blaming one another, or attempting to shift responsibility. Thus, speech exists in the Hereafter, though not in the same manner as in this world. At the conclusion of the verse, humanity is divided into two categories: “فَمِنْھُمْ شَقِیٌّ وَسَعِیدٌ”. One group consists of the wretched, and the other of the blessed. The term “سعید” denotes one for whom the means of نعمت are provided, while “شقی” denotes one for whom the causes of misery, punishment, and affliction are established. Hence, in the Hereafter, the blessed are those righteous individuals abiding amid various نعمت, while the wretched are those گرفتار in the punishments of Hell. It must be emphasized that this سعادت and شقاوت are the direct outcomes of human actions, character, intentions, and conduct in this world. Some commentators, seeking to support deterministic views, have invoked this verse, but it does not substantiate such an interpretation. Rather, it describes the final condition of individuals as determined by their deeds. The subsequent verses elaborate upon these two groups in a precise and eloquent manner. Concerning the wretched, it is stated: “فَاَمَّا الَّذِینَ شَقُوا فَفِی النَّارِ لَھُمْ فِیھَا زَفِیرٌ وَشَھِیقٌ”, indicating that they are in the Fire, filled with cries of anguish and distress. “زفیر” and “شحیق” signify intense exhalation and inhalation associated with suffering and lamentation. It is further stated: “خَالِدِینَ فِیھَا مَا دَامَتْ السَّمَاوَاتُ وَالْاَرْضُ إلاَّ مَا شَاءَ رَبُّکَ إنَّ رَبَّکَ فَعَّالٌ لِمَا یُرِیدُ”, meaning that they shall abide therein for as long as the heavens and the earth endure—except as your Lord wills—for indeed, your Lord does whatever He intends. In contrast, concerning the blessed, it is said: “وَاَمَّا الَّذِینَ سُعِدُوا فَفِی الْجَنَّةِ خَالِدِینَ فِیھَا مَا دَامَتِ السَّمَاوَاتُ وَالْاَرْضُ إلاَّ مَا شَاءَ رَبُّکَ عَطَاءً غَیْرَ مَجْذُوذٍ”. They shall abide in Paradise for as long as the heavens and the earth endure—except as your Lord wills—receiving a bestowal that shall never be cut off. Thus, these verses present a clear and comprehensive depiction of the ultimate division of humanity, grounded in divine justice, and emphasize that the outcomes of the Hereafter are inseparably linked to the conduct of individuals in this world.

The Rejection of Determinism: As previously noted, some have attempted to infer from the above verses that سعادت and شقاوت are intrinsic and predetermined. However, these verses not only fail to support such a claim but explicitly indicate that سعادت and شقاوت are acquired. This is evident from the expressions: “فَاَمَّا الَّذِینَ شَقُوا” (those who became wretched) and “اَمَّا الَّذِینَ سُعِدُوا” (those who became blessed). If wretchedness and felicity were inherent, the formulation would have been different, such as referring to “the inherently wretched” and “the inherently blessed.” Thus, it becomes clear that the assertion—such as that found in Tafsir al‑Razi—that these verses imply predestination is unfounded. The claim that divine foreknowledge necessitates immutability, and that change would imply falsehood in divine knowledge, arises from a misunderstanding. The answer to this objection is well established: these verses indicate that on the Day of Resurrection, one group will attain سعادت through its actions, while another will fall into شقاوت due to its conduct. God’s knowledge encompasses which individuals, through their own will and choice, will follow the path of سعادت and which will choose the path of شقاوت. If human beings were compelled contrary to their own intention and choice, then divine knowledge itself would be rendered meaningless. Furthermore, the context of these verses follows the accounts of former nations, many of whom suffered severe punishments in this world as a result of ظلم, deviation from truth and justice, moral corruption, and opposition to divine guidance. These narratives are presented for human instruction, to distinguish the path of truth from falsehood and the path of سعادت from that of شقاوت. If, as some have claimed, سعادت and شقاوت were predetermined without human choice, then all systems of guidance—Prophetic missions, revelation, admonition, encouragement, warning, accountability, and reward and punishment—would be rendered pointless or unjust. Those who advocate determinism—whether attributing it to divine decree, natural forces, economic conditions, or environmental factors—often profess such views theoretically. However, in practical life, they do not adhere to them. For example, when their own rights are violated, they hold the aggressor accountable and deserving of blame and punishment; they do not excuse such actions as unavoidable. This inconsistency itself serves as evidence that human freedom of choice is an innate and undeniable reality. Indeed, no proponent of determinism consistently applies this belief in everyday conduct. All societies establish laws, judicial systems, and penalties based on the assumption that individuals are responsible agents. Educational systems likewise operate on the premise that human beings act through inclination, intention, and choice, and that they can be guided, instructed, and corrected. Accordingly, the principle of human اختیار remains fundamental and self-evident.

It is noteworthy that in the above verses, the word “شَقُوا” appears in the active form, whereas “سُعِدُوا” appears in the passive form. This difference in expression may point to a subtle and significant meaning: that human beings traverse the path of شقاوت through their own actions, whereas attainment of سعادت is not achieved solely by personal effort, but requires divine assistance and support. Without divine aid, it is not possible for a person to successfully proceed along the path of سعادت. At the same time, it is evident that such divine assistance is granted only to those who take the initial steps through their own will and اختیار and thereby demonstrate their readiness and deservingness of such support.

In lexical usage, the term “خلود” denotes prolonged duration and is also employed in the sense of perpetuity; therefore, the word “خلود” by itself does not necessarily indicate eternity, but may encompass any form of extended continuity. However, in numerous Qur’anic verses, this term appears with qualifying expressions that clearly convey the meaning of eternity. For example, in Surah al-Tawbah (100), al-Talaq (11), and al-Taghabun (9), the expression “خَالِدِینَ فِیھَا اَبَدًا” is used in reference to the inhabitants of Paradise, explicitly indicating the everlasting nature of their residence therein. Similarly, in other verses, such as al-Nisa’ (169) and al-Jinn (23), the same expression “خَالِدِینَ فِیھَا اَبَدًا” is used concerning a group among the people of Hell, thereby establishing the perpetuity of their punishment. There are also additional expressions, such as “مَاکِثِینَ فِیہِ اَبَدًا” (al-Kahf: 3) and “خَالِدِینَ فِیھَا لَا یَبْغُونَ عَنْھَا حِوَلًا” (al-Kahf: 108), and similar formulations, all of which indicate that certain groups among the inhabitants of Paradise or Hell will remain therein eternally. Some individuals, unable to reconcile the concept of eternal punishment, have resorted to the lexical meaning of the term and interpreted it merely as “prolonged duration.” However, such an interpretation is untenable in light of the aforementioned expressions, which clearly convey the sense of perpetuity. For further clarification, attention is directed to the following important discussion.

