Al-Isra

The first verse of this sūrah refers to the event of Isrāʾ, namely the night journey of the Messenger of God (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam) from al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām to al‑Masjid al‑Aqṣā (Bayt al‑Maqdis). This journey became the prelude to the celestial ascent (Miʿrāj). It was a journey accomplished within a very short span of time—something entirely beyond the ordinary conditions, routes, and capabilities of that era. It was, therefore, a manifest miracle. It is first stated: سُبْحَانَ الَّذِی اَسْریٰ بِعَبْدِہِ لَیْلًا مِنَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ اِلَی الْمَسْجِدِ الْاَقْصَی—glory be to Him who carried His servant by night from al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām to al‑Masjid al‑Aqṣā. This extraordinary journey occurred so that God might show His signs: لِنُرِیَہُ مِنْ آیَاتِنَا. The verse concludes: اِنَّہُ ھُوَ السَّمِیعُ الْبَصِیرُ—indeed, He is the All‑Hearing, the All‑Seeing. This concluding phrase indicates that the selection of the Messenger for this distinction was not without reason; rather, his speech and conduct were fully worthy of such honor. God heard his words and observed his character, and thus found him worthy of this مقام. It has also been suggested that the phrase serves as a warning to those who deny this miracle, for God hears their words and is aware of their actions. Despite its brevity, the verse contains several significant indications regarding this journey: 1. The word “أسرى” signifies that the journey occurred at night, as isrāʾ in Arabic specifically denotes travel by night, whereas sair is used for travel by day. 2. The word “ليلاً” both emphasizes the nocturnal nature of the journey and indicates that it was completed within a single night. This is particularly significant given that the distance between al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām and al‑Masjid al‑Aqṣā—over one hundred farsakhs—normally required many days or even weeks to traverse. 3. The use of the word “عبد” highlights that this honor was granted due to the Prophet’s مقام عبودیت, for the highest rank of the human being is to be a true servant of God—submitting solely to Him and acting only for His sake. 4. The expression “عبد” also indicates that the journey occurred in a state of wakefulness and involved both body and spirit, not merely a spiritual vision or dream. The wording clearly suggests a real and complete journey. 5. The journey began from al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām in Mecca and reached al‑Masjid al‑Aqṣā in Jerusalem, serving as the prelude to the heavenly ascent described elsewhere. Although some have discussed whether the departure point was exactly from the Kaʿba or a nearby location, the apparent meaning of the verse indicates that it commenced from al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām. 6. The purpose of the journey was to witness divine signs. The subsequent ascent through the heavens likewise served to expose the Prophet to profound manifestations of divine greatness, strengthening his preparedness for guiding humanity. This journey was not for seeing God in a physical sense, as some have imagined, but for witnessing His signs. As stated elsewhere: لَقَدْ رَاٰی مِنْ آیَاتِ رَبِّہِ الْكُبْرٰی. 7. The phrase “بَارَكْنَا حَوْلَهُ” indicates that not only is al‑Masjid al‑Aqṣā itself blessed, but also its surrounding land. This blessing may refer both to its natural fertility and to its spiritual significance as a center of prophetic missions and monotheistic tradition. 8. The phrase “اِنَّہُ ھُوَ السَّمِیعُ الْبَصِیرُ” again emphasizes the divine wisdom behind this selection, grounded in the Prophet’s moral and spiritual excellence. 9. The use of “سُبْحَانَ” underscores the transcendence of God and affirms that this extraordinary journey is a manifestation of His limitless power. 10. The phrase “مِنْ آیَاتِنَا” indicates that even in this عظیم journey, the Prophet witnessed only some of the innumerable signs of divine greatness, highlighting the boundless nature of divine power and creation. Thus, the verse, while concise, encapsulates multiple dimensions of theological meaning, prophetic honor, and the manifestation of divine power.

Among the scholars of Islam, it is well-known that when the Holy Prophet (ص) was in Makkah, by the Divine power, he traveled in one night from Masjid al-Haram to Masjid al-Aqsa. From there, he ascended towards the heavens, observed the signs of Divine greatness in the celestial expanses, and returned to Makkah the same night. It is also well-known that this journey, both earthly and heavenly, was with the body and the soul. However, since this journey was very extraordinary and unparalleled, some individuals interpreted it as a spiritual ascension and said that it was a kind of dream or spiritual unveiling. But as we have already stated, this contradicts the apparent meaning of the verses because the manifest sense of the verses testifies to the physical nature of this ascension. In any case, this discussion raises many questions, such as: 1. What was the nature of the Mi'raj according to the Qur'an, Hadith, and history? 2. What is the belief of Shia and Sunni scholars regarding this matter? 3. What was the purpose of the Mi'raj? 4. What is the possibility of the Mi'raj according to contemporary knowledge and science? Although a thorough examination of all these issues goes beyond the scope of tafseer, we will attempt to briefly present all these matters before the respected readers.

The issue of Miʿrāj is referred to in two distinct sūrahs of the Qurʾān. The first is Sūrat Banī Isrāʾīl (al‑Isrāʾ), which describes the initial stage of the journey—that is, the night travel from al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām in Mecca to al‑Masjid al‑Aqṣā in Bayt al‑Maqdis. The second reference appears in Sūrat al‑Najm, particularly in verses 13–18, where the second stage of Miʿrāj—the celestial ascent—is described. It is stated: وَلَقَدْ رَاٰهُ نَزْلَةً اُخْرٰی عِنْدَ سِدْرَةِ الْمُنْتَهٰی عِنْدَهَا جَنَّةُ الْمَاْوٰی اِذْ يَغْشَى السِّدْرَةَ مَا يَغْشٰی مَا زَاغَ الْبَصَرُ وَمَا طَغٰی لَقَدْ رَاٰی مِنْ اٰيٰتِ رَبِّهِ الْكُبْرٰی The meaning of these verses is that the Messenger of God witnessed Jibrāʾīl in his true form for the second time (the first encounter occurred at the beginning of revelation in the cave of Ḥirāʾ). This meeting took place near Sidrat al‑Muntahā, where Jannat al‑Maʾwā is located. During this experience, the Prophet did not fall into any error or misperception; rather, he observed the greatest signs of his Lord. According to the majority of exegetes, these verses refer to the event of Miʿrāj, and they indicate that it occurred in a state of full wakefulness. In particular, the statement “ما زاغ البصر وما طغى” demonstrates that the Prophet’s vision was free from deviation or illusion, confirming the objective reality of the experience. A large number of traditions concerning Miʿrāj are recorded in major Islamic sources, and many scholars have affirmed their widespread transmission and recognition. For example: 1. Shaykh al‑Ṭūsī, in Tafsīr al‑Tibyān, states under the relevant verse that the Shīʿī scholars hold that on the very same night that the Prophet was taken from Mecca to Bayt al‑Maqdis, he was also raised to the heavens, and that this event took place in a state of wakefulness, not in a dream. 2. ʿAllāmah Ṭabrisī, in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, writes under the verses of Sūrat al‑Najm that, according to the well‑known reports, God took His Messenger to the heavens with his physical body, and the majority of exegetes maintain the same view. 3. ʿAllāmah Majlisī, in Biḥār al‑Anwār, states that the journey from al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām to Bayt al‑Maqdis and from there to the heavens is affirmed by Qurʾānic verses and by numerous transmitted reports from both Shīʿī and Sunnī sources. He further remarks that denying this event or interpreting it purely as a spiritual or dream experience is due to a lack of familiarity with the transmitted traditions or weakness of conviction (Biḥār al‑Anwār, j 6, p. 368). 4. Among Sunnī scholars, Manṣūr ʿAlī Nāṣif, author of al‑Tāj, compiled many of the traditions concerning Miʿrāj. 5. Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī, in his Tafsīr, presents rational arguments affirming the possibility of Miʿrāj and states that the related traditions are widely reported in the recognized collections of Sunnī ḥadīth. 6. ʿAbd al‑ʿAzīz ibn Bāz, in his work al‑Taḥdhīr min al‑Bidʿ, describes Miʿrāj as one of the greatest signs affirming the truthfulness and elevated status of the Prophet, and acknowledges the numerous transmitted reports describing his ascent through the heavens. It should also be noted that not all traditions concerning Miʿrāj are of equal reliability. Some are weak or fabricated. For this reason, ʿAllāmah Ṭabrisī classifies them into four categories: - Those that are certain due to widespread transmission, such as the أصل واقعہ Miʿrāj. - Those that are rationally acceptable and explicitly mentioned in reliable reports. - Those that require interpretation to reconcile them with established principles. - Those that are clearly untenable and indicate fabrication, such as reports describing a direct physical vision of God. Regarding the timing of the event, there is some اختلاف among historians. Some date it to the 27th night of Rajab in the tenth year after the beginning of the mission, others to the 17th night of Ramaḍān in the twelfth year, and some to an earlier period. However, اختلاف in the date does not affect the acceptance of the event itself. Moreover, belief in such an ascent is not limited to Islam; similar concepts appear, in varying forms, within other religious traditions as well. Some Islamic reports also suggest that certain previous prophets experienced forms of ascension. Thus, the event of Miʿrāj is presented in the Qurʾān in two complementary stages—terrestrial and celestial—and is supported by a large body of exegetical and ḥadīth literature, forming an integral component of Islamic theological understanding.

It is well known among both Shīʿī and Sunnī scholars that this event occurred in a state of wakefulness. The apparent meaning of the first verse of Sūrat Banī Isrāʾīl and the cited verses of Sūrat al‑Najm also supports the conclusion that this event took place while fully conscious. Islamic historical sources likewise bear clear witness to this. They indicate that when the Messenger of God (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam) described the event of Miʿrāj, the polytheists reacted with intense denial and turned it into a point of criticism against him. This in itself demonstrates that the Prophet did not present the event as a dream or a purely spiritual experience; otherwise, his opponents would not have caused such an uproar. The report attributed to Ḥasan al‑Baṣrī stating: “كان في المنام رؤيا رآها” — that this event occurred in a dream— and the narration attributed to ʿĀʾishah: “والله ما فقد جسد رسول الله ولكن عرج بروحه” — by God, the body of the Messenger was not absent, rather it was his spirit that ascended— are, on the surface, of a different character. However, these reports have been interpreted as carrying a particular contextual or interpretive dimension. It has also been noted that such reports, both in attribution and context, are subject to critical examination, especially given that the event of Miʿrāj occurred in Mecca. Thus, the widely accepted position among the majority of Islamic scholars, supported by the apparent meanings of the Qurʾānic verses and the broader historical context, is that the event of Isrāʾ and Miʿrāj took place in a state of wakefulness and involved a real experience, not merely a dream or symbolic vision.

From the preceding discussion, it becomes clear that the objective of the Miʿrāj was not for the Messenger of God (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam) to behold God Himself, as some simple‑minded individuals have imagined. Unfortunately, certain modern writers, out of misunderstanding, have also presented such ideas and, in doing so, have misrepresented the teachings of Islam. One example is Giorgio in his work Muḥammad: The Prophet Who Must Be Known Anew, where he suggests that during the Miʿrāj the Prophet heard the sound of God’s pen, imagining that God was engaged in recording accounts, though He was not visible. Such descriptions reflect anthropomorphic assumptions and lack theological precision. In reality, the purpose of Miʿrāj was that the great Messenger of God might observe the signs of divine greatness within the universe, particularly in the higher realms, and thereby attain a higher degree of insight and spiritual awareness for the guidance of humanity. When Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām) was asked about the purpose of Miʿrāj, he replied: “إن الله لا يوصف بمكان، ولا يجري عليه زمان، ولكنه عز وجل أراد أن يشرف به ملائكته وسكان سماواته، ويكرمهم بمشاهدته، ويريه من عجائب عظمته ما يخبر به بعد هبوطه”—God is not described by place, nor is He subject to time. Rather, He intended to honor His angels and the inhabitants of the heavens through the presence of His Prophet, to grant them the distinction of witnessing him, and to show him marvels of His greatness so that he might convey them after his return (Tafsīr al‑Burhān, j 2, p. 400). Thus, Miʿrāj should be understood as a divinely ordained manifestation of spiritual elevation and witnessing of divine signs, not as an encounter involving spatial proximity to God.

In earlier times, some philosophers—such as those influenced by the Ptolemaic system—held the view that the heavens were structured in a series of concentric layers, like the shells of an onion. For them, this conception posed a significant obstacle to accepting the event of Miʿrāj, since it would necessitate the tearing and rejoining of these celestial spheres. With the decline of the Ptolemaic model, this particular difficulty lost its relevance. However, modern developments in astronomy and physics have raised new questions concerning such a journey. Among the obstacles that may be identified are the following: 1. The force of gravity, which requires extraordinary means to overcome; for instance, escaping the earth’s gravitational field necessitates extremely high velocities. 2. The absence of air in outer space, without which human survival is not naturally possible. 3. The extreme thermal conditions of space, where regions exposed to direct sunlight experience intense heat, while shaded areas are subject to extreme cold. 4. The presence of harmful radiation beyond the earth’s atmosphere—such as cosmic rays, ultraviolet radiation, and X‑rays—which can be highly destructive in large quantities. 5. The condition of weightlessness, which presents serious physiological challenges for those unaccustomed to it. 6. The question of velocity, particularly in relation to the immense distances involved and the limits associated with the speed of light. In response, several points must be considered. First, despite these challenges, human beings—through scientific progress—have successfully overcome many of these difficulties, particularly those related to gravity, environmental control, and radiation protection, though challenges of distance and time remain significant for long journeys. Second, it must be emphasized that the event of Miʿrāj is not an ordinary occurrence but a manifestation of divine power. All miracles attributed to prophets operate within this same framework. A miracle must not be logically impossible, and Miʿrāj does not fall into the category of rational impossibility. Rather, once its possibility is established, its realization depends upon divine will and قدرت. Indeed, if human beings, with limited capability, can design means to leave the earth’s gravitational field, protect against radiation, and adapt to weightlessness, then it follows that God—possessing unlimited power—can enable such a journey in a higher and more complete form. It may therefore be said that the Messenger of God was provided with a means of transport of extraordinary nature and granted divine protection against the dangers inherent in such an experience. The precise nature of this means—whether identified as “Burāq” or otherwise—remains part of the domain of divine mystery. Moreover, certain scientific discussions in contemporary thought have also raised questions regarding the absolute limitations traditionally associated with velocity, suggesting that not all physical processes are strictly confined within previously assumed parameters. In summary, the difficulties associated with this journey do not render it rationally impossible. Given the existence of appropriate means—particularly within the framework of divine intervention—such an event is conceivable. Thus, the event of Miʿrāj is neither logically impossible nor incompatible with broader scientific principles, although its extraordinary and miraculous nature remains undisputed. Once it is established through definitive textual evidence, it is to be accepted accordingly.