A significant question immediately arises in the mind of any attentive reader: how can such an apparent disproportion between sin and punishment be reconciled with divine justice? How can it be accepted that a human being, whose actions—whether good or bad—span at most eighty or one hundred years, should receive a reward or punishment extending over countless years or even an eternal duration? This issue does not present a serious difficulty regarding reward, since the abundance of reward is an expression of divine grace and generosity, and thus cannot be a matter of objection. However, in the case of punishment for sin, ظلم, and disbelief, the question persists: how can eternal punishment correspond with a finite act, and how can this be consistent with divine justice? Some have offered solutions that are ultimately unsatisfactory. Due to the complexity of the issue, certain interpreters have attempted to reinterpret the concept of “خلود” so as to avoid affirming eternity. For example, some have argued that “خلود” should be understood metaphorically as a long but finite duration, similar to expressions used in ordinary language where lifelong imprisonment is described as “permanent,” although it is not truly eternal. Others have suggested that although such rebellious individuals may remain in Hell indefinitely, the nature of Hell itself may change, its fire eventually subsiding and giving rise to a form of relative ease. Still others have proposed that over time, the inhabitants of Hell may become accustomed to their condition and cease to experience suffering. However, such interpretations arise from an inability to provide a satisfactory answer, and they cannot override the clear sense of verses that affirm perpetual punishment for a specific category of individuals. The definitive resolution of this issue requires clarification of certain misconceptions. First, eternal punishment applies only to those who have closed all paths to salvation, consciously immersing themselves in فساد, disbelief, and hypocrisy, such that sin becomes ingrained in their entire being. As indicated in the Qur’an, those whose wrongdoing encompasses their whole existence are the ones who abide therein permanently. Second, the assumption that the duration of punishment must correspond quantitatively to the duration of sin is incorrect. The relationship between action and consequence is qualitative rather than merely temporal. For example, a momentary act such as taking a life may result in a punishment extending over many years; thus, it is the nature and gravity of the act, rather than its duration, that determines its consequence. Third, the punishments of the Hereafter are, in essence, the natural and intrinsic outcomes of human actions. The suffering experienced is the manifestation of one’s own deeds. As expressed in the Qur’an: “فَالْیَوْمَ لَا تُظْلَمُ نَفْسٌ شَیْئًا وَلَا تُجْزَوْنَ إِلَّا مَا كُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ”, and “وَبَدَا لَهُمْ سَیِّئَاتُ مَا عَمِلُوا”. Thus, reward and punishment are not arbitrary impositions but the direct realization of human conduct. This principle may be clarified through illustrative examples. A person who damages their health through harmful actions may suffer long-term consequences far exceeding the duration of the initial act; likewise, a momentary lapse in judgment can result in lifelong disability. Conversely, a small constructive act may yield lasting benefit. In such cases, there is no injustice, even though the temporal span of cause and effect differs. Accordingly, when disbelief, rebellion, and moral فساد permeate the entirety of a person’s existence, it is not surprising that the resulting deprivation becomes perpetual. The individual has willfully chosen this path and has been adequately warned through both revelation and rational understanding. The outcome is thus the natural consequence of conscious and deliberate action. Therefore, there is no basis for objection, and no contradiction with divine justice. The final state is nothing other than the manifestation of one’s own deeds, and thus it entirely accords with the principle of divine عدالت.

The question arises as to whether, in the verses under discussion, the term “خلود” signifies perpetuity and eternity, or whether it carries the lexical meaning of “prolonged duration.” Since in these verses the term “خلود” is accompanied by the condition “مَا دَامَتِ السَّمَاوَاتُ وَالْاَرْضُ” (that is, so long as the heavens and the earth endure), some commentators have attempted to conclude that here “خلود” does not denote eternity, because the heavens and the earth themselves are not everlasting. Indeed, according to explicit Qur’anic verses, a time will come when the heavens will be folded up and the earth will be transformed into another earth, as indicated in Surah Ibrahim (48) and Surah al-Anbiya’ (104). However, it must be noted that in Arabic literary usage, such expressions are commonly employed as idiomatic or figurative indications of perpetuity. Therefore, in the context of these verses, “خلود” should also be understood in the sense of eternity. For example, the Arabs would say: this condition shall continue “ما لاحَ كوكب” (so long as a star shines), or “ما لاحَ الجديدان” (so long as night and day continue), or “ما أضاء فجر” (so long as the dawn continues to appear), or “ما اختلف الليل والنهار” (so long as night and day alternate). All such expressions function as figurative indications of continuity and perpetuity. A similar example is found in the statement of Amir al-Mu’minin ‘Ali (علیه السلام) in Nahj al-Balagha, when certain individuals objected to his policy of strict equality in the distribution of the بیت المال and suggested that he should favor certain people to consolidate his rule. He responded: “أَتَأْمُرُونِي أَنْ أَطْلُبَ النَّصْرَ بالجَوْرِ فِيمَنْ وُلِّيتُ عَلَيْهِ؟ وَاللّٰهِ لَا أَطُورُ بِهِ مَا سَمَرَ سَمِیرٌ وَمَا أَمَّ نَجْمٌ فِي السَّمَاءِ نَجْمًا”. That is, do you command me to seek victory through injustice over those under my authority? By God, I will never approach such a course so long as people converse by night and so long as one star follows another in the sky. Similarly, in the poetry of Di‘bil al-Khuzā‘ī, in his well-known ode recited before Imam ‘Ali ibn Musa al-Rida (علیهما السلام), he declares that he will continue to mourn the martyrs of the family of Prophethood for as long as the sun rises in the east and as long as the call to prayer resounds. Such expressions clearly signify perpetuity rather than a merely extended duration. Moreover, this form of expression is not restricted to Arabic but is found in other languages as well. Consequently, the indication of eternity in these verses does not depend upon subtle interpretive debate; rather, it is established through common linguistic usage. Likewise, it is unnecessary to adopt the view of those who claim that the heavens and earth mentioned here refer to the heavens and earth of the Hereafter, which are themselves eternal.

In the above verses, the expression of exception—“إلَّا مَا شَاءَ رَبُّکَ”—has been mentioned in relation to both the inhabitants of Paradise and the inhabitants of Hell. This has opened a broad field of discussion among commentators. The eminent exegete al‑Tabarsi, in his commentary, has transmitted ten different explanations regarding this exception; however, most of them appear weak and lack coherence with the context of the preceding and succeeding verses. Therefore, it is appropriate to present only the two interpretations that appear most sound: First, the purpose of mentioning this exception is to prevent the misconception that the eternal reward of the true believers and the eternal punishment of the disbelievers operate independently of the divine will. It clarifies that, despite their permanence, both reward and punishment remain subject to the authority, power, and will of God, and do not acquire the character of necessity or compulsion independent of Him. This understanding is further supported by the statement concerning the blessed: “عَطَاءً غَیْرَ مَجْذُوذٍ”, indicating a bestowal that shall never be cut off. This demonstrates that the exception serves primarily to affirm divine sovereignty and omnipotence, rather than to restrict the duration of the reward or punishment. Second, since the verses distinguish between two categories—شقی and سعید—it is not necessarily the case that all those described as شقی are disbelievers who are subject to eternal punishment. Among them, there may be sinful believers. Accordingly, the exception may relate to this particular group. In this interpretation, the exception in the first instance concerns the ultimate outcome, whereas in the second instance it relates to the initial stage. That is, certain sinful believers may enter Hell temporarily for purification, after which they will join the ranks of the inhabitants of Paradise. Thus, the exception accounts for transitional states within these broader categories. As for the view held by some that these verses refer to forms of Paradise and Hell associated with reward and punishment that are themselves temporary and subject to cessation, this interpretation appears highly improbable. The preceding verses explicitly concern the Hereafter, and there is no indication that the discourse shifts away from that context. Similarly, the suggestion that “خلود” in these verses denotes merely a prolonged duration rather than eternity is inconsistent with both the expression “عَطَاءً غَیْرَ مَجْذُوذٍ” and the overall structure of the passage, both of which clearly support the concept of perpetuity.

In the above verses, it is stated regarding the inhabitants of Hell that they will be characterized by “زفیر” and “شہیق”. Concerning the meanings of these two terms, lexicographers and commentators have proposed several interpretations. Some have explained that “زفیر” refers to loud wailing and cries accompanied by outward exhalation of breath, whereas “شہیق” denotes a lamentation accompanied by the drawing in of breath. Others have interpreted “زفیر” as the initial braying of a donkey and “شہیق” as its concluding sound; however, this interpretation does not differ substantially from the former. In any case, both expressions convey the meaning of intense lamentation and distress, describing individuals whose entire being is overwhelmed by grief and suffering, and whose cries reflect the extremity of their anguish and pain. It should be noted that both “زفیر” and “شہیق” are verbal nouns. The term “زفیر” originally signifies bearing a heavy burden upon the shoulder, and since such an act naturally produces groaning and strain, it came to denote sighing and lamentation. Similarly, “شہیق” originally carries the meaning of extension or length, as in the expression “جبل شاہق” for a lofty mountain; it was subsequently used to denote prolonged wailing or sustained cries of distress.

Sa‘ādah, which constitutes the lost aspiration of all human beings and is continually sought by every individual in every domain, may be defined as the attainment of the conditions necessary for personal fulfillment and the progressive development of society. In contrast, shaqāwah (wretchedness) denotes the absence or deficiency of those conditions, a state that is universally rejected and detested. Accordingly, the individual who possesses greater means—spiritually, physically, socially, and culturally—to achieve higher aims is closer to سعادت; conversely, one deprived of such enabling conditions is characterized by شقاوت and remains distant from felicity. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that the fundamental basis of سعادت and شقاوت lies in human will and intention. It is human volition that secures the means for both personal and societal reform. The human being is the agent who either rises to struggle against the causes of misfortune or submits to them. In the logic of the Prophets, سعادت and شقاوت are not innate or predetermined conditions; even environment, family, and heredity are subject to transformation through human will—unless one denies the very principle of human freedom and reduces the individual to a passive product of external determinism. Such a view is explicitly rejected both in the prophetic tradition and within rational discourse. It is noteworthy that numerous narrations from the Prophet of Islam (صلی الله علیه وآلہ وسلم) and the Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt (علیهم السلام) identify specific factors as either causes of سعادت or causes of شقاوت. These narrations acquaint the reader with the Islamic conception of this issue and encourage the pursuit of genuine causes of felicity, rather than reliance upon superstition or unfounded beliefs prevalent in various societies. Among these are the following illustrative traditions: First, Imam Ja‘far al‑Sadiq (علیه السلام), narrating from Amir al‑Mu’minin ‘Ali (علیه السلام), states: “حقیقة السعادة ان یختم للرجل عملہ بالسعادة وحقیقة الشقاوة ان یختم للمرء عملہ بالشقاوة.” The true essence of سعادت is that a person’s life concludes with actions marked by felicity, and the essence of شقاوت is that it ends in wretchedness. This tradition clearly indicates that the final stage of life, determined by one’s actions, is decisive in defining سعادت or شقاوت, thereby negating any notion of intrinsic predestination and affirming human accountability. Second, Amir al‑Mu’minin ‘Ali (علیه السلام) states: “السعید من وعظ بغیرہ والشقی من انخدع لھواہ وغرورہ.” The سعید is one who takes admonition from others, while the شقی is one who is deceived by his own desires and delusion. This statement further underscores the voluntary nature of these conditions and identifies practical causes that lead toward either path. Third, the Prophet of Islam (صلی الله علیه وآلہ وسلم) states: “اربع من اسباب السعادة... والاربع التی من الشقاوة...” Four things are among the causes of سعادت: a righteous spouse, a spacious dwelling, a virtuous neighbor, and a suitable means of conveyance. Conversely, four things are among the causes of شقاوت: a harmful neighbor, an unrighteous spouse, a constricted dwelling, and an inadequate means of conveyance. These elements, which influence both the material and spiritual aspects of life, demonstrate the breadth and practical scope of the Islamic understanding of سعادت and شقاوت. Fourth, the Prophet (صلی الله علیه وآلہ وسلم) is reported to have said: “من علامات الشقاء جمود العینین، وقسوة القلب، وشدة الحرص فی طلب الرزق، والاصرار علی الذنب.” Among the signs of شقاوت are dryness of the eyes (absence of tears), hardness of the heart, excessive greed in seeking sustenance, and persistence in sin. Each of these traits originates in human conduct and remains within the domain of human choice, further affirming the voluntary nature of both سعادت and شقاوت. When these authentic causes are compared with the superstitious beliefs prevalent in many societies—even in technologically advanced contexts—the logical and empirical character of Islamic teachings becomes evident. Beliefs such as associating fortune with a horseshoe, considering certain days inauspicious, interpreting the flight or sound of birds as omens, or attributing events to arbitrary rituals, illustrate how individuals become entangled in baseless notions. Such superstitions often impede human initiative and productivity, leading to practical and existential harm. Islam categorically rejects these unfounded beliefs and instead grounds سعادت and شقاوت in tangible realities: human action, moral character, strength or weakness of resolve, patterns of conduct, and sound or erroneous belief. These principles, as articulated in the cited traditions, provide a coherent and rational framework for understanding human destiny.

See ayat 112 for tafseer.

See ayat 112 for tafseer.

See ayat 112 for tafseer.

These verses, in reality, were revealed to console and reassure the Prophet of Islam (صلی الله علیه وآلہ وسلم) and to clarify the nature of his responsibility. From the accounts of past communities, a fundamental lesson emerges: that the Prophet and the sincere believers after him should not be intimidated by the numerical strength of their opponents, nor should they entertain doubt regarding the eventual defeat of idolatrous and oppressive societies. Rather, they should remain confident in divine support. Accordingly, it is stated: “فَلَا تَكُنْ فِی مِرْیَةٍ مِمَّا یَعْبُدُ هٰؤُلَاءِ مَا یَعْبُدُونَ إِلَّا كَمَا یَعْبُدُ آبَاؤُهُمْ مِنْ قَبْلُ”. That is, do not remain in doubt concerning what these people worship; they follow exactly the same path as their forefathers, and their method of worship is identical to that of earlier generations. Therefore, their outcome will not differ from that of those who preceded them. It is further emphasized: “وَإنَّا لَمُوَفُّوهُمْ نَصِيبَهُمْ غَيْرَ مَنقُوصٍ”. Indeed, We shall grant them their due share of recompense without diminution—whether in the form of punishment for persistence in falsehood or reward if they turn toward the path of truth. The expression “غَيْرَ مَنقُوصٍ” reinforces the completeness of divine recompense, even though the term “مُوَفُّوهُمْ” itself already implies full delivery. This verse demonstrates that the narratives previously mentioned are not mere stories or legends, nor are their consequences confined to past communities. Rather, they represent a perpetual and universal divine pattern applicable to all humanity across time. Although earlier nations often experienced manifest and catastrophic forms of punishment, such as natural disasters, in the case of the Prophet of Islam (صلی الله علیه وآلہ وسلم), divine support was manifested differently—through empowerment, enabling him and the believers to overcome their obstinate adversaries. Again, in order to reassure the Prophet, it is stated: “وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَا مُوسَى الْكِتَابَ فَاخْتُلِفَ فِيهِ”. Just as Musa (علیه السلام) was given the scripture and his people differed regarding it—some accepting and others rejecting—so too should opposition and اختلاف not be surprising in the present case. It is further explained that the delay in punishment is not due to neglect but is the result of divine wisdom: “وَلَوْلَا كَلِمَةٌ سَبَقَتْ مِنْ رَبِّكَ لَقُضِیَ بَيْنَهُمْ”. Had it not been for a preordained divine decree allowing time for guidance and development, judgment would already have been executed. However, the opponents remain in a state of doubt mixed with suspicion: “وَإنَّهُمْ لَفِی شَكٍّ مِنْهُ مُرِيبٍ”. Finally, it is stated with emphasis: “وَإنَّ كُلًّا لَمَّا لَيُوَفِّيَنَّهُمْ رَبُّكَ أَعْمَالَهُمْ”. Your Lord shall surely recompense every group fully in accordance with their deeds, for “إنَّهُ بِمَا يَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرٌ”. This also alludes to the principle of the manifestation of deeds, indicating that reward and punishment are in essence the return of one’s own actions in another form. After presenting the accounts of previous Prophets and the causes of their success, and after consoling the Prophet (صلی الله علیه وآلہ وسلم), the Qur’an delivers a central directive: “فَاسْتَقِمْ كَمَا أُمِرْتَ”. Maintain steadfastness as you have been commanded—steadfastness in conveying the message, in struggle, in fulfilling divine responsibilities, and in implementing the teachings of the Qur’an. This steadfastness must be purely for the sake of God—not for gaining favor, status, power, wealth, or influence, but solely in accordance with divine command. It extends not only to the Prophet but also to those who have turned toward faith: “وَمَنْ تَابَ مَعَكَ”. Furthermore, it must be free from excess and deficiency: “وَلَا تَطْغَوْا”, for God is fully aware of all actions—“إنَّهُ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ بَصِيرٌ”. Thus, the passage concludes by uniting historical reflection, doctrinal certainty, and ethical instruction into a single framework: unwavering commitment to truth under divine guidance, supported by the assurance of ultimate justice.