See ayat 8 for tafseer.

See ayat 8 for tafseer.

See ayat 8 for tafseer.

See ayat 8 for tafseer.

See ayat 8 for tafseer.

See ayat 8 for tafseer.

In the first verse of this sūrah, reference was made to the miraculous journey of the Messenger of God (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam) from al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām to al‑Masjid al‑Aqṣā. Events of this nature were typically denied by the polytheists and other opponents, who objected that a prophet from among them could not be granted such extraordinary distinctions. Accordingly, the verses under discussion clarify that the mission of prophethood is not something unprecedented. They recall that Prophet Mūsā also invited people to follow his revealed book, and that Banī Isrāʾīl displayed similar opposition and obstinacy as the contemporary opponents. It is stated: وَآتَيْنَا مُوسَى الْكِتَابَ—We gave Mūsā the Book—and وَجَعَلْنَاهُ هُدًى لِبَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ—We made it a guidance for Banī Isrāʾīl. There is no doubt that the “Book” here refers to the Tawrāh, revealed for their guidance. The fundamental objective of prophetic missions is then expressed: أَلَّا تَتَّخِذُوا مِن دُونِي وَكِيلًا—that you should not take any protector besides Me. This establishes that practical monotheism is the sign of doctrinal monotheism; one who recognizes God as the sole effective authority does not rely upon any other. The verse then appeals to Banī Isrāʾīl through remembrance of divine favors: ذُرِّيَّةَ مَنْ حَمَلْنَا مَعَ نُوحٍ—O descendants of those whom We carried with Nūḥ. It reminds them that Nūḥ was “عبدًا شكورًا”, an exceedingly grateful servant. The use of “شكور” (in the intensive form) indicates his constant and profound gratitude. Narrations describe that whenever he received any blessing—food, drink, or clothing—he expressed thanks to God. Thus, Banī Isrāʾīl are urged to follow the example of their forefathers rather than adopt ingratitude. The discourse then turns to a historical warning: وَقَضَيْنَا إِلَى بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ فِي الْكِتَابِ لَتُفْسِدُنَّ فِي الْأَرْضِ مَرَّتَيْنِ وَلَتَعْلُنَّ عُلُوًّا كَبِيرًا—We declared in the Book that you will commit فساد on the earth twice and display great arrogance. Here, “the land” refers to the sacred region of Palestine. The first instance of corruption brought about divine retribution: فَإِذَا جَاءَ وَعْدُ أُولَاهُمَا بَعَثْنَا عَلَيْكُمْ عِبَادًا لَّنَا أُولِي بَأْسٍ شَدِيدٍ—We sent against you powerful servants of Ours. They searched through homes (فَجَاسُوا خِلَالَ الدِّيَارِ), subduing the people decisively, and this was a fulfilled promise (وَكَانَ وَعْدًا مَفْعُولًا). After this, divine favor returned: ثُمَّ رَدَدْنَا لَكُمُ الْكَرَّةَ عَلَيْهِمْ—We restored to you dominance over them, strengthening you with wealth and children (وَأَمْدَدْنَاكُم بِأَمْوَالٍ وَبَنِينَ) and making you more numerous (وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ أَكْثَرَ نَفِيرًا). This restoration was intended as an opportunity for reform. The principle is then stated: إِنْ أَحْسَنتُمْ أَحْسَنتُمْ لِأَنفُسِكُمْ وَإِنْ أَسَأْتُمْ فَلَهَا—if you do good, you do it for yourselves; and if you do evil, it is against yourselves. This expresses a universal moral law: all actions ultimately return to the doer. Despite this, they persisted in wrongdoing, leading to the second fulfillment of the warning: فَإِذَا جَاءَ وَعْدُ الْآخِرَةِ—when the second promise came, another powerful group overcame them, humbling them (لِيَسُوؤُوا وُجُوهَكُمْ) and re‑entering al‑Masjid as before (وَلِيَدْخُلُوا الْمَسْجِدَ كَمَا دَخَلُوهُ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ), devastating their lands (وَلِيُتَبِّرُوا مَا عَلَوْا تَتْبِيرًا). Even then, the door of repentance remained open: عَسَى رَبُّكُمْ أَن يَرْحَمَكُمْ—perhaps your Lord will have mercy upon you; but وَإِنْ عُدْتُمْ عُدْنَا—if you return to wrongdoing, We will return to punishment. Finally, the ultimate consequence is mentioned: وَجَعَلْنَا جَهَنَّمَ لِلْكَافِرِينَ حَصِيرًا—We have made Hell a confinement for the disbelievers. These verses thus present a comprehensive historical and moral lesson: divine blessings bring opportunity, but misuse leads to decline; repentance remains open, yet accountability is inevitable; and both collective history and individual conduct are governed by the same enduring principles of justice and recompense.

The verses under consideration discuss two collective deviations of the Children of Israel. These deviations resulted in corruption and rebellion. After each of these, Allah imposed upon them harsh and powerful people to punish them severely and bring them to account. The history of the Children of Israel is very eventful. They have passed through many ups and downs; at times they achieved success, and at times they suffered defeat. However, there is much difference among commentators regarding which incidents the Qur’an is referring to here. As examples in this regard, we mention a few interpretations: 1. From the history of the Children of Israel, it appears that the first person who attacked them and destroyed Jerusalem was Nebuchadnezzar (Bakhit al-Nasr). He was the ruler of Babylon. After this attack, Jerusalem remained desolate for seventy years until the Jews rose again and rebuilt it. The second person who attacked them was the Roman Caesar “Spianus.” He commissioned his minister “Tartuz” for this task, who devoted all his efforts to demolishing Jerusalem, weakening, and killing the Children of Israel. This event occurred about one hundred years before Christ. Therefore, it is possible that the two times mentioned in the Holy Qur’an, which refer to these incidents, are indeed these, as these are recorded in the history of the Children of Israel. The other events in their history were not so severe that their government was completely wiped out. Nebuchadnezzar’s attack utterly destroyed their strength and grandeur. Until the time of “Cyrus,” their condition remained the same. Afterwards, the Children of Israel regained power. Their government remained until the Roman Caesar again attacked and ended their rule. Then, for a long time, they were wandering (and recently, with the help of oppressive imperialistic powers, they have established a government and are now striving to expand it). (Reference: Tafsir al-Mizan, Vol. 13, p. 46). 2. At-Tabari, in his Tafsir, relates that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “The first corruption refers to the killing of Zakariya and many prophets, and the first promise means the divine promise to take revenge through Nebuchadnezzar. The second corruption refers to the rebellion they caused after ‘freedom’ under the leadership of a king of Iran, wherein they committed corruption and ruin. The second promise means the attack of the Roman king ‘Antiochus.’” To some extent, this interpretation can be aligned with the first explanation, but its narrator is not trustworthy. Moreover, the history of Prophet Zakariya (peace be upon him) does not align with the times of Nebuchadnezzar and Spianus or Antiochus. According to some scholars, Nebuchadnezzar was a contemporary of Jeremiah or Prophet Daniel, about six hundred years before the era of Prophet Yahya (John). Therefore, how could Nebuchadnezzar have risen to avenge the blood of Prophet Yahya? 3. Some other commentators say that Jerusalem was built once during the time of Prophet Dawud (David) and Prophet Sulaiman (Solomon), and Nebuchadnezzar destroyed it. This is the first promise mentioned in the Qur’an. Later, Jerusalem was rebuilt during the time of the Achaemenid kings and then destroyed by Titus, a Roman (note that this “Titus” may be the same “Tartuz” mentioned earlier). The city remained in this condition until it was conquered by Muslims during the time of the Second Caliph. (Reference: Tafsir Abul Futooh Razi, Vol. 7, Marginal Notes p. 209, by the late scholar Shararni). This interpretation does not significantly differ from the first two. 4. Compared to the above and other similar commentaries, there is another interpretation mentioned by Sayyid Qutb in his Tafsir Fi Zilal al-Qur’an. This interpretation is entirely different. According to it, these events did not occur in ancient times or at the time of the Qur’an’s revelation but belong to the post-Qur’anic period. Probably, their first corruption relates to the era of Hitler, when under his leadership, the German Nazis revolted against the Jews. (Reference: Tafsir Fi Zilal, Vol. 5, p. 308). However, this interpretation has the difficulty that in none of these events did the conquering nation enter Jerusalem, let alone destroy it. 5. Another possibility mentioned by some is that these two events occurred after the Second World War, when Zionism was established and the state called Israel was formed in the heart of Islamic countries. This first corruption and rebellion of the Children of Israel refers to this, and the first revenge means that when Islamic countries became aware of this conspiracy at the beginning, they rose in opposition. Consequently, they liberated Jerusalem and some cities of Palestine from Jewish control, completely removing Jewish influence from Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa. The second corruption refers to the attack by the brutal imperialistic powers supported by the Children of Israel, which resulted in...They established control over Islamic regions and brought Bayt al-Maqdis and Masjid al-Aqsa under their authority. On this basis, Muslims should await a second victory over the Children of Israel, liberate Masjid al-Aqsa from their grip, and completely eliminate their influence from Islamic lands. Muslims around the world await this day, and Allah has promised Muslims victory and help for this purpose. (Reference: Majallah Maktab Islam Shura, 12th year, 12th issue and 13th year, 1st issue, Tafseer discussion by Aqai Ibrahim Ansari). Besides these, there are some other tafsirs whose mention is unnecessary. According to the fourth and fifth tafsirs, the past tense verbs used in the verses should have been in the present tense; however, from the perspective of Arabic literature, where the verb follows conditional particles, this meaning is not unlikely. But this verse: ثم رددنا لكم الكرة عليهم و مددناكم بأموال و بنين و جعلناكم أكثر نفيرًا apparently indicates that at least the first corruption of the Children of Israel and its retribution occurred in past times. Leaving all these matters aside, an important issue at this point deserves attention. Consider this verse: بعثنا عليكم عباداً لنا أولي بأس شديد We will send against you servants of Ours, powerful in might. Apparently, this verse indicates that those who took retribution were faithful and brave individuals who were "servants," "Ours," and whom "We sent." This is a point not mentioned in many of the referenced tafsirs. However, it cannot be denied that the word (to send forth, to raise) is not used exclusively for prophets and believers; rather, in the Glorious Qur'an, this word has also been used for others. For example, in the story of Habil and Qabil: فبعث الله غراباً يبحث في الأرض Allah sent a crow searching in the earth. (Al-Ma'idah: 31) Likewise, the same word is used for the torment of the earth and heavens. It is stated: قل هو القادر على أن يبعث عليكم عذاباً من فوقكم أو من تحت أرجلكم۔ (Al-An'am: 65) Similarly, the words "servants" and "servant" have also been used for blameworthy individuals. For instance, in Surah Al-Furqan, verse 58, this word is used for the sinners: وكفى به بذنوب عباده خبيرًا And sufficient is He as Knower of the sins of His servants. Also, in Surah Ash-Shura, verse 27, the word is used in the context of the rebellious: ولو بسط الله الرزق لعباده لبغوا في الأرض And if Allah expanded provision for His servants, they would surely commit excess on earth. Similarly, in Surah Al-Ma'idah, verse 118, it is mentioned about the offenders and deniers of monotheism: إن تعذبهم فإنهم عبادك If You punish them, indeed they are Your servants. Yet, despite all this, it cannot be denied that if there were no conclusive evidence, the apparent style of the verses under discussion indicates that those who exacted retribution were the faithful. In any case, the above verses, in summary, tell us that the Children of Israel caused corruption twice and acted arrogantly, and Allah took severe retribution from them. The purpose of stating this is that the Children of Israel, we, and all humanity should take heed and understand that injustice, oppression, and corruption cannot go unpunished before Allah, and when we attain power and authority, we should not forget that painful calamities await us. Therefore, we must learn lessons from the history of past peoples.

The verses under consideration emphasize a fundamental principle: that human actions, whether good or evil, ultimately return to the individual. Although the apparent مخاطب of this statement is Banī Isrāʾīl, it is clear that no unique distinction applies to them in this respect. Rather, this principle constitutes an enduring and universal law for the entirety of human history, a fact to which history itself bears witness (Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, jild 3, p. 138). There have been many individuals who laid the foundations of wrongdoing, established oppressive systems, and introduced inhumane innovations, yet in the end they fell into the very consequences of their own actions. In particular, spreading فساد on the earth, asserting superiority, and indulging in arrogance (علوًّا كبيرًا) are actions whose effects inevitably return to the human agent even within this world. It was for this reason that Banī Isrāʾīل repeatedly faced severe defeat, dispersion, and humiliation, as they engaged in فساد. Thus, the verse expresses a general and perpetual law: اِنْ اَحْسَنتُمْ اَحْسَنتُمْ لِاَنفُسِكُمْ وَاِنْ اَسَاْتُمْ فَلَھَا—good returns to its doer, and evil likewise returns to its originator.