It is reported in a well-known narration attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas that he said: “ما نزل علیٰ رسول الله (ص) آیة کانت أشد علیہ ولا أشق من هذه الآیة”، that no verse was revealed to the Messenger of God (صلی الله علیه وآلہ وسلم) that was more severe or more burdensome upon him than this verse. Consequently, when his companions remarked that the signs of aging had appeared upon him so swiftly, he responded: “شیبتنی هود والواقعة” — that Surah Hud and Surah al‑Waqi‘ah had caused him to grow old. In another narration, it is reported that when this verse was revealed, the Prophet (صلی الله علیه وآلہ وسلم) said: “شمروا، شمروا”, that is, prepare yourselves and exert yourselves, for the time of effort and striving has arrived. Thereafter, it is said that he was not seen smiling as before. The reason for this is evident, for within this verse are contained four weighty commands, each constituting a significant responsibility. The foremost of these is the command: “فَاسْتَقِمْ”—steadfastness. Derived from the root “قیام,” it signifies a state of firm standing, wherein a person maintains full command over their undertaking. Steadfastness implies the cultivation of a state of unwavering consistency, one in which no trace of negligence or weakness remains. This command is profoundly demanding: achieving success in itself may not be exceedingly difficult, but preserving that success and maintaining it under adverse conditions is far more arduous—particularly within a جامعه characterized by intellectual and moral deficiency, and in the face of determined and persistent adversaries. The second command is that this steadfastness must be purely for the sake of God, aligned solely with His command—“کَمَا أُمِرْتَ”. It must be free from all forms of ulterior motive, whether the desire for power, influence, social status, wealth, or recognition. It must remain untouched by ostentation or self-interest, and must be directed exclusively toward the fulfillment of the divine will. The third responsibility pertains to the leadership of those who have turned toward faith, as indicated in “وَمَنْ تَابَ مَعَکَ”. The Prophet (صلی الله علیه وآلہ وسلم) was not only responsible for his own steadfastness but also for nurturing and strengthening it within the community of believers, guiding them with wisdom and perseverance. The fourth element is the command to avoid transgression: “وَلَا تَطْغَوْا”. Even in the pursuit of noble objectives, excess and تجاوز must be avoided. It is often observed that individuals may demonstrate remarkable resolve in striving toward a goal, yet fail to maintain justice and balance, and thereby fall into excess and ظلم. This injunction ensures that steadfastness remains coupled with justice and moderation. Thus, these combined directives placed an immense burden upon the shoulders of the Prophet (صلی الله علیه وآلہ وسلم), contributing to the gravity reflected in the narration. They collectively define a comprehensive framework of responsibility: steadfastness, sincerity, leadership, and justice. It is important to emphasize that these commands are not confined to a specific historical context; they remain equally relevant for all times. Indeed, for the Muslim community—especially its leaders—these four principles constitute the essential foundation of success: steadfast perseverance, purity of intention, responsible guidance of others, and avoidance of excess and ظلم. Without adherence to these principles, it is not possible to prevail against the multifaceted challenges posed by adversaries who may employ cultural, economic, political, and social means against them.

This verse presents a highly fundamental social, political, military, and ideological framework. Addressing all Muslims, it defines a decisive and binding responsibility: do not incline toward those who commit ظلم, place no trust in them, rely not upon them, and do not take them as a support or point of dependence—“وَلَا تَرْكَنُوا إِلَى الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا”. The reason for this prohibition is immediately clarified: such inclination will result in the affliction of the Fire—“فَتَمَسَّكُمُ النَّارُ”. Furthermore, apart from God, there is no guardian, protector, or helper for you—“وَمَا لَكُم مِّن دُونِ اللهِ مِنْ أَوْلِيَاءَ”—and in such a condition, you will receive no assistance—“ثُمَّ لَا تُنصَرُونَ”.

1. The Meaning of “Rukūn”: The term “رکون” is derived from the root “رکن,” which denotes a pillar or a structural element that supports and sustains a building or object. By extension, it came to signify reliance, dependence, or inclination toward something. Commentators have proposed various interpretations of this term in the present verse; however, most of these ultimately converge upon a comprehensive meaning encompassing reliance, dependence, and inclination. Thus, it has been interpreted as “inclination,” “cooperation,” “approval,” “friendship,” “goodwill,” and “obedience,” all of which reflect different aspects of reliance and dependence. 2. In What Matters Should One Avoid Inclination Toward the Oppressors: It is evident, first and foremost, that one must not participate in acts of ظلم, nor seek assistance from the oppressors in committing wrongdoing. Beyond this, one must refrain from forms of association that weaken the Islamic community, undermine its independence, and diminish its self-sufficiency, reducing it to a dependent and fragile entity. In such matters, trust and reliance upon oppressive forces must be avoided, since such dependence inevitably leads to شکست, failure, and weakness. However, interactions such as trade or intellectual exchange with non-Muslim societies, provided they are based on mutual benefit and preserve the independence and stability of the Islamic community, do not fall under the prohibition of “رکون.” Such relations have existed historically, including during the time of the Prophet of Islam (صلی الله علیه وآلہ وسلم), and are not inherently objectionable. 3. The Rationale for Prohibiting Reliance upon the Oppressors: Reliance upon oppressive forces strengthens them, and their strength, in turn, facilitates the spread of ظلم, فساد, and societal destruction. It is also indicated in Islamic legal principles that, except in cases of necessity, one should not seek justice through institutions established by ظالم authorities, as doing so implicitly legitimizes and reinforces those systems. Supporting oppressive structures is, in many cases, more harmful than forfeiting one’s immediate claims. Moreover, dependence upon ظالم forces gradually influences the intellectual and cultural fabric of society, diminishing the perceived severity of injustice and sin, and even encouraging their acceptance. In general, reliance upon others in a manner that leads to dependency results in misfortune, particularly when that reliance is placed upon oppressive and unjust powers. A progressive and dignified society is one that stands upon its own foundations, as illustrated in the Qur’anic imagery of a flourishing plant that grows firmly upon its own stem. A truly independent society is one that maintains self-sufficiency and engages with others on the basis of equality, rather than dependency. Otherwise, such dependence leads inevitably to subjugation and exploitation. It should also be noted that the prohibition expressed in this verse is not limited to societal relations but extends to interpersonal relationships. Even at the individual level, a free and faithful person must avoid reliance upon an oppressive individual, as such dependence undermines independence and may draw one into the sphere of ظلم and فساد. 4. Who Are Meant by “الذین ظلموا”: Commentators have offered various interpretations regarding the referent of this phrase. Some have limited it to the polytheists; however, there is no compelling basis for such restriction. Even if polytheists constituted the primary referent at the time of revelation, the wording of the verse is general and encompasses all who engage in ظلم against God’s servants, exploit others, and utilize their abilities unjustly. At the same time, it is clear that the term does not intend every individual who may have committed a minor act of injustice at some point, as this would render reliance upon any person impermissible. Rather, the emphasis is upon those whose identity and conduct are defined by persistent ظلم. If, however, “رکون” is understood specifically in terms of reliance upon unjust conduct, then even a single act of injustice may bear relevance within that context. An Objection and Its Clarification: Some commentators have raised a question concerning an apparent tension between this verse and certain reports that advocate obedience to rulers under all circumstances, even when they are unjust. According to such reports, obedience to the authority of the ruler is deemed obligatory, regardless of their conduct. This appears to conflict with the Qur’anic prohibition of reliance upon the ظالمین. 5. The resolution, as articulated within the perspective of the Ahl al‑Bayt (علیهم السلام), is that obedience is due only to a legitimate authority characterized by knowledge and justice—one who can be regarded, in general terms, as a representative of the Prophet (صلی الله علیه وآلہ وسلم) or the infallible leadership. Narrations that promote unconditional obedience to unjust rulers are either subject to contextual limitation—such as cases of necessity—or are to be rejected insofar as they conflict with the clear teachings of the Qur’an. Indeed, the Qur’an explicitly affirms that a leader of believers cannot be characterized by ظلم, and the present verse unequivocally prohibits reliance upon the oppressors. Therefore, any interpretation or report that conflicts with this principle must either be restricted in scope or set aside.