It is reported in numerous narrations that the verses under discussion have also been applied to events within the history of the Muslim community. According to these interpretations, the first instance of فساد and ظلم is associated with the martyrdom of ʿAlī (ʿalayhi al‑salām), and the second with the martyrdom of al‑Ḥasan (ʿalayhi al‑salām), while the phrase “بَعَثْنَا عَلَيْكُمْ عِبَادًا لَّنَا أُولِي بَأْسٍ شَدِيدٍ” is interpreted as referring to al‑Mahdī al‑Qāʾim (ʿalayhi al‑salām) and his supporters. Other narrations suggest that this may refer to a group that will rise prior to the ظهور of al‑Mahdī (ʿalayhi al‑salām) (Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, jild 3, p. 138). It is evident that these narrations do not imply that the literal and primary meaning of the verses, which explicitly concerns Banī Isrāʾīl, is to be disregarded. Rather, the intent is to demonstrate that the same pattern of فساد, ظلم, and divine response may manifest within this community as well. Thus, the principle expressed in these verses is not confined to a particular historical group, but represents a universal law applicable to all nations and communities. It reflects a continuous and general سنّت that operates throughout human history: whenever oppression, wrongdoing, and deviation prevail, corresponding consequences and divine responses follow.

See ayat 12 for tafseer.

See ayat 12 for tafseer.

See ayat 12 for tafseer.

The previous verses discussed Bani Israil, their heavenly book Torah, their violation of divine commands, and the punishments related to those violations. Now, the focus shifts to the heavenly book of the Muslims, the Quran, which is the final link in the chain of heavenly scriptures. It is stated: إِنَّ هٰذَا الْقُرْآنَ یَهْدِی لِلَّتِی هِیَ أَقْوَمُ “Indeed, this Qur’an guides to that which is most upright (straight).” (Surah Al-Isra, 17:9) The word "Aqwam" is derived from the root "Qiyam" (to stand), and since a person, when intending to perform an important task, stands up and begins the work, it is used metaphorically for doing something in the best, most effective manner. Additionally, it may be noted that the word "Istiqamat" (steadfastness/uprightness) is from the same root, as is "Qayyim," meaning clear, straight, firm, and solid. Since "Aqwam" is the form of the comparative degree, it means clearer, straighter, and more upright. Hence, the meaning of the verse under discussion can be understood as: The Quran invites to a path that is more upright, clearer, and stronger. The beliefs presented by the Quran are clear and straightforward, luminous and evident, comprehensible, and free from any ambiguity or superstition. These beliefs call to action, consolidate human capacities, and establish harmony between human beings and the laws governing the universe. This Quran is clearer and more upright in the sense that it creates unity between exterior and interior, belief and practice, thought and outlook, and way of life, calling all toward Allah. This Quran is clearer and more upright in terms of its social, economic, and political system as well. Its system nurtures all spiritual aspects and, materially, it is a source of perfection and progress. This Quran also protects worship from excess and neglect. Similarly, the moral system of the Quran safeguards against all forms of extremism. It protects from greed and covetousness; it saves from extravagance and wastefulness; it safeguards against miserliness and stinginess; it warns against envy, the weakening of oneself, weakening others, and raising oneself by oppressing others. This Quran is clearer and more upright with regard to the system of governance it presents, which is based on justice and fairness and suppresses oppression and oppressors. Indeed! The Quran guides to a path that is, in every respect, clearer, more upright, more secure, and stronger. Here, the question arises about the use of the comparative form "Af‘al al-Tafdeel" that suggests that other nations’ religions also possessed qualities of steadfastness and justice, but the Quran possesses them to a greater extent. Attention to certain points clarifies the issue: Firstly: If compared with other heavenly religions, there is no doubt that each was clear, upright, and strong in its own time. However, according to the law of completion and progression, when we reach the final stage, the stage of finality, there will be a religion which is clearer, more upright, and stronger. Secondly: If the comparison is not with other heavenly religions but rather with other religions, the "Af‘al al-Tafdeel" still applies because every sect and creed tries at least to observe these virtues, but when the deficiencies, corruptions, and deviations in them are viewed in totality and then compared with the Quran, it becomes clear that this religion is clearer and more in harmony with the spiritual and material needs of humans. Therefore, it is stronger and more secure. Thirdly: As we have previously indicated, the form "Af‘al al-Tafdeel" does not always necessarily imply a direct comparison with something else, nor does it require that the other side explicitly possesses some aspect of its meaning, as is evident in the Noble Quran: أَفَمَن يَهْدِي إِلَى الْحَقِّ أَشَدُّ هُدًى أَمَّنْ لَا يَهْدِي إِلَّا أَنْ يُهْدَىٰ “Is he who guides to the truth more rightly guided, or he who is not guided unless he is guided?” (Surah Yunus, 10:35) Furthermore, it is necessary to pay attention to the point that one of the meanings of "Aqwam" is “more firm” and “more secure and strong.” Also, the wording of the verse does not mention any other thing as a point of comparison, and according to linguistic conventions, the omission of the related term indicates generality and inclusiveness. Considering these matters, it becomes clear that this verse is among those which indicate the finality of Islam and the Prophet. According to this verse, this religion is firmer, more lasting, more solid, stronger, and more secure. (Reflect upon this). Since people’s relationship with this straight divine program is of two types, the result of this connection and relationship is then mentioned from both perspectives. It is stated: وَيُبَشِّرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ الَّذِينَ يَعْمَلُونَ الصَّالِحَاتِ أَنَّ لَهُمْ أَجْرًا كَبِيرًا “And gives glad tidings to the believers who do righteous deeds that they will have a great reward.” And [regarding] those who do not believe in the Hereafter and its great justice (and therefore did not do righteous deeds), they are warned—It is mentioned that a painful torment has been prepared for them (وَاَنَّ الَّذِینَ لَایُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْآخِرَةِ اَعْتَدْنَا لَھُمْ عَذَابًا اَلِیمًا). The interpretation of glad tidings for the believers is clear, but for the unbelievers and rebellious people, this is in fact a kind of mockery or a glad tiding for the believers that this will be the fate of their enemies. [Explanatory Note: Under Surah An-Nisa, verse 38, we have already said that the word "Glad Tidings" is actually taken from "بشرة" and "بشرة" means "a piece of news," and everything that affects a person to make him either joyful or sorrowful is called "Glad Tidings." It is also observed that for the believers generally the term "a great reward" (اجراً کبیراً) has been mentioned, while for the punishment of the unbelievers, it is explicitly stated as "a painful punishment" (عذابا الیماً). Both of these expressions have a meaning so vast and comprehensive that it encompasses all material and spiritual, as well as physical and moral aspects. As for the characteristic pointed out among the inhabitants of Hell, only the "disbelief in the Hereafter" has been indicated, while no discussion regarding their deeds has been made. This may be because if a person believes in this great judgment, then this faith is the most effective factor in preventing sins. Apart from this, denial of the Resurrection also means denial of God, because how is it possible that an Just and Wise God would leave the people of this world in these conditions—which we observe—and not have any other realm of existence? This is not consistent with His wisdom nor with His justice. Furthermore, the verse’s discussion relates to the punishment and reward, which correspond to the issue of the Hereafter and Divine justice, hence the mention here is about their disbelief in the Hereafter. In the next verse, in relation to the prior discussion, disbelief is explained as resulting from a lack of necessary knowledge regarding various matters. It is stated that just as a human desires good, so also, by hastiness and lack of proper awareness, he begins to seek evil (وَیَدْعُ الْإِنسَانُ بِالشَّرِّ دُعَائَہُ بِالْخَیْر). Because man is impatient (وَکَانَ الْإِنسَانُ عَجُولًا). Here, the word “du‘ā’” (prayer/supplication) has a broad meaning that includes every kind of desire and demand, whether expressed by the tongue or through action. In reality, the intense and hasty desire to achieve quick benefits causes a person to avoid contemplation, examination, and study of all aspects of the matter. Sometimes, due to this hastiness, a person cannot distinguish true benefit and profit; rather, the rebellious and restless desires conceal the truth, and a person follows evil instead of good. In this state, just as a person prays to Allah for good, due to lack of knowledge and misconception, he also begins to make demands for evil, and just as he strives for good, he also pursues evil. This is a great affliction for humankind and a major obstacle on the path of felicity. Many people, because of hastiness, fall into dangerous pitfalls. They consider themselves to be on the path of peace and prosperity but fall into error. Instead of reaching the destination of happiness, they enter into evil and misfortunes; instead of honor and dignity, they descend into humiliation and disgrace. This bad outcome is a result of impatience and hastiness. What has been said clearly shows that the meaning of the verse is not limited to literal supplication, nor merely to seeking by action. Rather, all these come under a comprehensive meaning. Therefore, if some commentators restrict it to one particular aspect, there is no justification for that. Moreover, if some narrations mention only literal supplication, they point to one example, not the entire meaning. For instance, a tradition narrated from Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) states: “Recognize the way of your salvation and destruction, that you do not supplicate to Allah for something which may lead to your destruction, while you think it leads to your salvation.” Allah Almighty says: "وَیَدْعُ الْإِنسَانُ بِالشَّرِّ دُعَائَہُ بِالْخَیْرِ وَکَانَ الْإِنسَانُ عَجُولًا"—"Man prays for evil as he prays for good, and man is ever hasty." Therefore, the only way to attain success and felicity is that a person, before doing any work, thoroughly reflects and contemplates all its aspects with prudence, avoiding hastiness and rash decisions, purifies his judgment from the corruption of carnal desires, then seeks Allah’s help in that work so that he may reach the destination of felicity and not fall into the pit of destruction. The next verse discusses the creation of night and day, their blessings, and the presence of order and calculation in their knowledge, so that it becomes evidence for the Oneness of Allah and knowledge of Him, completes the previous discussion on the Resurrection, and encourages reflection and avoidance of hastiness in actions.So that even the necessity of working at night could become a subject of observation. It is stated: "And We have made the night and the day as two signs" (وَجَعَلْنَا اللَّیْلَ وَالنَّھَارَ آیَتَیْنِ). Then We erased the sign of the night and brought forth the sign of the day, which is illuminating (فَمَحَوْنَا آیَةَ اللَّیْلِ وَجَعَلْنَا آیَةَ النَّھَارِ مُبْصِرَةً). We had two purposes in this. The first is: "So that you may seek favor from your Lord" (لِتَبْتَغُوا فَضْلًا مِنْ رَبِّکُمْ). Rest at night and engage in work and activity in the day, thus benefiting from the bounties of Allah. The second purpose is that you determine the number of years and set a fixed duration for the accounting of your deeds, and establish the calculation and division of time (وَلِتَعْلَمُوا عَدَدَ السِّنِینَ وَالْحِسَابَ). And We have explained everything in detail (وَکُلَّ شَیْءٍ فَصَّلْنَاهُ تَفْصِیلًا) so that no doubt remains. The "sign of the night" and the "sign of the day" refer to the night and day themselves, each being a sign of the Lord, or "sign of the night" refers to the moon and "sign of the day" refers to the sun. There is difference of opinion among the exegetes on this matter. But upon reflection on the verse itself, it becomes clear that the first interpretation is correct. The expression "And We have made the night and the day two signs" (وَجَعَلْنَا اللَّیْلَ وَالنَّھَارَ آیَتَیْنِ) is evidence that each is a sign — a proof of the existence of God. The statement about the night sign being erased means that the darkness of night is removed due to the light of day, and whatever is hidden at night becomes manifest in the daylight. The Qur'an, in some other verses (Yunus 10:5), has mentioned the sun and moon as measures and means for calculating years and months, which does not contradict the explanation stated above, because the establishment of order and accounting in human life can be attributed both to night and day as well as to the sun and moon, since they are interconnected. In the Khutbah Ashbah of Nahj al-Balagha, Amir al-Mu'minin Ali (peace be upon him), while describing the signs of the greatness of Allah, says: "وَجَعَلَ الشَّمْسَ آیَةً مُبْصِرَةً لِنَهَارِهَا، وَقَمَرَهَا آیَةً مَمْحُوَّةً مِنْ لَيْلِهَا، وَأَجْرَاهُمَا فِي مَنَاقِلِ مَجْرَاهُمَا، وَقَدَّرَ سَيْرَهُمَا فِي مَدَارِجَ دَرَجَهُمَا، لِيُمَيِّزَ بَيْنَ اللَّيْلِ وَالنَّهَارِ بِهِمَا، وَلِيَعْلَمَ عَدَدَ السِّنِينَ وَالْحِسَابَ بِمَقَادِيرِهِمَا" He describes the sun as the illuminating sign of the day, and its moon as the sign which is erased from its night; and they are both set in their courses, and their motion is measured in stages, so that night and day are distinguished by them, and the number of years and the accounting are known by their calculations. This interpretation is not contrary to the above first interpretation, because, as mentioned, the reckoning of the year can be attributed to night and day, as well as to the moon and sun, since both are interconnected. (Reference: Nahj al-Balagha, Khutbah Ashbah - Khutbah No. 91).