See ayat 115 for tafseer.

These verses indicate two of the most fundamental principles within Islamic teachings, which in reality constitute the very روحِ ایمان and a central pillar of Islam. It is first stated, with regard to prayer: “وَاَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ طَرَفَیِ النَّهَارِ وَزُلَفًا مِنَ اللَّیْلِ”, that is, establish prayer at the two ends of the day and during the early hours of the night. The expression “طَرَفَیِ النَّهَارِ” (the two ends of the day) apparently refers to the prayers of Fajr and Maghrib, since these occur at the beginning and end of the day. The term “زُلَفًا” (plural of “زُلْفَة”), meaning nearness, refers to the early portions of the night that are close to the day, and thus corresponds to the prayer of ‘Isha’. This interpretation is also supported in the narrations of the Ahl al‑Bayt (علیه السلام), which identify these as three specific prayers: Fajr, Maghrib, and ‘Isha’. A question arises as to why, among the five daily prayers, only these three are mentioned, while the prayers of Zuhr and ‘Asr are not explicitly referenced. The answer lies in the stylistic and contextual nature of Qur’anic discourse. In some verses, all five daily prayers are encompassed, as in: “اَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ لِدُلُوكِ الشَّمْسِ إِلَىٰ غَسَقِ اللَّیْلِ وَقُرْآنَ الْفَجْرِ”. In other instances, reference is made to only certain prayers, and at times even a single prayer is highlighted, such as “وَالصَّلَاةِ الْوُسْطَىٰ”. Thus, it is not necessary for every verse to explicitly mention all five prayers; rather, emphasis is placed selectively according to context and relevance. In this passage, particular emphasis may have been given to Fajr, Maghrib, and ‘Isha’ because these occur at transitional times—early morning, sunset, and nightfall—when fatigue, distraction, or sleep may lead to negligence. Therefore, the verse underscores their observance. Following the command to establish prayer, a broader principle is articulated: “اِنَّ الْحَسَنَاتِ یُذْهِبْنَ السَّیِّئَاتِ”, that is, good deeds remove evil deeds. It is further stated: “ذٰلِکَ ذِكْرَىٰ لِلذَّاكِرِینَ”, indicating that this is a reminder for those who are mindful. This principle is affirmed throughout the Qur’an. For example: “إِن تَجْتَنِبُوا كَبَائِرَ مَا تُنْهَوْنَ عَنْهُ نُكَفِّرْ عَنكُمْ سَیِّئَاتِكُمْ” (al‑Nisa’, 31), and “وَالَّذِینَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَنُكَفِّرَنَّ عَنْهُمْ سَیِّئَاتِهِمْ” (al‑‘Ankabut, 7). These verses demonstrate that righteous actions possess a purifying function, removing or diminishing the آثار of sin. From a psychological perspective, this relationship is equally evident. Every sinful act produces a form of darkness within the human soul. If such acts persist, their accumulated effects can transform the individual in a profoundly negative manner. In contrast, righteous deeds—emanating from the pursuit of divine رضا—impart refinement and luminosity to the soul, cleansing it of impurities and transforming darkness into light. Since the statement “اِنَّ الْحَسَنَاتِ یُذْهِبْنَ السَّیِّئَاتِ” follows immediately after the injunction of prayer, one of its most evident applications is the daily نماز itself. However, this does not restrict the principle exclusively to prayer; rather, as repeatedly emphasized, it represents a general law encompassing all acts of obedience and righteousness. The references in narrations to prayer as a primary instance reflect its clarity and importance as a practical embodiment of this universal principle.

These verses indicate two of the most fundamental principles within Islamic teachings, which in reality constitute the very روحِ ایمان and a central pillar of Islam. It is first stated, with regard to prayer: “وَاَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ طَرَفَیِ النَّهَارِ وَزُلَفًا مِنَ اللَّیْلِ”, that is, establish prayer at the two ends of the day and during the early hours of the night. The expression “طَرَفَیِ النَّهَارِ” (the two ends of the day) apparently refers to the prayers of Fajr and Maghrib, since these occur at the beginning and end of the day. The term “زُلَفًا” (plural of “زُلْفَة”), meaning nearness, refers to the early portions of the night that are close to the day, and thus corresponds to the prayer of ‘Isha’. This interpretation is also supported in the narrations of the Ahl al‑Bayt (علیه السلام), which identify these as three specific prayers: Fajr, Maghrib, and ‘Isha’. A question arises as to why, among the five daily prayers, only these three are mentioned, while the prayers of Zuhr and ‘Asr are not explicitly referenced. The answer lies in the stylistic and contextual nature of Qur’anic discourse. In some verses, all five daily prayers are encompassed, as in: “اَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ لِدُلُوكِ الشَّمْسِ إِلَىٰ غَسَقِ اللَّیْلِ وَقُرْآنَ الْفَجْرِ”. In other instances, reference is made to only certain prayers, and at times even a single prayer is highlighted, such as “وَالصَّلَاةِ الْوُسْطَىٰ”. Thus, it is not necessary for every verse to explicitly mention all five prayers; rather, emphasis is placed selectively according to context and relevance. In this passage, particular emphasis may have been given to Fajr, Maghrib, and ‘Isha’ because these occur at transitional times—early morning, sunset, and nightfall—when fatigue, distraction, or sleep may lead to negligence. Therefore, the verse underscores their observance. Following the command to establish prayer, a broader principle is articulated: “اِنَّ الْحَسَنَاتِ یُذْهِبْنَ السَّیِّئَاتِ”, that is, good deeds remove evil deeds. It is further stated: “ذٰلِکَ ذِكْرَىٰ لِلذَّاكِرِینَ”, indicating that this is a reminder for those who are mindful. This principle is affirmed throughout the Qur’an. For example: “إِن تَجْتَنِبُوا كَبَائِرَ مَا تُنْهَوْنَ عَنْهُ نُكَفِّرْ عَنكُمْ سَیِّئَاتِكُمْ” (al‑Nisa’, 31), and “وَالَّذِینَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَنُكَفِّرَنَّ عَنْهُمْ سَیِّئَاتِهِمْ” (al‑‘Ankabut, 7). These verses demonstrate that righteous actions possess a purifying function, removing or diminishing the آثار of sin. From a psychological perspective, this relationship is equally evident. Every sinful act produces a form of darkness within the human soul. If such acts persist, their accumulated effects can transform the individual in a profoundly negative manner. In contrast, righteous deeds—emanating from the pursuit of divine رضا—impart refinement and luminosity to the soul, cleansing it of impurities and transforming darkness into light. Since the statement “اِنَّ الْحَسَنَاتِ یُذْهِبْنَ السَّیِّئَاتِ” follows immediately after the injunction of prayer, one of its most evident applications is the daily نماز itself. However, this does not restrict the principle exclusively to prayer; rather, as repeatedly emphasized, it represents a general law encompassing all acts of obedience and righteousness. The references in narrations to prayer as a primary instance reflect its clarity and importance as a practical embodiment of this universal principle.