In the verse under discussion, the human being is described as عجول (hasty), while in other verses the Qurʾān refers to the human as ظلوم (deeply unjust), جهول (ignorant), کفور (ungrateful), rebellious, narrow‑minded, and arrogant. At first glance, such expressions may appear in tension with other Qurʾānic descriptions that present the human being as possessing a pure nature (fitrah), a divine spirit, and a lofty مقام—worthy of being خلیفة الله on earth and even surpassing the angels. The reconciliation of these two sets of descriptions lies in a fundamental condition: the human being’s true worth, dignity, and مقام depend upon proper تربیت under divine guidance. Without such تربیت, the human being develops in a neglected manner, like wild vegetation, becoming immersed in desires and impulses and losing the immense capacities entrusted to him. In such a state, negative characteristics become manifest. Accordingly, when this condition—guidance under divine teachings—is fulfilled, all the positive qualities mentioned in the Qurʾān come into realization. Conversely, when this condition is absent, the negative traits described in the Qurʾān emerge. This principle is clearly expressed in Sūrat al‑Maʿārij (19–23): إِنَّ الْإِنسَانَ خُلِقَ هَلُوعًا، إِذَا مَسَّهُ الشَّرُّ جَزُوعًا، وَإِذَا مَسَّهُ الْخَيْرُ مَنُوعًا، إِلَّا الْمُصَلِّينَ، الَّذِينَ هُمْ عَلَىٰ صَلَاتِهِمْ دَائِمُونَ The human being is created impatient and lacking restraint: when afflicted by hardship, he becomes restless; and when blessed with good, he becomes withholding—except those who perform prayer and remain constant in it. This passage demonstrates that the negative tendencies are the default condition when human potential remains unrefined, whereas disciplined spiritual practice—symbolized here by steadfast devotion—cultivates higher virtues. Thus, the Qurʾānic portrayal of the human being is not contradictory but conditional: it presents both the potential for elevation and the risk of سقوط, depending upon the path that is chosen.

Preferring something excessively, superficial and limited thinking, the dominance of desires over a person, and having an excessively good opinion about something—all these are factors of haste. Generally, superficial study and initial awareness are not sufficient to understand the reality of a matter and its benefits and harms; therefore, haste usually leads to regret, loss, and remorse. According to the verses under discussion, at times due to haste, a person follows bad deeds with such speed as if pursuing good deeds. Throughout human history, the countless bitter failures, defeats, and calamities faced by mankind cannot be enumerated; we ourselves have seen many examples of this in our lives and tasted their bitter consequences. The opposite of “haste” is “steadfastness” and “deliberation,” meaning to pause, to reflect and contemplate, and to consider all aspects before undertaking a task. In a hadith narrated from the Messenger of Allah PBUH & His Pure Progeny, he said: “Indeed, people are destroyed by haste, and if people were to be steadfast, no one would be destroyed.” (Reference: Safinat al-Bihar, vol. 1, p. 129) In another hadith narrated from Imam Sadiq (a), it is said: “Safety lies in deliberation, and regret lies in haste.” (Same reference) Also, the Messenger of Allah PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: “Deliberation is from Allah, and haste is from Satan.” (Same reference) However, Islamic traditions also include a “chapter on hastening in good deeds.” One such hadith narrated from the Messenger of Allah PBUH & His Pure Progeny states: “Indeed, Allah loves that good deeds be hastened.” (Reference: Usul al-Kafi, vol. 1, Book of Faith and Unbelief, chapter ‘Hastening to do good’) There are numerous narrations on this subject. Here, unnecessary delay, negligence, and postponement are condemned, and hastening is prescribed because delay generally causes difficulties and obstacles in actions. An evidence for this is the hadith narrated from Imam Sadiq (a) in the same chapter: “Whoever intends a good deed should hasten to do it, for every delayed matter affords Satan an opportunity.” (Same reference) Therefore, it should be said that there should indeed be speed and firm determination in one’s actions, but not haste. In other words, the blameworthy haste is that which causes the work to be carried out without examining all aspects, without investigation and knowledge. The commendable speed is that which is to avoid delay after one has firmly resolved to do the task. Narrations mention: “Hasten to do good deeds,” that is, first determine that this deed is good, and when its goodness is confirmed, then do not delay in performing it.

The entire system of the universe is founded upon order, measure, and precise calculation. Nothing within the cosmic order exists without balance and regulation. It is therefore natural that the human being—who is a part of this vast system—cannot conduct life without discipline and reckoning. For this reason, the Qurʾān repeatedly emphasizes that phenomena such as the sun, the moon, the alternation of night and day are among the divine blessings, because they serve as essential means for establishing order and calculation in human life. A life devoid of order inevitably leads to decline and ruin. It is noteworthy that the verses under consideration mention two particular benefits of the نعمة of night and day. The first is: ابتغاء فضل الله—which generally refers to engaging in beneficial activities and earning livelihood. The second is the ability to know and calculate the passage of years. The conjunction of these two may indicate that ابتغاء فضل الله itself is not possible without the utilization of proper order and calculation. In earlier times, this interrelationship may not have been as apparent; however, the contemporary world is fundamentally a world of numbers and measurement. Today, every economic, social, political, scientific, and cultural institution relies upon systems of statistics and accounting. Every organized structure depends upon calculation and orderly planning. From this perspective, the depth of the Qurʾānic indication becomes even more evident: the Qurʾān does not become outdated with the passage of time; rather, its meanings become increasingly manifest as human knowledge advances. As time progresses, its insights appear with greater clarity and relevance. Thus, the verse establishes a fundamental principle: human productivity, progress, and engagement with فضل الله are inseparably linked to نظم (order) and حساب (calculation), and without them, meaningful development cannot be achieved.

See ayat 15 for tafseer.

See ayat 15 for tafseer.

The verses under consideration address the issue of human accountability and the reckoning of deeds in connection with the broader discussion of قیامت. It is stated: وَكُلَّ إِنسَانٍ أَلْزَمْنَاهُ طَائِرَهُ فِي عُنُقِهِ—we have bound every human being’s ṭāʾir to his neck. The word “طائر”, originally meaning “bird,” was used in Arab custom in relation to omens, where the movement of birds was interpreted as good or bad fortune. The Qurʾān redirects this notion, indicating that what people consider as fate or omen is, in reality, nothing but their own actions. Thus, the verse emphasizes that a person’s deeds are inseparably attached to him, as though hung around his neck. The expressions “أَلْزَمْنَاهُ” (We have made it inseparable) and “فِي عُنُقِهِ” (upon his neck) indicate continuous responsibility and accountability; human actions and their consequences never detach from the individual, in this world or the next. The verse continues: وَنُخْرِجُ لَهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ كِتَابًا يَلْقَاهُ مَنشُورًا—on the Day of Resurrection We shall bring forth for him a book which he will find laid open before him. This “book” clearly refers to the record of deeds. In this world, this record exists in a concealed form, but in the Hereafter it will be fully exposed. The terms “نُخْرِجُ” (We bring forth) and “مَنشُورًا” (spread open) highlight the transition from concealment to complete manifestation. It is then said: اقْرَأْ كِتَابَكَ كَفَىٰ بِنَفْسِكَ الْيَوْمَ عَلَيْكَ حَسِيبًا—read your own record; today your own self is sufficient as a judge against you. This indicates that the clarity of one’s record will be such that no external judgment will be necessary. Just as a person cannot deny a recorded voice or a clear image of his own actions, the reality of deeds on that Day will be even more evident and incontrovertible. Subsequently, four fundamental principles concerning accountability are stated: 1. مَنْ اهْتَدَىٰ فَإِنَّمَا يَهْتَدِي لِنَفْسِهِ — whoever attains guidance, does so for his own benefit. 2. وَمَنْ ضَلَّ فَإِنَّمَا يَضِلُّ عَلَيْهَا — whoever goes astray, the harm of that deviation returns to himself. 3. وَلَا تَزِرُ وَازِرَةٌ وِزْرَ أُخْرَى — no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another. The term “وزر” signifies a heavy burden, metaphorically representing moral responsibility. Each individual is accountable for his own actions. However, misleading others is itself a sin; hence, one who causes others to deviate shares in the consequence of that action because he is a contributing cause. 4. وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّىٰ نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا — We do not punish until We send a messenger. This establishes that accountability is based on clear communication of guidance. Divine punishment follows only after the truth has been conveyed and the proof has been completed. These principles together form a coherent doctrine of moral responsibility: - Human beings are directly accountable for their own actions. - Guidance and misguidance affect the individual primarily. - Responsibility is personal, though participation in wrongdoing extends accountability. - Divine justice operates only after sufficient guidance has been provided. Thus, the verses present a comprehensive framework of individual accountability, rooted in clarity, justice, and the inseparability of human action and consequence.

Taking omens—whether good or bad—from events or objects has been a widespread practice among many peoples throughout history and continues to exist even today. This tendency appears to originate from a lack of understanding of the true causes and relationships underlying events. There is no doubt that such omens have no inherent or natural effect. However, they do possess a psychological influence: a favorable omen may foster hope and motivation, while an unfavorable omen can lead to despair, weakness, and lack of initiative. Since Islam generally encourages constructive attitudes, it does not forbid favorable interpretations that inspire hope. In contrast, it strongly condemns pessimistic and harmful superstitions, even describing them in some traditions as bordering on shirk. It is reported from the Messenger of God (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam): “الطیرة شرک” — taking bad omens and attributing independent influence to them constitutes a form of شرك. At the same time, Islam has redirected such tendencies toward constructive and reformative meanings. For instance, expressions such as calling a bride “fortunate” or “unfortunate” are, in common usage, baseless. However, Islamic teachings reinterpret such ideas in meaningful terms. In a narration from Imām al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām), it is stated: excessive dowry and burdensome financial expectations are considered signs of misfortune (Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿah, vol. 3, p. 104). Likewise, in another report from the Prophet, a “bad house” is explained as one that is narrow and surrounded by harmful neighbors (Safīnat al‑Biḥār, vol. 1, p. 680). These examples show that language associated with superstition has been transformed into guidance grounded in real ethical and social considerations. Instead of fostering baseless fear, it directs attention toward practical factors affecting human well‑being. The discussion may be concluded with a statement of the Prophet (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam): “اللّٰہم لا خیر الّا خیرک، ولا طیر الّا طیرک ولا رب غیرک”—O God, there is no good except that which comes from You, and no omen has any effect except by Your will, and there is no lord besides You.

Many verses of the Qurʾān and numerous narrations discuss the concept of the human record of deeds (nāmah‑yi aʿmāl). Taken together, these sources establish that all human actions, in their full detail, are recorded. If a person is righteous, this record will be placed in his right hand on the Day of Resurrection; if he is wicked, it will be given in his left hand. In Sūrat al‑Ḥāqqah it is stated: فَأَمَّا مَنْ أُوتِيَ كِتَابَهُ بِيَمِينِهِ فَيَقُولُ هَاؤُمُ اقْرَءُوا كِتَابِيَهْ — “As for the one who is given his record in his right hand, he will say: come, read my record” (69:19). And likewise: وَأَمَّا مَنْ أُوتِيَ كِتَابَهُ بِشِمَالِهِ فَيَقُولُ يَالَيْتَنِي لَمْ أُوتَ كِتَابِيَهْ — “But the one who is given his record in his left hand will say: would that my record had not been given to me” (69:25). In Sūrat al‑Kahf (49), it is stated: وَوُضِعَ الْكِتَابُ فَتَرَى الْمُجْرِمِينَ مُشْفِقِينَ مِمَّا فِيهِ وَيَقُولُونَ يَا وَيْلَتَنَا مَالِ هَذَا الْكِتَابِ لَا يُغَادِرُ صَغِيرَةً وَلَا كَبِيرَةً إِلَّا أَحْصَاهَا وَوَجَدُوا مَا عَمِلُوا حَاضِرًا وَلَا يَظْلِمُ رَبُّكَ أَحَدًا The record will be set forth, and the sinners will be fearful of what is in it, saying: woe to us, what kind of book is this that leaves nothing small or great without enumerating it? They will find all that they did present, and your Lord wrongs no one. In a narration from Imām al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām) concerning the verse “اقرأ كتابك”, it is stated that a person will remember all that he has done, in such a way that it will seem as though he has just performed those actions. Thus, the vividness of the record will lead the sinners to exclaim in astonishment (Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, jild 3, p. 144). This raises the question: what is meant by this record of deeds? It is evident that it is not a conventional book, register, or file in the ordinary sense. Some exegetes have therefore suggested that the nāmah‑yi aʿmāl is, in fact, the human soul itself, in which all actions leave their imprint. Every deed performed by a person necessarily produces an effect upon the soul. Others have suggested that this “record” includes the human body and limbs, as well as the surrounding environment—earth, air, and space—in which actions are performed. Human deeds not only affect the individual but also leave traces in the surrounding world. Although these traces may not be perceptible in this life, they exist and will become manifest in the Hereafter, when human perception is elevated. The expression “اقرأ” (read) should not be misunderstood as limited to textual reading; rather, it possesses a broader meaning that includes all forms of awareness and perception. In everyday language, one may say: “I have read his intention from his eyes” or “I understood the matter from his actions.” In the same way, the “reading” of the record refers to direct perception of one’s deeds and their realities. Thus, the contents of the record of deeds will not be open to denial, because they are not mere written statements but the actual existential and formative آثار of human actions—much like a recorded voice or a preserved impression that accurately reflects what has occurred.

It is commonly observed that among people there exists the notion that when fire breaks out, it consumes both the dry and the wet alike. However, according to reason, sound judgment, and the teachings of the prophets, no innocent person is punished for the sin of another. In the account of the people of Lūṭ, although corruption was widespread among them, there was one household of believers; when divine punishment descended upon that corrupted and immoral community, that single household was saved. The verses under discussion likewise state explicitly: وَلَا تَزِرُ وَازِرَةٌ وِزْرَ أُخْرَى—no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another. Accordingly, if in certain unreliable narrations anything appears that contradicts this general and established principle of Islam, it must either be rejected or appropriately interpreted. For example, there is a narration stating that a deceased person is subjected to punishment due to the mourning and lamentation of his relatives. It is possible that “punishment” here does not refer to divine punishment, but rather to the distress experienced by the departed soul upon perceiving the agitation and grief of loved ones. Similarly, it becomes clear that the belief held by some—that the children of disbelievers will be punished alongside their parents—is not consistent with Islamic doctrine. A child does not bear the consequence of another’s wrongdoing. For the same reason, a child born outside of legal marriage carries no personal guilt. Such a person retains full access to the path of guidance, felicity, and salvation, although it may be acknowledged that the challenges of proper moral upbringing in such circumstances can be considerable.

In ʿIlm al‑Uṣūl, the principle of barāʾah (innocence from liability) is derived, among other sources, from the verse under consideration. The minimum implication of the verse is that in matters where human reason cannot independently determine obligation, God does not impose punishment without first conveying commands and responsibilities through prophets. This establishes that in cases where no injunction has been communicated, no punishment applies. This is what is referred to as the principle of barāʾah: that punishment without prior declaration of duty is not legitimate. As for the view held by some that the term “punishment” (عذاب) in the verse refers specifically to ʿadhāb al‑istiṣāl (destructive punishment such as that inflicted upon the people of Nūḥ), there is no substantive evidence to support this restriction. Rather, as previously indicated, the wording of the verse is general (muṭlaq), and thus encompasses all forms of punishment and accountability.

See ayat 17 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, it was stated that “We do not punish any individual or group without first sending messengers and conveying Our commands.” The first verse under consideration presents the same fundamental principle in another formulation. It is stated: وَإِذَا أَرَدْنَا أَنْ نُهْلِكَ قَرْيَةً أَمَرْنَا مُتْرَفِيهَا فَفَسَقُوا فِيهَا فَحَقَّ عَلَيْهَا الْقَوْلُ فَدَمَّرْنَاهَا تَدْمِيرًا—when We resolve to destroy a community, We first convey Our commands to those who are given to luxury and abundance; then, when they fall into disobedience, the decree of punishment becomes binding upon them, and We destroy them utterly. Although exegetes have proposed various interpretations of this verse, its apparent meaning is clear: God does not hold anyone accountable or punish a people until His commands have been communicated and the proof has been established. If they obey, it leads to their success in both this world and the hereafter; but if they persist in rebellion and transgression, they become deserving of punishment, and destruction follows. From the structure of the verse, four stages may be identified: 1. The stage of divine command (awāmir wa nawāhī). 2. The stage of disobedience and corruption (fisq wa fujūr). 3. The stage of becoming deserving of punishment. 4. The stage of destruction. These stages are connected sequentially, indicating a logical progression. A question may arise as to why the command is addressed specifically to “مترفین”—those immersed in luxury and affluence. The answer lies in the social role of this group. In many societies—particularly corrupt ones—the leadership and influence are concentrated in the hands of such individuals, and the general population tends to follow them. Moreover, a significant proportion of social فساد originates from these affluent groups, who, absorbed in comfort and desire, resist moral reform. Historically, they have often formed the first line of opposition against prophetic missions, perceiving calls for justice and support for the oppressed as threats to their interests. For this reason, they are specifically mentioned as the primary agents of corruption. The term “دمرنا” and its derivative “تدمیر” denote complete destruction. The verse thus serves as a warning that societies which entrust their leadership to such corrupt and self‑indulgent elites risk eventual collapse. The following verse supports this principle by referring to historical precedents: وَكَمْ أَهْلَكْنَا مِنَ الْقُرُونِ مِن بَعْدِ نُوحٍ—how many generations after Nūḥ have been destroyed. This demonstrates that the pattern described is a recurring one throughout history. It is further stated: وَكَفَىٰ بِرَبِّكَ بِذُنُوبِ عِبَادِهِ خَبِيرًا بَصِيرًا—your Lord is fully aware and observant of the sins of His servants. The combination of “خبیر” (fully aware) and “بصیر” (all‑seeing) indicates that God knows both the inner intentions and the outward actions of individuals. Such knowledge ensures that divine justice operates without ظلم; no right is neglected, and no injustice occurs. Thus, the verses establish a consistent law of moral and social order: divine judgment is preceded by clear guidance, and destruction follows persistent corruption—particularly when led by those in positions of influence who propagate wrongdoing.

See ayat 21 for tafseer.

See ayat 21 for tafseer.

See ayat 21 for tafseer.

The verses under consideration shift from the discussion of opposition to divine commands and the consequent destruction of deniers to identifying the underlying cause of such rebellion—namely, attachment to worldly life (ḥubb al‑dunyā). It is stated: مَنْ كَانَ يُرِيدُ الْعَاجِلَةَ عَجَّلْنَا لَهُ فِيهَا مَا نَشَاءُ لِمَنْ نُّرِيدُ ثُمَّ جَعَلْنَا لَهُ جَهَنَّمَ يَصْلَاهَا مَذْمُومًا مَّدْحُورًا—whoever seeks the immediate (worldly life), We grant him therein whatever We will to whom We will; then We appoint for him Hell, wherein he will burn, blameworthy and rejected. The term “العاجلة” refers to the transient and fleeting nature of worldly life. Notably, the verse does not state that every seeker of the world attains whatever he desires; rather, two conditions are specified: first, that only a portion of what is desired is granted (ما نشاء), and second, that even this is limited to those whom We will (لمن نريد). Hence, not all worldly seekers attain their aims, and even those who do receive only a partial fulfillment. This observation accords with empirical reality: many strive continuously without reaching their goals, while others attain only fragments of their aspirations. This statement serves as a warning to those who imagine that abandoning the Hereafter in pursuit of worldly gain will secure their objectives. The Qurʾān rejects this assumption, emphasizing both the limitation of worldly attainment and the ultimate spiritual consequence. The description “مذمومًا مدحورًا” indicates two forms of punishment: physical suffering through the punishment of Hell, and spiritual degradation in the form of blame and estrangement from divine mercy. In contrast, the following verse presents the condition of those who seek the Hereafter: وَمَنْ أَرَادَ الْآخِرَةَ وَسَعَىٰ لَهَا سَعْيَهَا وَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ فَأُولَٰئِكَ كَانَ سَعْيُهُم مَّشْكُورًا—whoever desires the Hereafter and strives for it with the effort due to it, while being a believer, such are those whose striving is appreciated. Three fundamental conditions for attaining everlasting felicity are articulated: 1. A directed intention toward the Hereafter, reflecting a perspective beyond transient pursuits. 2. ffort commensurate with that aim, indicated by the emphatic expression “سَعْيَهَا”, signifying complete and sustained exertion. 3. The presence of firm faith, which provides the essential foundation and motive force for such striving. Instead of simply stating that their reward will be Paradise, the verse declares that their striving will be “مشكورًا”. This expression is more profound, as it implies divine appreciation and acknowledgment proportionate to the infinite nature of divine generosity, encompassing both material and spiritual recompense. To remove the possible misconception that worldly benefits are reserved solely for the worldly‑minded, the subsequent verse clarifies: كُلًّا نُّمِدُّ هَٰؤُلَاءِ وَهَٰؤُلَاءِ مِنْ عَطَاءِ رَبِّكَ—We provide for both groups from the bounty of your Lord. Thus, divine provision extends universally, and worldly resources are not exclusive to any single group. Finally, a general principle is stated: انظُرْ كَيْفَ فَضَّلْنَا بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ وَلَلْآخِرَةُ أَكْبَرُ دَرَجَاتٍ وَأَكْبَرُ تَفْضِيلًا—observe how We have given preference to some over others; yet the درجات and distinctions of the Hereafter are far greater. This indicates that differences in outcome correspond to differences in effort and orientation. While distinctions in this world are limited, those of the Hereafter are vast and enduring. Even where exceptions exist—where some attain success without apparent effort—they do not negate the general principle that striving is the primary determinant of outcome, and that the qualitative value of effort often outweighs its quantitative extent.

In many verses, the world and its material resources have been praised. In some verses, the wealth of this world is called "good" (Al-Baqarah 2:180). In many verses, material blessings are termed as "the bounty of Allah." For example: وَابْتَغُوا مِنْ فَضْلِ اللهِ In another place, it is stated: خَلَقَ لَكُمْ مَا فِی الْاَرْضِ جَمِیعًا All the blessings of the earth have been created for you. In many verses, these blessings are mentioned with the phrase "سَخَّرَ لَكُمْ" (made it subservient to you). If we compile these verses that praise material resources, a considerable collection of verses will emerge. However, despite the great importance given to material blessings, there are also words in the Quran that show their degradation and humiliation: At one place, they are called perishable goods: تَبْتَغُونَ عَرَضَ الْحَیَاةِ الدُّنْیَا (Nisa 4:94) In another place, it is described as the cause of pride and heedlessness: وَمَا الْحَیَاةُ الدُّنْیَا إِلاَّ مَتَاعُ الْغُرُورِ (Hadid 57:20) At one occasion, it is counted as a cause of amusement and play: وَمَا ھٰذِہِ الْحَیَاةُ الدُّنْیَا إِلاَّ لَہْوٌ وَلَعِبٌ (Ankabut 29:64) Also, at one place it is considered a cause of heedlessness from the remembrance of Allah: رِجَالٌ لَاتُلْھِیْھِمْ تِجَارَةٌ وَلَا بَیْعٌ عَنْ ذِکْرِ اللهِ (Noor 24:37) The same two kinds of expressions are also seen in Islamic narrations. On one hand, the world is the cultivation of the Hereafter. It is the center of trade for the men of Allah, the mosque of the friends of the Truth, the place of the divine revelation's the background of the revelation of Ayat, and the house of counsel and advice. Imam Ali (peace be upon him) said: مَسْجِدُ أَحِبَّاءِ اللهِ وَمُصَلَّىٰ مَلَائِكَةِ اللهِ وَمَهْبِطُ وَحْيِ اللهِ وَمَتْجَرُ أَوْلِيَاءِ اللهِ (Reference: Nahjul Balagha, Short Sayings, Sentence) Whereas on the other side, it has been described as a cause of heedlessness from the remembrance of Allah and as a perishable and deceptive good. The question arises: Are these two types of verses and narrations contradictory to each other? The answer to this question can be found in the Quran itself. Because where the Quran condemns the world and its blessings, it refers to those whose sole aim is this earthly life. In verse 29 of Surah An-Najm, it is mentioned: وَلَمْ یُرِدْ إِلاَّ الْحَیَاةَ الدُّنْیَا Those who desire nothing but the worldly life. In other words, here it is speaking about those people who exchange the Hereafter for the world and do not hesitate to commit any wrongdoing or crime to fulfill material desires. In Surah At-Tawbah, verse 38, it states: أَرَضِیتُمْ بِالْحَیَاةِ الدُّنْیَا مِنَ الْآخِرَةِ Are you satisfied with the worldly life instead of the Hereafter? The verses under discussion testify to this claim. It is stated: مَنْ كَانَ یُرِیدُ الْعَاجِلَةَ Meaning they only desire the transient material life. Principally, words like "cultivation," "trade," etc., clearly bear witness to this. In brief, all material blessings of this world are indeed the blessings of Allah. Their existence in the system of creation was and is certainly necessary. If a person benefits from them, considering them as a means to attain felicity and spiritual perfection, then this is commendable in every respect. But if they are regarded as the primary objective instead of a means, and separated from meaningful and human values, then naturally this will lead to arrogance, rebellion, disobedience, oppression, and cruelty. Such a world will certainly become the seat of all kinds of evil and will be blameworthy. Imam Ali (peace be upon him) beautifully said in his concise and profound saying: مَنْ أَبْصَرَ بِهَا بَصِرَتْهُ وَمَنْ أَبْصَرَ إِلَیْهَا أَعْمَتْهُ Whoever sees (the world) through it gains insight, but whoever looks at it directly becomes blind. (Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 38) In reality, the difference between the reprehensible and praiseworthy world is the same as between "to it" and "through it." In the first case, the world is the objective, and in the second, the world is a means and a medium to reach somewhere else.

It is not the first occasion on which the Qurʾān, while emphasizing effort and striving, admonishes those who are idle and negligent, reminding them that the felicity and success of the Hereafter cannot be attained merely through verbal profession of faith or empty declarations. Rather, the decisive factor in achieving true سعادت and eternal happiness is earnest striving and persistent effort. This fundamental principle is affirmed in numerous Qurʾānic verses. For example, in the following verse, the human being is described as being bound by his own deeds: كُلُّ نَفْسٍ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ رَهِينَةٌ — every soul is held in pledge for what it has earned (al‑Muddaththir 38). In another place, it is stated explicitly that a person’s share corresponds only to what he strives for: وَأَنْ لَيْسَ لِلْإِنسَانِ إِلَّا مَا سَعَىٰ — and that the human being attains nothing except that for which he strives (al‑Najm 39). Moreover, in many verses of the Qurʾān, the mention of īmān is immediately followed by ʿamal ṣāliḥ, in order to remove the false assumption that one may attain spiritual مقام without effort and action. Just as the blessings of the material world cannot be acquired without striving, it is unreasonable to assume that eternal felicity could be achieved without effort. Thus, the Qurʾānic perspective establishes a consistent and universal principle: both worldly success and otherworldly attainment are dependent upon purposeful striving, and mere aspiration or verbal claim, devoid of effort, is insufficient for realizing true success.

The term “نمد”, derived from “امداد”, signifies the act of providing assistance or support. According to al‑Rāghib in Mufradāt, the expression imdad is generally employed for beneficial and effective aid, whereas mad may sometimes be used in a less favorable sense. In the context of the verses under consideration, it is indicated that God grants a portion of His blessings universally, such that both the righteous and the unrighteous partake of them. This refers to that level of نعمت which is necessary for the continuation of worldly life and upon which human existence depends. Without this basic provision, life itself would not be sustained. In other words, this reflects the divine attribute of Raḥmāniyyah, whose grace extends universally to all—believer and disbeliever alike. Beyond these general provisions, however, there exist infinite and higher forms of blessings that are reserved specifically for the believers and the righteous.

See ayat 25 for tafseer.

See ayat 25 for tafseer.

See ayat 25 for tafseer.