In the interpretation of the verse under discussion, a profound and noteworthy narration has been transmitted from ‘Ali (علیه السلام), according to which he once addressed the people and asked: which verse of the Qur’an do you consider the most hopeful? Some replied: “اِنَّ اللهَ لَا یَغْفِرُ اَنْ یُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَیَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذٰلِكَ لِمَنْ یَشَاءُ”. Others recited: “وَمَنْ یَعْمَلْ سُوءًا اَوْ یَظْلِمْ نَفْسَهُ ثُمَّ یَسْتَغْفِرِ اللهَ یَجِدِ اللهَ غَفُورًا رَحِیمًا”. Still others cited: “قُلْ یَا عِبَادِیَ الَّذِینَ اَسْرَفُوا عَلَى اَنْفُسِهِمْ لَا تَقْنَطُوا مِنْ رَحْمَةِ اللهِ”, and another group referred to: “وَالَّذِینَ إذَا فَعَلُوا فَاحِشَةً اَوْ ظَلَمُوا اَنْفُسَهُمْ ذَكَرُوا اللهَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُوا لِذُنُوبِهِمْ وَمَنْ یَغْفِرُ الذُّنُوبَ إلَّا اللهُ”. In each case, Imam (علیه السلام) acknowledged the merit of the verse but stated that it was not the one he intended. When the people confessed that no other verse came to mind, he said that he had heard from the Messenger of God (صلی الله علیه وآلہ وسلم) that the most hopeful verse in the Qur’an is: “وَاَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ طَرَفَیِ النَّهَارِ وَزُلَفًا مِنَ اللَّیْلِ إنَّ الْحَسَنَاتِ یُذْهِبْنَ السَّیِّئَاتِ ذٰلِكَ ذِكْرَىٰ لِلذَّاكِرِینَ”. This does not contradict other narrations identifying different verses as highly hopeful, since each of these verses addresses a distinct dimension of the same reality. The present verse pertains particularly to those who establish prayer properly; such prayer, performed with presence of heart, purifies the soul and removes the آثار of sin. In contrast, other verses address individuals who rely primarily upon repentance. Thus, each verse is especially hopeful for a particular category of people. There can be nothing more encouraging than the assurance that when a person falters or is overcome by desire—without persisting deliberately in sin—he may purify himself, stand before the Divine in sincere devotion, and, through remorse and humility, be cleansed of sin and relieved of its darkness. Following the command concerning prayer and the transformative role of righteous deeds, the subsequent verse introduces another fundamental principle: “وَاصْبِرْ فَإنَّ اللهَ لَا یُضِیعُ اَجْرَ الْمُحْسِنِینَ”. Although some commentators have restricted the meaning of صبر here to prayer or to endurance in the face of opposition, the context indicates that it possesses a broad and comprehensive meaning. It encompasses steadfastness in the face of difficulties, opposition, hardship, agitation, rebellion, and all forms of adversity. It signifies perseverance, composure, and active resistance against all challenges. In the Qur’an, صبر frequently appears alongside prayer, suggesting that prayer generates spiritual motivation and energy, while صبر sustains that effort through endurance; together, they constitute the basis of all حقیقی success. Indeed, no virtuous action can be completed without perseverance, for every worthy endeavor ultimately requires sustained commitment. Hence, after commanding صبر, the verse affirms that God does not allow the reward of the righteous to be lost, emphasizing that sustained goodness is inseparable from endurance. It should also be noted that individuals respond differently to adversity. Some lose control and fall into despair, as described in: “اِذَا مَسَّهُ الشَّرُّ جَزُوعًا”. Others maintain composure and endure with patience. A higher group combines patience with gratitude, while the highest respond with active and continuous effort, striving tirelessly to remove the causes of hardship. For such individuals, divine promise is assured, as in: “إن یَكُنْ مِنكُمْ عِشْرُونَ صَابِرُونَ یَغْلِبُوا مِائَتَیْنِ”, and their ultimate reward is described in: “وَجَزَاهُمْ بِمَا صَبَرُوا جَنَّةً وَحَرِیرًا”. Thus, صبر is not merely passive endurance but an active and comprehensive principle that underlies all dimensions of spiritual and moral success.

See ayat 117 for tafseer.

To complete the preceding discussion, these two verses articulate an important principle that guarantees the preservation of societies from destruction. The principle is that as long as there exists within any society a committed and responsible group of people endowed with intellect and insight—who do not remain silent in the face of فساد but rise to confront it, and who provide intellectual and ideological guidance—such a society will not descend into ruin. However, when indifference and silence prevail at every level, and when there remains no resistance against the forces of corruption and no defenders of justice, then فساد inevitably spreads, and destruction follows in its wake. Thus, referring to the earlier communities that were afflicted with various calamities, it is stated: “فَلَوْلَا كَانَ مِنَ الْقُرُونِ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ أُولُوا بَقِیَّةٍ یَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْفَسَادِ فِی الْأَرْضِ”, meaning that among the generations before you, there were only a few individuals possessing insight and moral strength who sought to restrain corruption. This is further clarified with the exception: “إلَّا قَلِیلًا مِمَّنْ أَنجَیْنَا مِنْهُمْ”. This small group, although it fulfilled the duty of moral guidance, was too limited in number to bring about comprehensive reform within society—like Lut (علیه السلام) and his small household, or Nuh (علیه السلام) with a few believers, or Salih (علیه السلام) with his followers. Their influence, though sincere, was insufficient to counter the widespread فساد. Meanwhile, those characterized by ظلم—whose numbers were greater—continued to pursue luxury, indulgence, and heedless enjoyment, becoming intoxicated by arrogance and immersed in wrongdoing: “وَاتَّبَعَ الَّذِینَ ظَلَمُوا مَا أُتْرِفُوا فِیهِ وَكَانُوا مُجْرِمِینَ”. The subsequent verse emphasizes this principle further: “وَمَا كَانَ رَبُّكَ لِیُهْلِكَ الْقُرَىٰ بِظُلْمٍ وَأَهْلُهَا مُصْلِحُونَ”. That is, God does not destroy a people so long as there exist among them those who strive for reform. This highlights that the mere existence of ظلم within a society does not necessitate its destruction; rather, what determines its fate is whether the society retains awareness of wrongdoing and possesses the will to correct it. This principle may be illustrated through an analogy: the human body possesses a defensive mechanism, embodied in the white blood cells, which act as a protective force against harmful external agents. When these defensive agents remain strong, they resist and neutralize harmful intrusions. However, if this system weakens, the body becomes vulnerable to disease. Similarly, in a society, the presence of individuals who oppose فساد functions as a defense mechanism. If this “protective force”—referred to in the verse as “أُولُوا بَقِیَّةٍ”—disappears, then the forces of social decay multiply and spread unchecked, eventually leading to societal collapse. Thus, the existence of such individuals is essential for the continuity and survival of any society. Without them, the very right to existence is effectively forfeited, and the process of decline becomes inevitable.