The verses under consideration mark the beginning of a series of Islamic rulings. This series starts with Tawheed (the Oneness of God) and faith. Tawheed is the foundation of all positive and reformative actions. By beginning the discourse on rulings with Tawheed, these verses maintain their connection with the previous verses, which discussed faith, effort, and the intention for the Hereafter. Moreover, it emphasizes that the Qur'an invites towards the purest and best path. Beginning with the mention of Tawheed, the Qur'an states: "لَاتَجْعَلْ مَعَ اللهِ إِلَھًا آخَرَ" — Do not set up any deity along with Allah, the One God. The Qur'an does not merely prohibit worshiping other deities alongside God, but rather instructs not to consider any other as a deity along with Him. This has a broader meaning: in belief, in action, in supplication, and in worship, under no circumstance should anyone be made a deity beside Allah. After this, the Qur'an explains the destructive consequence of associating partners with Allah, saying: If you affirm partners for Him, then you will sit (remain) blamed and forsaken (فَتَقْعُدَ مَذْمُومًا مَخْذُولًا). The word "قعود" (sitting down) here indicates weakness and incapacity, as it is used as a metaphor for weakness in Arabic literature. For example, the phrase: "قعد به الضعف عن القتال" means "He refrained from fighting the enemy due to his weakness." From the aforementioned statement, it becomes clear that shirk (associating partners with Allah) brings three very harmful effects on a person: (1) Shirk causes weakness, incapacity, humiliation, and degradation, whereas standing firm, acting, and honor are the result of monotheism. (2) Shirk is a reason for blame and reproach because it is a clear path of deviation. It denies the logic of reason and is an explicit ingratitude of the blessings of the Lord. Whoever adopts such a deviation is deserving of reproach. (3) Shirk abandons the polytheist to the false deities he created, and Allah withdraws His support. Since fabricated deities have no power to help, and God also ceases His assistance to such individuals, they become “مخذول” — that is, left without any helper or support. This same meaning is expressed in a different form in other verses of the Quran. For instance, in Surah Al-Ankabut, verse 41: مَثَلُ الَّذِینَ اتَّخَذُوا مِنْ دُونِ اللهِ اَوْلِیَاءَ کَمَثَلِ الْعَنکَبُوتِ اتَّخَذَتْ بَیْتًا وَإِنَّ اَوْھَنَ الْبُیُوتِ لَبَیْتُ الْعَنْکَبُوتِ لَوْ کَانُوا یَعْلَمُونَ The example of those who take protectors besides Allah is like the example of the spider who builds a house; and indeed, the weakest of houses is the spider's house, if they but knew. Following Tawheed, with strong emphasis, the Qur'an points to one of the most fundamental teachings among the human instructions brought by the Prophets: "Your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him, and (that) you be good to your parents" (وَقَضَی رَبُّکَ اَلاَّ تَعْبُدُوا إِلاَّ إِیَّاہُ وَبِالْوَالِدَیْنِ إِحْسَانًا). The word "قضاء" (decree) implies a greater emphasis than "امر" (command) and connotes an absolute and firm command. This word is the first emphasis on this matter. Placing Tawheed — which is the greatest foundation of Islam — alongside kindness to parents is the second emphasis on the significance of this Islamic command. The term "احسان" (goodness/kindness) is used here in an absolute sense, encompassing all types of kindness. This is the third emphasis. Similarly, the use of the word "والدین" (parents) applies to both Muslim and non-Muslim parents. This is the fourth emphasis. The word "احساناً" is in the indefinite form here, which is used to indicate greatness in such contexts. This is the fifth emphasis. (Explanatory note: Some hold the view that "احسان" is generally transitive with "الیٰ," as in "احسن الیہ" ("he did good to him"), and sometimes it is transitive by means of "باء." This phrase perhaps means to maintain respectful care towards parents personally and without any intermediary, displaying kindness and love. This applies as the sixth emphasis on this matter.) Attention should also be given to the fact that a general command is usually for affirmative action, while here it is a negative one — "(Your Lord has decreed) that you shall worship none other than Him." It is possible that because of the word "قضیٰ," it is understood that the second part of the sentence is affirmative in style, meaning: Your Lord has decreed with emphasis that you worship Him and not others. Or this phrase, which contains negation and affirmation — "اَلاَّ تَعْبُدُوا إِلاَّ إِیَّاہُ" — may be regarded as an affirmative statement, meaning the affirmation that worship is exclusively for the Lord. After this, a clear example of kindness to parents is stated: When one or both of them reach old age with you and become incapable (thus continuously requiring your care), do not show any sign of disdain or even utter a slight word of contempt, not even the faintest utterance of "Uff" (a mild expression of annoyance) (إِمَّا یَبْلُغَنَّ عِنْدَکَ الْکِبَرَ اَحَدُھُمَا اَوْ کِلَاھُمَا فَلَاتَقُلْ لَھُمَا اُفٍّ). (Explanatory note: In "إِمَّا یَبْلُغَنَّ," according to some, "إِمَّا" is a combination of the conditional particles "إنْ" and "ما," which are juxtaposed for emphasis. Tafseer Fakhruddin.)Razi According to some others, "إن" is conditional and combined with the added "ما," which allows the word "condition" to apply to the verb that is emphasized by the نون التأكيد (Nun of emphasis). (Al-Mizan) Do not reprimand them or speak loudly in front of them (وَلَاتَنْهَرْهُمَا). Rather, speak to them in a serious, gentle, generous, and noble manner (وَقُلْ لَهُمَا قَوْلًا كَرِيمًا). And lower your wing of humility in compassion before them in private (وَاخْفِضْ لَهُمَا جَنَاحَ الذُّلِّ مِنَ الرَّحْمَةِ). And say: My Lord, have mercy upon them as they brought me up when I was small (وَقُلْ رَّبِّ ارْحَمْهُمَا كَمَا رَبَّيَانِي صَغِيرًا).

In the preceding verses, the Qurʾān emphasizes parental respect with exceptional depth, highlighting multiple dimensions of ethical conduct toward parents, particularly in their old age. Several key aspects emerge: First, special emphasis is placed on the stage of old age, when parents become most in need of care, compassion, and respect. In such a state, they may lose physical strength to the extent that they cannot move independently, attend to their needs, or maintain personal cleanliness. This stage becomes a profound moral test for children: whether they perceive their parents as a burden or as a continued source of blessing, and whether they serve them with patience and dignity or respond with frustration and harshness. Second, the Qurʾān explicitly prohibits even the slightest expression of annoyance, stating that one should not say even “uff” to them. This includes all forms of verbal or tonal disrespect. Instead, speech toward parents must be characterized by gentleness, dignity, and kindness. The emphasis on speech reflects the broader principle that language serves as a primary indicator of inner disposition; thus, respectful communication is essential. Third, the Qurʾān commands humility and tenderness in conduct. This is not mere outward politeness, but a sincere humility that reflects love and emotional attachment. Such humility is an ethical posture grounded in gratitude, not in compulsion or social expectation. Fourth, the instruction extends beyond the parents’ lifetime: even after their passing, they are not to be forgotten. Supplication for them is required, particularly in the form of the well‑known prayer: that God may grant them mercy as they nurtured their child in early life. This formulation emphasizes reciprocity: just as parents showed care and affection when the child was helpless, the child must respond with gratitude and remembrance. This reciprocity also conveys a deeper ethical point. Just as a child was once entirely dependent and unable to care for himself, parents in advanced age may return to a similar state of dependence. The obligation, therefore, is rooted in recognition of this shared human condition and the cycle of care. Finally, the Qurʾān acknowledges the possibility of human shortcomings in fulfilling these duties. It states: رَبُّكُمْ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا فِي نُفُوسِكُمْ — your Lord knows best what is within yourselves. If lapses occur unintentionally and without deliberate disobedience, and are followed by remorse and correction, then divine mercy remains accessible: إِن تَكُونُوا صَالِحِينَ فَإِنَّهُ كَانَ لِلْأَوَّابِينَ غَفُورًا — if you are righteous, then indeed He is ever forgiving toward those who return. The term “أوّابين” derives from “أوب”, meaning a return accompanied by intention. Unlike mere رجوع (return), it implies conscious and deliberate turning back. Thus, repentance (tawbah) is understood as a purposeful return to God, motivated by awareness and resolve. This emphasis on repeated return (صيغة مبالغة) may reflect the multiple forces that draw a person back toward guidance: - faith in God, - awareness of accountability in the Hereafter, - the awakening of conscience, - and reflection upon the consequences of sin. Together, these factors guide the human being away from deviation and toward moral and spiritual rectification.

See ayat 30 for tafseer.

See ayat 30 for tafseer.

See ayat 30 for tafseer.

See ayat 30 for tafseer.

The verses under consideration present another set of fundamental teachings of Islam, addressing the obligation of fulfilling the rights of relatives, the needy, and the wayfarer, while simultaneously prohibiting extravagance in expenditure. It is first stated: وَآتِ ذَا الْقُرْبَىٰ حَقَّهُ—give the relative his due; likewise, give to the needy and the wayfarer (وَالْمِسْكِينَ وَابْنَ السَّبِيلِ), but do so without engaging in wastefulness (وَلَا تُبَذِّرْ تَبْذِيرًا). The term تبذیر, derived from بذر (to scatter seeds), refers to expenditure made in an irrational or improper manner. In other words, it signifies spending wealth in inappropriate contexts, even if the amount is small. Conversely, expenditure made in its proper place is not considered تبذیر, even if it is substantial. A narration from Imam Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām) clarifies this principle: من أنفق شيئًا في غير طاعة الله فهو مبذر، ومن أنفق في سبيل الله فهو مقتصد—one who spends in disobedience to God is a squanderer, whereas one who spends in the way of God is moderate (Tafsīr Ṣāfī, under the verse). Another report states that the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam) objected even to discarding date seeds wastefully, declaring such behavior to be تبذیر. Similarly, the principle is extended to all forms of consumption: even in ablution, excess use of water was criticized, as expressed in the statement: نعم وإن كنت على نهر جار—yes, even if you are at a flowing river (Tafsīr Ṣāfī, under the verse). The address وَآتِ is directed to the Prophet, but it is universally applicable. The command to fulfill rights is immediately followed by the prohibition of extravagance, indicating that emotional inclination toward relatives or the needy should not lead to excess beyond rightful limits. Moderation remains essential in all forms of expenditure. The subsequent verse intensifies this prohibition: إِنَّ الْمُبَذِّرِينَ كَانُوا إِخْوَانَ الشَّيَاطِينِ—the wasteful are the brothers of devils. This comparison reflects the fact that both squander divine blessings improperly. The association may be understood either in terms of similarity of action or in terms of ultimate companionship in punishment. The verses then address proper conduct toward the needy when one lacks the means to assist them. It is stated: وَإِمَّا تُعْرِضَنَّ عَنْهُمُ ابْتِغَاءَ رَحْمَةٍ مِن رَبِّكَ تَرْجُوهَا فَقُل لَّهُمْ قَوْلًا مَّيْسُورًا—if you must turn away from them while awaiting provision from your Lord, then speak to them in a gentle and courteous manner. The term قولًا ميسورًا encompasses all forms of kind and respectful communication, including words of reassurance and hope. Furthermore, the Qurʾān emphasizes moderation in charity: وَلَا تَجْعَلْ يَدَكَ مَغْلُولَةً إِلَىٰ عُنُقِكَ—do not make your hand chained to your neck (a metaphor for miserliness), and وَلَا تَبْسُطْهَا كُلَّ الْبَسْطِ—nor extend it completely (indicating excessive giving), lest you become blameworthy and exhausted (فتقعد ملوما محسورا). This metaphorical language conveys the necessity of balance between stinginess and imprudent generosity. The final verse provides a broader theological context: إِنَّ رَبَّكَ يَبْسُطُ الرِّزْقَ لِمَن يَشَاءُ وَيَقْدِرُ—your Lord expands provision for whom He wills and constricts it for whom He wills. This distribution functions as a means of testing and moral development. It cultivates generosity among those who possess wealth and restrains excess among those who might otherwise transgress. Thus, the passage establishes a comprehensive ethical framework: the fulfillment of rights, the prohibition of waste, the necessity of moderation, the importance of dignified social conduct, and the recognition that economic differences serve as part of a broader divine order aimed at moral cultivation.

As explained earlier, “ذی القربیٰ” refers to those who are near and closely related. Exegetes have differed as to whether this expression here denotes specific individuals or has a general scope. Some hold that the address is directed to all believers, commanding them to fulfill the rights of their relatives. Others maintain that the مخاطب is specifically the Messenger of God (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam), and that he is being instructed to render the due rights to his own kin—for example, from khums, the spoils of war, and other allocations connected with the public treasury. Numerous narrations transmitted through both Shīʿī and Sunnī sources indicate that when this verse was revealed, the Prophet called Fāṭimah (ʿalayhā al‑salām) and granted her the land of Fadak. Fadak was a fertile and inhabited tract of land located near Khaybar, at a distance of approximately 140 kilometers from Madinah. According to reliable historical reports, after its residents surrendered without warfare, the Prophet assigned it to Fāṭimah. However, following the Prophet’s passing, it was confiscated, at times restored and at other times taken again, becoming a subject of political contention in early Islamic history. A well‑known report from Abū Saʿīd al‑Khudrī states: “لما نزل قولہ تعالیٰ: وَآتِ ذَا الْقُرْبَىٰ حَقَّهُ أعطى رسول الله فاطمة فدكا”—when this verse was revealed, the Messenger of God granted Fadak to Fāṭimah (as cited in works such as Mizān al‑Iʿtidāl and Kanz al‑ʿUmmāl). Other narrations indicate that Imām ʿAlī Zayn al‑ʿĀbidīn (ʿalayhi al‑salām), during captivity in Syria, invoked this very verse as evidence before the people, stating that they—the أهل بیت—were those whose rights had been commanded by God to be fulfilled, yet had been neglected (Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, jild 3, p. 255). Nevertheless, these interpretive applications do not restrict the broader meaning of the verse. As established previously, both interpretations are compatible: the injunction is general, obligating all individuals to fulfill the rights of relatives, while the Prophet—being the leading embodiment of the divine command—acted upon it in the most exemplary and manifest way. Thus, the أهل بیت represent a clear and prominent instance of ذی القربیٰ, and the Prophet himself stands as the primary addressee and practitioner of this command. Accordingly, the Prophet fulfilled the rights of his relatives—whether through the allocation of khums, the grant of Fadak, or other means—particularly in view of the fact that zakāh, being a form of public charity, was not permissible for them.

There is no doubt that the blessings available on earth are sufficient for all its inhabitants; however, this sufficiency is conditional upon their being used in a proper and rational manner, without wastefulness or extravagance and with avoidance of every form of excess and deficiency. Otherwise, these blessings are not so unlimited that misuse would not lead to harmful consequences. It is regrettable that often the extravagance and wastefulness in one region of the world result in deprivation in another, or that the excesses of one generation lead to the deprivation of future generations. At a time when statistical knowledge and demographic data were not as developed as in the present age, Islam had already warned against extravagance in the use of divine blessings. The Qurʾān has, in numerous verses, strongly condemned those who engage in excess. For example, it states: وَلَا تُسْرِفُوا إِنَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُسْرِفِينَ — do not commit excess; indeed, God does not love those who are excessive (al‑Anʿām 141; al‑Aʿrāf 31). In another place, it is stated: وَأَنَّ الْمُسْرِفِينَ هُمْ أَصْحَابُ النَّارِ — surely, the wasteful are the companions of the Fire (Ghafir 43). Elsewhere, obedience to such individuals is discouraged: وَلَا تُطِيعُوا أَمْرَ الْمُسْرِفِينَ — do not obey the command of the extravagant (al‑Shuʿarāʾ 151). In another verse: مُسَوَّمَةً عِنْدَ رَبِّكَ لِلْمُسْرِفِينَ — marked by your Lord for the extravagant (al‑Dhāriyāt 34). And it is said regarding Pharaoh: وَإِنَّ فِرْعَوْنَ لَعَالٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَإِنَّهُ لَمِنَ الْمُسْرِفِينَ — indeed Pharaoh was exalted in the land, and indeed he was among the extravagant (Yūnus 83). In yet another place: إِنَّ اللّٰهَ لَا يَهْدِي مَنْ هُوَ مُسْرِفٌ كَذَّابٌ — God does not guide one who is excessive and a liar (Ghafir 28). Finally, their fate is described as destruction: وَأَهْلَكْنَا الْمُسْرِفِينَ — and We destroyed the extravagant (al‑Anbiyāʾ 9). Moreover, as previously noted, in the verses under discussion, the extravagant are described as brothers of devils. The term isrāf in its broader sense denotes transgression and excess in all matters, though it is commonly used in relation to expenditure. Qurʾānic passages also show that isrāf stands in contrast to miserliness. The Qurʾān states: وَالَّذِينَ إِذَا أَنفَقُوا لَمْ يُسْرِفُوا وَلَمْ يَقْتُرُوا وَكَانَ بَيْنَ ذَٰلِكَ قَوَامًا — those who, when they spend, neither indulge in excess nor practice stinginess, but maintain moderation between the two (al‑Furqān 67). Thus, the Qurʾānic teaching establishes a balanced principle: the proper use of resources lies between two extremes—extravagance and miserliness—while moderation constitutes the path consistent with divine guidance.

In this context, although exegetical discussions may not have always explicitly distinguished the concepts, a careful consideration of the underlying meanings of the two terms reveals an important distinction. When used in contrast, isrāf refers to exceeding the proper limit without necessarily implying direct waste or destruction. For example, wearing clothing of excessively high value far beyond one’s reasonable need, or preparing food at an extravagant cost that could otherwise adequately feed many people with dignity—such acts represent تجاوز from moderation, even though nothing may be physically wasted. By contrast, tabdhīr refers specifically to expenditure that reaches the level of waste and destruction. For instance, preparing food sufficient for ten people while only two are to be served—an act that may even be regarded with misplaced pride—and subsequently discarding the excess, clearly constitutes tabdhīr. In Nahj al‑Balāghah, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿalayhi al‑salām) states: “ألا إن إعطاء المال في غير حقه تبذير وإسراف وهو يرفع صاحبه في الدنيا ويضعه في الآخرة ويكرمه في الناس ويهينه عند الله” — indeed, spending wealth outside its rightful place is both tabdhīr and isrāf. It may elevate a person in this world, but it lowers him in the Hereafter; it may grant him esteem among people, yet dishonors him before God. As previously discussed in the interpretation of the related verses, the prohibition of excess in Islamic teachings is so stringent that even using more water than necessary during ablution is discouraged, even if performed beside a flowing river. Similarly, the casting away of even the smallest remnants—such as date pits—has been prohibited. In the modern world, increasing awareness of resource limitations has drawn renewed attention to these principles. Contemporary practices—such as recycling waste into fertilizer, repurposing materials from refuse, and reusing treated water for agriculture—reflect a growing recognition that natural resources are not unlimited. Consequently, there is an emerging understanding that every resource should be utilized efficiently, often multiple times, in order to prevent unnecessary depletion.

The verses under consideration emphasize the principle of moderation in spending (iʿtidāl fī al‑infāq), while elsewhere, commendation is given to those who, even in difficult circumstances, prefer others over themselves (īthār). The question therefore arises as to how these two directives can be reconciled. A careful consideration of the contextual indications—including the occasion of revelation and related textual evidence—clarifies this issue. The command to observe moderation applies in situations where excessive generosity would lead to one’s own deprivation, such that the individual becomes “ملومًا محسورًا”—blameworthy and left in a state of helplessness. Similarly, it applies where acts of self‑sacrifice would impose hardship, distress, or undue pressure upon one’s dependents, or disrupt the stability of one’s household. However, where such consequences do not arise, īthār—the preference of others over oneself—remains a highly commendable and elevated virtue. Furthermore, the directive of moderation is of a general nature, applying broadly to all circumstances, whereas īthār is a more specific and situational virtue, applicable under particular conditions. Thus, there is no contradiction between the two; rather, they represent complementary ethical principles within different contexts.

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

See ayat 35 for tafseer.

In the previous verses, some aspects of Islamic rulings were presented. Following them, the present verses introduce some additional commandments. Six important rulings are beautifully and meaningfully conveyed in five verses. (1) First, a very ugly and heinous practice of the age of Jahiliyyah is referred to. It was among the gravest sins. The command is stated: "Do not kill your children for fear of poverty" (وَلَاتَقْتُلُوا اَوْلَادَکُمْ خَشْیَةَ إِمْلَاقٍ). Their sustenance is not upon you; rather, We provide sustenance for them and for you (نَحْنُ نَرْزُقُھُمْ وَإِیَّاکُمْ). Indeed, their killing was a great sin (إِنَّ قَتْلَھُمْ کَانَ خِطْئًا کَبِیرًا). From this verse, it is clear that the economic condition of the Arabs during Jahiliyyah was so harsh and distressing that due to their poor financial state, they would kill their own beloved children. The commentators differ on whether the Arabs in the age of Jahiliyyah only buried their daughters alive out of fear of poverty or if they killed daughters as well. Some hold the view that this entire discussion points toward the practice of burying daughters alive. They did so for two reasons: first, the fear that the daughters might be taken captive in wars and thus lose their honor and dignity to enemies; second, due to poverty and lack of means to provide for them, they killed the daughters because, at that time, daughters were not a source of economic productivity but often a financial burden. It is true that initially sons were also a cause of expense, but the Arabs of Jahiliyyah always considered daughters as significant capital and were unwilling to lose them. Others hold the view that they killed children in two ways: one was killing daughters under the false pretext of protecting honor, and the other was killing sons and daughters indiscriminately due to fear of poverty. The apparent wording of the verse, which is in the masculine plural form (قتلھم and نرزقھم), may support this view because, in Arabic literature, the masculine plural can encompass daughters collectively, but it seems less likely that it refers specifically to daughters. The assertion that sons had productive potential and were considered capital is entirely correct, but only insofar as they could bear the expenses for a limited time. However, sometimes people were in such dire straits that they could not even provide for that brief period. Therefore, the second interpretation seems more accurate. In any case, the idea that the providers of sustenance are the parents themselves is nothing more than a misconception. Allah Almighty declares that discard this satanic notion from your mind; if you rise up to strive and make maximum effort, Allah will assist and organize their livelihood. It is noteworthy that we abhor this dreadful and shameful crime, yet it exists in our times in another form. It even occurs in highly developed countries in the form of abortion, which is done under the pretext of population control and economic conditions. (For further explanation, refer to Tafseer Noon Volume 6, Surah Al-An'am, verse 151.) The phrase "خشیة املاق" (fear of poverty) subtly negates this satanic misconception—this fear is only a baseless worry that incites you to commit this great sin; it has no reality. Also, note that the phrase "کان خطاً کبیراً" (was a great sin) appearing with a past verb indicates emphasis and confirmation that killing children was and is a great sin, known since ancient times, whose ugliness and evil are innate and not confined to any specific era. (2) Another great sin alluded to in the following verse is fornication and acts violating chastity. The Qur'an says: "Do not approach fornication; indeed, it is an abomination and an evil way" (وَلَاتَقْرَبُوا الزِّنَی إِنَّہُ کَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَسَاءَ سَبِيلًا). This brief sentence points to three matters: a. It does not say "Do not commit fornication," but rather "Do not approach it." This expression, in its depth, emphasizes the prohibition more strongly and subtly indicates that often there are preliminary acts that gradually lead a person close to this sin. Looking at women with lust is also a preliminary step. Indecent exposure is another. Books teaching evil, obscene films, vulgar magazines, and various hubs of immorality also serve as means leading toward this act. Similarly, seclusion with a non-mahram woman is also a contributing factor (i.e., if a non-mahram man and woman are alone in a secluded place, it may lead to fornication). Furthermore, the failure to marry young men and women and imposing harsh restrictions on them without cause also becomes a reason for it. All these are factors that lead to "approaching fornication." The mentioned verse, in its concise form, addresses these causes...In the sentence, it restrains from all these. In Islamic traditions, each of these cases is separately prohibited. b. In "انہ کان فاحشة," there are three emphases: One, "انّ"; second, the past tense verb; and third, "فاحشة." From these, it appears how great this sin is. c. "ساء سبیلا" (meaning adultery is a very bad way). This sentence expresses the fact that this act also leads to other evils in society.

The verses under consideration present a sequence of ethical injunctions concerning social conduct, including the protection of family structure, the prohibition of adultery, and the sanctity of human life. The disruption of the relationship between parents and children undermines a fundamental bond that not only defines social identity but also sustains the proper upbringing and development of individuals. This bond preserves emotional continuity and remains a pillar of affection throughout life. In societies where illegitimate and fatherless offspring become widespread, social relations inevitably weaken, since such relations are rooted in stable family structures. A brief reflection shows that if illicit relations were to become universally permissible and the institution of marriage abolished, society would produce children without clear lineage or support. Such individuals would lack both care at birth and guidance in adulthood. Beyond this, moral and social development depends upon affection and compassion, whereas such individuals would be deprived of both. Consequently, society would degrade into a state resembling unrestrained instinct and loss of moral restraint. Moreover, such behavior leads to widespread conflict and disorder, as unregulated desires generate tensions and disputes. Historical and sociological observations confirm that environments marked by moral looseness often give rise to severe forms of crime. In addition, empirical evidence has shown that such conduct contributes to the spread of disease, prompting modern institutions to adopt measures to control its harmful effects. Despite these efforts, statistical evidence demonstrates the extent to which such behavior endangers human well‑being. Furthermore, such practices often result in abortion, infanticide, and disruption of lineage, since those involved frequently seek to avoid the consequences of parenthood. Attempts to substitute family care with institutional care have proven inadequate, as such systems fail to replicate the emotional and developmental support provided within a family environment. It is also essential to recognize that marriage is not merely a means of satisfying biological needs; rather, it serves broader purposes, including cooperation in life, emotional fulfillment, intellectual stability, proper upbringing of children, and shared support in all circumstances. These objectives can only be achieved through a defined and exclusive relationship between man and woman. A narration attributed to ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿalayhi al‑salām), reporting from the Prophet (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam), states that immoral conduct entails consequences both in this world and the Hereafter: it diminishes spiritual radiance, disrupts sustenance, hastens decline, incurs divine displeasure, intensifies judgment, and leads to punishment in the Fire (Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, jild 6, p. 414). The subsequent verse introduces another essential command concerning the sanctity of human life: وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللّٰهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ — do not take a life which God has made sacred except with justice. The protection of life constitutes a universal principle recognized across all divine laws and ethical systems. The Qurʾān emphasizes this principle by declaring: مَنْ قَتَلَ نَفْسًا بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا — whoever kills a person unjustly is as though he has killed all humanity (al‑Māʾidah 32). Islam further provides strict legal frameworks to preserve social order, including provisions such as retribution (qiṣāṣ), which serve to protect life and deter injustice. At the same time, justice must be upheld even in retribution, as excess is explicitly prohibited: فَلَا يُسْرِفْ فِي الْقَتْلِ — do not exceed the limits in retaliation. The conduct of ʿAlī (ʿalayhi al‑salām) exemplifies this principle of justice, as he instructed that only his actual assailant be punished, and even then without excess or mutilation (Nahj al‑Balāghah, letter 47). The following verse addresses the protection of the property of orphans: وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا مَالَ الْيَتِيمِ إِلَّا بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ — do not approach the wealth of the orphan except in the best manner. This indicates that while misuse is prohibited, responsible management and development of such wealth for the orphan’s benefit is permitted until the individual reaches maturity (حَتَّىٰ يَبْلُغَ أَشُدَّهُ), which includes both physical and intellectual readiness. Another important directive concerns the fulfillment of commitments: وَأَوْفُوا بِالْعَهْدِ إِنَّ الْعَهْدَ كَانَ مَسْئُولًا — fulfill the covenant, for the covenant will be questioned. Social, economic, and political systems depend upon trust and the observance of agreements; without it, societal order collapses into chaos. Finally, the verses conclude with an injunction concerning fairness in measurement: وَأَوْفُوا الْكَيْلَ إِذَا كِلْتُمْ وَزِنُوا بِالْقِسْطَاسِ الْمُسْتَقِيمِ — give full measure when you measure, and weigh with a just balance. This principle safeguards rights in economic dealings and prevents injustice. The verse concludes: ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا — this is better and leads to the best outcome. Together, these instructions form a comprehensive ethical framework encompassing personal conduct, family structure, social justice, economic integrity, and moral accountability.