The term “أُولُوا بَقِیَّةٍ” consists of “أُولُوا,” meaning “possessors,” and “بَقِیَّةٍ,” meaning “that which remains.” In Arabic usage, this expression is often employed in the sense of “possessors of virtue” and morally refined individuals. This is because, in general, what remains and is preserved among people tends to be that which is superior and of higher quality, while inferior elements are often discarded. Thus, the term “بقیة” acquires, by implication, the meaning of moral distinction and excellence. Furthermore, in situations of collective struggle, weaker elements tend to withdraw or perish, while those who endure are individuals distinguished by greater intellectual and physical strength. Hence, what remains is often associated with power, resilience, and insight. This usage is reflected in the Arabic proverb: فی الزوایا خبایا وفی الرجال بقایا, indicating that while hidden matters may persist in corners, among people it is only the most capable who remain. Accordingly, the term “بقیة” appears in the Qur’an in contexts that convey this elevated meaning. In the account of Talut and Jalut, it is stated: “فِیهِ سَكِینَةٌ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ وَبَقِیَّةٌ”, referring to the sacred relics preserved within the Ark as a source of spiritual reassurance. Similarly, in the narrative of Shu‘ayb (علیه السلام), it is declared: “بَقِیَّةُ اللهِ خَیْرٌ لَكُمْ”, where the term signifies what remains of lawful sustenance in accordance with divine command. In certain narrations, al‑Mahdi (علیه السلام) is described as “بَقِیَّةُ اللهِ”, indicating that he is a preserved and divinely designated source of guidance and justice. From this perspective, it becomes evident that individuals who actively resist فساد and work toward reform—those described as “أُولُوا بَقِیَّةٍ”—hold a vital and central role within society. Their presence constitutes a safeguard against moral and social decay, and the survival of communities is closely tied to their existence. Another significant point in the verse is the distinction between being “صالح” (righteous) and being “مصلح” (one who actively reforms). The verse emphasizes that it is not sufficient for individuals merely to possess personal virtue; rather, the preservation of society depends upon the presence of those who strive to enact reform. Even if a society is not fully righteous, it retains a right to continuity so long as efforts toward اصلاح exist. However, when neither righteousness nor reform is present, such a society loses its claim to survival and becomes subject to inevitable decline. In other words, a society may endure despite deficiencies, provided that it possesses awareness and initiative for reform. But if ظلم and فساد dominate without resistance, and indifference becomes widespread, then, according to the natural law governing societies, its continuation is no longer sustainable. A further important observation in these verses is that one of the primary sources of ظلم and فساد is indulgence in luxury and unrestrained pursuit of pleasure, referred to in Qur’anic terminology as “إِتْرَاف”. This excessive attachment to comfort and worldly enjoyment often emerges among affluent classes and leads to various forms of deviation. It dulls awareness of moral and social realities, fosters arrogance, and drives individuals toward disobedience and injustice. Thus, the verses collectively emphasize that the preservation of society depends upon vigilant, responsible individuals who uphold truth, resist فساد, and actively work toward reform, while unchecked indulgence in luxury and neglect of moral responsibility lead inevitably to collective decline.

In the first of the verses under discussion, a fundamental law of nature is indicated, which in reality constitutes the basis of all human affairs: namely, diversity and اختلاف among human beings, together with the freedom of will and choice. It is stated: “وَلَوْ شَاءَ رَبُّکَ لَجَعَلَ النَّاسَ اُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَلَا یَزَالُونَ مُخْتَلِفِینَ”, that had your Lord willed, He could have made all people a single community, but they will continue to differ. This statement clarifies that no one should imagine that God’s insistence upon obedience implies any limitation in His power; He could have compelled all humans to adopt a single path and forced them to become believers. However, such compelled ایمان would have no value. Unity imposed through compulsion and devoid of conscious choice would neither elevate human rank, nor lead to true perfection, nor form the basis for reward and punishment. It would resemble the condition of other creatures, such as the bee, which gathers nectar by instinct, or the mosquito that builds its habitat according to its given nature—actions devoid of voluntary agency. The distinguishing feature of humanity, and its primary source of value, lies precisely in the blessing of freedom of will and اختیار. Likewise, the diversity of tastes, perspectives, and intellectual inclinations within human beings contributes to the construction and refinement of society, each fulfilling a distinct role within the collective whole. Given the presence of this freedom, divergence in belief, religion, and worldview becomes a natural consequence. Some individuals accept the path of truth, while others adopt falsehood. Nevertheless, if human beings receive proper تربیت and benefit from divine guidance and mercy—manifested through revelation, prophetic instruction, and rational understanding—then despite diversity and freedom of choice, they can move toward the path of truth. Hence, the subsequent verse states: “إلَّا مَنْ رَحِمَ رَبُّکَ”, indicating that differences persist except among those upon whom the mercy of the Lord descends. This divine mercy is not restricted to any particular group; rather, it is available to all who choose to accept it. Thus it is stated: “وَلِذٰلِکَ خَلَقَهُمْ”, that humanity has been created precisely to receive and benefit from this mercy. This mercy encompasses rational insight, prophetic guidance, and the teachings of divine scripture, all of which are universally accessible. Those who avail themselves of it will find the gates of Paradise and eternal felicity opened before them. Conversely, if this opportunity is neglected, the divine decree is fulfilled: “وَتَمَّتْ کَلِمَةُ رَبِّکَ لَاَمْلَاَنَّ جَهَنَّمَ مِنَ الْجِنَّةِ وَالنَّاسِ اَجْمَعِینَ”. This indicates that those who persist in rebellion and reject guidance will ultimately constitute the inhabitants of Hell. Thus, these verses articulate a comprehensive vision in which human diversity and freedom are essential conditions for moral responsibility, and in which divine mercy remains open to all, while the ultimate outcome is determined by human choice in response to that mercy.

See ayat 119 for tafseer.

1. Freedom of Will as the Foundation of the Call: In human creation, freedom of will constitutes the foundation of the دعوت of all the Prophets. In principle, without it, human beings cannot advance even a single step toward growth and perfection (here understood in the spiritual and moral sense). Accordingly, numerous Qur’anic verses reiterate that, had God willed, He could have guided all people by compulsion; however, He did not will this. Rather, God calls to the path of truth, indicates the الطريق, presents signs and evidences, warns of deviation, appoints guides, and provides a program for traversing the path. As the Qur’an states: “اِنَّ عَلَیْنَا لَلْهُدَىٰ”, that the guidance of the path is upon Us (al-Layl: 12). It is further stated: “اِنَّمَا اَنْتَ مُذَكِّرٌ، لَسْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ بِمُصَيْطِرٍ”, that the role of the Messenger is only to remind, not to compel (al-Ghashiyah: 21–22). Likewise: “فَاَلْهَمَهَا فُجُورَهَا وَتَقْوَاهَا” (al-Shams: 8), and “اِنَّا هَدَيْنَاهُ السَّبِيلَ إِمَّا شَاكِرًا وَإِمَّا كَفُورًا” (al-Dahr: 3). Thus, the verses under discussion represent among the clearest Qur’anic affirmations of human freedom of will and rejection of determinism, establishing that the final decision rests with the human being. 2. Qur’anic Verses and the Purpose of Creation: The Qur’an presents the purpose of creation in various formulations, each reflecting a particular aspect of a unified objective. One such verse states: “وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالْإِنسَ إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُونِ” (al-Dhariyat: 56), indicating that humanity is created for عبادت—that is, for attaining spiritual perfection within the framework of servitude to God. Another verse states: “الَّذِي خَلَقَ الْمَوْتَ وَالْحَيَاةَ لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ اَیُّكُمْ اَحْسَنُ عَمَلًا” (al-Mulk: 2), emphasizing the role of trial as a means of refinement and growth. In the present context, it is stated: “وَلِذٰلِكَ خَلَقَهُمْ”, indicating that human beings are created to receive divine mercy—mercy that encompasses guidance and the capacity to choose rightly. These expressions converge upon a single fundamental purpose: the تربیت, guidance, development, and elevation of the human being. This purpose ultimately benefits the human being, not God, for He is an absolute and self-sufficient existence, free from need or نقص in all respects. 3. Clarification of a Key Point: In the final verse, it is stated that Hell will be filled with jinn and human beings. However, this declaration is conditional: it applies only to those who choose to remove themselves from the sphere of divine mercy and reject the guidance sent through the Prophets. Consequently, this verse does not support determinism; rather, it reinforces the principle of human اختیار and freedom. Thus, the ultimate outcome—whether felicity or wretchedness—is determined by human response to divine guidance, and the responsibility for that outcome rests with human choice itself.

See ayat 123 for tafseer.

See ayat 123 for tafseer.

See ayat 123 for tafseer.

With these verses, Surah Hud comes to its conclusion. In them, the overall outcome of the Surah’s discussions is presented in a concise yet comprehensive manner. Since a major portion of the Surah is devoted to the accounts of the Prophets and the instructive histories of past nations, these verses summarize their profound results under several key themes. It is first stated: “وَكُلًّا نَقُصُّ عَلَيْكَ مِنْ أَنْبَاءِ الرُّسُلِ مَا نُثَبِّتُ بِهِ فُؤَادَكَ”. These diverse narratives of the Prophets are recounted in order to strengthen the heart of the Messenger and fortify his resolve. The expression “كُلًّا” signifies the variety and multiplicity of these accounts, each of which highlights a distinct form of opposition, deviation, and eventual consequence. This diversity illuminates multiple dimensions of human life and provides comprehensive guidance. The strengthening of the Prophet’s heart is presented as a natural necessity, for the persistent opposition of obstinate and uncompromising adversaries inevitably exerts pressure upon a human being. Therefore, to ensure that even the slightest trace of despair does not touch his heart, and that his unwavering determination remains intact, God repeatedly recounts the experiences of earlier Prophets—their struggles, their steadfastness, and their eventual success. These accounts not only reinforce the Prophet (صلی الله علیه وآلہ وسلم), but also strengthen the المؤمنین who stood alongside him. The second outcome of these narratives is expressed in the statement: “وَجَاءَكَ فِي هَذِهِ الْحَقُّ”. Within these accounts lie the truths of life itself—principles governing success and failure, guidance and misguidance. The third and fourth outcomes are described as: “وَمَوْعِظَةٌ وَذِكْرَىٰ لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ”. These accounts serve as exhortation and reminder for the believers. They are not mere stories for intellectual or emotional engagement, but rather constitute a repository of the most valuable lessons for human life, encompassing guidance relevant to all times and conditions. Following this summary, the Prophet is instructed to adopt a decisive stance in response to disbelievers: “وَقُلْ لِلَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ اعْمَلُوا عَلَىٰ مَكَانَتِكُمْ إنَّا عَامِلُونَ”. That is, let them act according to their ability, while the believers continue steadfastly upon their path. This expression, similar to others in the Qur’an, is not an encouragement but a form of warning and declaration of determination. It continues: “وَانتَظِرُوا إنَّا مُنتَظِرُونَ”, indicating that the final outcome will reveal the truth and falsehood. Finally, the Surah concludes with a comprehensive statement of Tawhid, encompassing its three essential aspects. First, “وَلِلّٰهِ غَيْبُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ” affirms توحیدِ علمی, that the knowledge of all hidden realities belongs exclusively to God. Second, “وَإلَيْهِ يُرْجَعُ الْأَمْرُ كُلُّهُ” expresses توحیدِ افعالی, that all affairs ultimately return to His authority and governance. Third, “فَاعْبُدْهُ وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَيْهِ” establishes توحیدِ عبادت, directing that worship and reliance be devoted solely to Him. The verse concludes: “وَمَا رَبُّكَ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا تَعْمَلُونَ”, reminding that God is fully aware of all human actions. Thus, the Surah ends by connecting historical reflection, moral exhortation, and theological unity into a single, coherent conclusion centered upon divine knowledge, power, and accountability.

1. Knowledge of the Unseen is specific to God: As we have explained in detail under Surah Al-A'raf, ayah 188 in the seventh volume and Surah Al-An'am, ayah 50 in the fifth volume, there is no room for doubt that awareness of hidden secrets and the secrets of the past and future, and their knowledge, is specific to God. Various verses of the Glorious Quran also bear witness to this reality that He is alone in this attribute and no one is like Him. When we see that in some verses of the Quran, parts of the knowledge of the unseen are attributed to the Prophets, or in many verses and traditions we read about the Noble Prophet صلی الله علیہ وآلہ وسلّم, Hazrat Ali علیہ السلام, and the other infallible Imams علیہم السلام that they would sometimes inform of future events and hidden secrets, it should be known that this too is from divine teaching. He is the One who, when He sees fit, teaches some knowledge of the secrets of the unseen to His special servants. However, this knowledge is not inherent or limitless; rather, it is through divine teaching and is only as much as He bestows by His will. This explanation clarifies the response to all those slanderers who object to the Shia belief that they consider the Prophets and Imams to be knowers of the unseen (Aalim al-Ghayb). God not only teaches the secrets of the unseen to the Prophets and Imams at the appropriate time and place, but sometimes He also gives this type of teaching to individuals other than them, as is mentioned in the Wise Quran about the respected mother of Hazrat Musa علیہ السلام, that God, the Exalted, said to her: Do not fear, We will return this child to you and will make him one of the prophets. In the words of the Quran: وَلَاتَخَافِی وَلَاتَحْزَنِی إنَّا رَادُّوہُ إلَیْکِ وَجَاعِلُوہُ مِنَ الْمُرْسَلِینَ Even birds and other animals, according to the necessities of life, acquire awareness of hidden secrets, even becoming aware of events in the relatively distant future in a way that is difficult and complex for us to imagine. Thus, some matters that are considered unseen for us are not unseen for them. 2. Worship is specific to God: In the aforementioned verse, a subtle argument has been stated regarding worship being specific to God. It is that if worship is based on greatness and the attributes of beauty and majesty, then these attributes are present in God more than anyone else, and others are insignificant and lowly in comparison to Him. The greatest signs of greatness are limitless knowledge and boundless power, about which the verse under consideration says that both are specific to Him. And if worship is for the sake of taking refuge in the one worshipped at times of difficulty, then this capability is in Him who is aware of all the needs, wants, and hidden secrets of the servants, and has the power to accept their prayers and fulfill their desires. On this basis, the unity of attributes (Tawhid al-Sifat) becomes the cause for the unity of worship (Tawhid al-Ibadah). (Pay attention). 3. The summary of the entire spiritual journey: Some commentators have said that the summary of the entire spiritual journey of man through servitude to the Lord has been stated in two words of the verse under discussion, i.e., ”فَاعْبُدْہُ وَتَوَکَّلْ عَلَیْہِ“. Because worship, whether it is physical like the common acts of worship, or spiritual, such as contemplation on the world of creation and the system of the secrets of existence, is the beginning of this spiritual journey. And trust (tawakkul), meaning to entrust all affairs to God, which is in a way ”فَنَا فِی اللّٰہ“ (annihilation in God), is the final point of this journey. On this entire path, from beginning to end, attention to the unity of attributes helps the wayfarer and incites him to a quest mixed with effort and love. O Lord! Make it so that we may know You through Your attributes of beauty and majesty, and make it so that we may move towards You with awareness and knowledge. O Lord! Grant us the ability to worship You with sincerity and to trust in You with love. O Lord! In this time of hardship, when after our magnificent Islamic revolution, ever-increasing difficulties have surrounded us from all sides and the enemy is bent on extinguishing the light of this revolution, our only hope is You, and for the solution to these difficulties, our support is Your pure Being. O Lord! We have not traversed the path this far on our own, but it was Your manifest and hidden support that gave us strength everywhere to reach this stage. On the path that remains, do not deprive us of this great blessing, do not take Your special grace away from us, and also grant us the ability to bring this tafseer, which opens a new window towards Your great heavenly book, to completion. The tafseer of Surah Hud comes to an end.