The first point that must be noted here is that the Qurʾān repeatedly emphasizes the prohibition of short‑measurement, deficiency in weight, and fraudulent dealings. In one instance, this issue is placed on a level parallel with the cosmic order of creation: وَالسَّمَاءَ رَفَعَهَا وَوَضَعَ الْمِيزَانَ، أَلَّا تَطْغَوْا فِي الْمِيزَانِ — He raised the heaven and established the balance, so that you may not transgress in the measure (al‑Raḥmān 7–8). This indicates that maintaining fairness in measurement is not a minor issue; rather, it is an essential element of justice and part of the universal order governing existence. In another passage, with a severe and admonitory tone, it is stated: وَيْلٌ لِّلْمُطَفِّفِينَ، الَّذِينَ إِذَا اكْتَالُوا عَلَى النَّاسِ يَسْتَوْفُونَ، وَإِذَا كَالُوهُمْ أَوْ وَزَنُوهُمْ يُخْسِرُونَ، أَلَا يَظُنُّ أُولٰئِكَ أَنَّهُم مَّبْعُوثُونَ، لِيَوْمٍ عَظِيمٍ — woe to those who give less in measure, who, when they take measure from others, take in full, but when they give by measure or weight, reduce it; do they not think that they will be resurrected for a great day (al‑Muṭaffifīn 1–5). Furthermore, the Qurʾān records that certain prophets, after confronting shirk, also directed their struggle against economic injustices such as short‑measurement. For example, in the case of Prophet Shuʿayb in the land of Madyan, his call included the correction of such practices; however, his people persisted in wrongdoing and were ultimately destroyed (cf. Tafsīr Namūnah, jild 6, under Sūrat al‑Aʿrāf 85). In principle, justice, order, and precise reckoning constitute foundational and vital elements in all aspects of life and society. As noted, they function as the underlying spirit governing the entire system of existence. Any deviation from this principle leads to harmful and destructive consequences. In particular, fraudulent measurement undermines trust, which is a fundamental pillar of economic exchange, and disrupts the entire economic system. It is regrettable that in some cases, non‑Muslim societies adhere to this principle more rigorously than those who identify as Muslims, ensuring that goods supplied in markets correspond exactly to their stated measure in order to maintain trust. This demonstrates that even from a purely worldly perspective, honesty in transactions is indispensable for sustaining social and economic relations. It is also important to note that those who engage in fraudulent measurement are considered indebted to others in terms of rights. Their repentance cannot be valid unless they restore the rights they have unjustly appropriated. Even if they cannot identify the rightful owners, they are required to compensate through restitution (radd al‑maẓālim) by giving equivalent value on behalf of the original owners to the poor and needy.

Sometimes the meaning of shortchanging expands and becomes general. In this way, every kind of negligence and failure to fulfill duties is included within its meaning. Therefore, the craftsman who leaves some deficiency in his work, the teacher who does not teach properly, the laborer who does not arrive on time at work and does not work wholeheartedly—all these are addressed by this command and share the consequences of its violation. However, the words of the verse under discussion are not directly for this generality; rather, this expansion of the meaning is rational. But the expression in Surah Ar-Rahman points towards this generality and breadth: وَالسَّمَاءَ رَفَعَهَا وَوَضَعَ الْمِيزَانَ، اَلاَّ تَطْغَوْا فِی الْمِيزَانِ

The term “قسطاس” (pronounced both with kasrah and ḍammah, e.g., bi‑zani “miqyās” or sometimes bi‑zani “Qurʾān”) denotes a balance or scale. There has been scholarly discussion regarding its linguistic origin: some consider it a term borrowed from Greek (Roman usage), while others maintain that it is of Arabic origin. It has also been suggested that the word is a compound of two elements—“قسط” meaning justice and equity, and “طاس” meaning the pan of a balance. Some exegetes further distinguish between “قسطاس” as referring to a large scale and “میزان” as referring to a smaller one (Tafsīr al‑Mīzān; Tafsīr Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī; Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, under the relevant verse). In any case, “قسطاس” signifies a precise and accurate scale that measures with complete justice, without deficiency or excess. It is noteworthy that in a narration, Imām Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (ʿalayhi al‑salām), in explaining this term, states: “ھو الذی لہ لسان”—it is that scale which has a pointer (a needle indicating balance) (Tafsīr Ṣāfī, under the relevant verse). This indicates that a scale without such a pointer cannot clearly demonstrate slight differences in balance, whereas a properly calibrated scale with a measuring indicator reveals even the smallest deviations, thereby ensuring full observance of justice and precision.

See ayat 40 for tafseer.

See ayat 40 for tafseer.

See ayat 40 for tafseer.

See ayat 40 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, we studied some of the fundamental teachings of Islam. The issue begins with Tawheed (the Oneness of God), which is the essence from which all these teachings derive. Then come the rulings related to various aspects of individual and collective human life. In the verses under consideration, we reach the final part of these rulings. Here, a few more important injunctions are indicated. 1. Follow only knowledge: First, emphasizing the necessity of research in all matters, it is stated: Do not follow that about which you have no knowledge (وَلَاتَقْفُ مَا لَیْسَ لَکَ بِہِ عِلْمٌ). Neither act in your personal conduct without knowledge, nor give testimony without knowledge regarding others, nor establish beliefs or doctrines without knowledge. Thus, the prohibition against following the ignorant has a broad meaning. It includes matters of faith as well as testimony, judgment, and action. The some commentators who have limited it to certain matters have no clear evidence for this limitation because "تقف" ("taqf") derives from the root "عفو" ("’afw"), meaning to follow or go after something. We know that following something without knowledge is a wide concept, encompassing all the mentioned areas. Therefore, the standard for recognizing anything is knowledge and certainty; anything beyond that such as conjecture, impression, estimate, doubt, or probability is not reliable. Those who rely on such things as a basis, whether sitting on the seat of judgment, testifying, or even taking personal actions, are acting against this explicit Islamic command. In other words, matters not established with clear knowledge cannot be the foundation for judgment, testimony, or action. Speculative evidence and uncertain news from unreliable sources cannot be relied upon. At the end of the verse, the reason for this prohibition is explained thus: "Indeed, the hearing, the sight, and the heart—all of those will be questioned" (إِنَّ السَّمْعَ وَالْبَصَرَ وَالْفُؤَادَ كُلُّ أُولَٰئِكَ كَانَ عَنْهُ مَسْئُولًا). This responsibility arises because the statements a person makes without knowledge are either heard from unreliable individuals, or the person claims to have seen while he has not, or makes baseless decisions based on his own thoughts that do not correspond to reality. Accordingly, the eye, ear, and mind will be questioned: Did you indeed have certainty regarding these matters about which you testified, judged, believed, or acted? Although some commentators have said that the questioning of these organs means questioning those who possess these organs, taking into account that the Quran elsewhere (for example, Fussilat 41:21) explicitly states that on the Day of Judgment the human body’s organs, even the skin, will speak and testify to the truth, there is no reason to abandon the apparent meaning of the verse or to claim that these organs themselves will not be questioned. As for the question why only the ear and eye are mentioned among the human senses, its reason is clear: the primary sources of a person’s sensory knowledge are generally these two—the other senses are considered subordinate to them.

The verse under consideration points to an extremely important principle of collective life: neglecting this principle inevitably leads to disorder, disruption of human relationships, and the breakdown of social trust and emotional bonds. If this Qurʾānic directive were fully implemented within human societies, many forms of chaos, imbalance, and difficulty would be eliminated, since such problems often arise from hasty judgments, unfounded assumptions, and reliance on doubtful or false information. In the absence of this principle, society becomes engulfed in confusion, suspicion, and فساد. No individual remains secure from the سوء ظن of others, trust disappears, and the honor and dignity of all individuals remain constantly at risk. Numerous Qurʾānic verses and Islamic traditions emphasize this matter. For example: 1. The Qurʾān condemns reliance on conjecture: وَمَا يَتَّبِعُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ إِلَّا ظَنًّا إِنَّ الظَّنَّ لَا يُغْنِي مِنَ الْحَقِّ شَيْئًا Most people follow nothing but conjecture, whereas conjecture is of no avail against truth (Yūnus 36). 2. Elsewhere, conjecture is associated with following desire: إِنْ يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَمَا تَهْوَى الْأَنفُسُ They follow nothing but conjecture and the inclinations of their desires (al‑Najm 23). 3. A narration from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām) states: the true nature of faith requires that one’s speech does not exceed one’s knowledge (Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿah, jild 18, p. 16). 4. Another narration from Imām Mūsā ibn Jaʿfar (ʿalayhi al‑salām) states: one should not speak about anything without knowledge, as expressed in the divine command: وَلَا تَقْفُ مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ — do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge (Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿah, jild 18, p. 17). 5. The Prophet (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam) is reported to have said: إيّاكم والظن فإن الظن أكذب الكذب — avoid conjecture, for conjecture is the most false form of speech (Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿah, jild 18, p. 38). 6. A narrative describes a man who lingered purposely to hear prohibited sounds. Upon being reminded of the verse: إِنَّ السَّمْعَ وَالْبَصَرَ وَالْفُؤَادَ كُلُّ أُولٰئِكَ كَانَ عَنْهُ مَسْئُولًا he repented, realizing that hearing, sight, and the heart are all subject to accountability (Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, jild 3, p. 164). From these sources it becomes clear that Islam assigns responsibility not only to actions but also to perception and judgment. It requires that individuals neither speak without knowledge, nor form judgments without evidence, nor act without certainty. Reliance on conjecture, speculation, and hearsay gives rise to numerous individual and social harms, including: - violation of rights and misallocation of justice, - damage to the honor and dignity of individuals, - spread of propaganda, rumors, and fabrication, - weakening of intellectual inquiry and critical thought, - breakdown of trust and social cohesion, - loss of independent thinking and susceptibility to manipulation, - impulsive decision‑making leading to regret and failure. Thus, the Qurʾānic principle establishes a comprehensive ethical standard: knowledge must precede judgment, evidence must precede belief, and certainty must guide action. This principle safeguards both the individual and society from error, injustice, and moral decline.

The remaining question is how individuals and society can protect themselves from this harmful and destructive tendency. Although a detailed discussion would be extensive, a concise and structured set of practical guidelines may be presented as follows: (a) People should be continually made aware of the harmful consequences and painful outcomes of this behavior, and they should be encouraged to reflect deeply on the negative effects of acting without knowledge. (b) It is necessary to revive the Islamic worldview and mode of thinking among people, so that they recognize that God observes them at all times—He is al‑Samīʿ and al‑Baṣīr. Indeed: يَعْلَمُ خَائِنَةَ الْأَعْيُنِ وَمَا تُخْفِي الصُّدُورُ — He knows the betrayal of the eyes and what the hearts conceal (Ghāfir 19). Whatever we say or do is recorded, and we are accountable for all our actions, decisions, and beliefs. (c) The level of intellectual development within society must be raised, because following ignorance is most often characteristic of uninformed individuals who, upon hearing an unverified or baseless claim, quickly attach themselves to it, form judgments, and act accordingly without reflection.

In the following verse, the prohibition of arrogance and pride is presented in a vivid and expressive manner. Addressing the Messenger (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam), it is stated: وَلَا تَمْشِ فِي الْأَرْضِ مَرَحًا — do not walk upon the earth with arrogance. The term “مَرَحًا” denotes excessive exultation based on false and baseless assumptions. The verse continues: إِنَّكَ لَنْ تَخْرِقَ الْأَرْضَ وَلَنْ تَبْلُغَ الْجِبَالَ طُولًا — you can neither pierce the earth nor reach the height of the mountains. This expression points to the behavior of arrogant individuals who walk with exaggerated force, stamping their feet and carrying themselves with inflated posture, seeking to display superiority. The Qurʾān responds by exposing the futility of such conduct: no matter how forcefully one walks, the earth cannot be affected, nor can human height rival the mountains. The image reduces human arrogance to insignificance, emphasizing the triviality of pride in comparison to the vastness of creation. It is noteworthy that arrogance is a dangerous inner condition; however, the Qurʾān does not address it through abstract discourse alone but highlights its outward manifestations, such as one’s manner of walking. This indicates that even the most superficial signs of arrogance are blameworthy. It also demonstrates that inner qualities inevitably manifest in outward behavior—whether in movement, speech, perception, or action. Any outward sign of arrogance should therefore alert the individual to an internal moral deficiency requiring correction. Thus, the objective of the verse is not limited to condemning a specific manner of walking but to denounce arrogance in all its forms. Arrogance, in the Qurʾānic perspective, is the root of forgetting God, self‑deception, flawed judgment, deviation from truth, attachment to falsehood, and the commission of various sins. In Nahj al‑Balāghah (khuṭbah 193), ʿAlī (ʿalayhi al‑salām), while describing the characteristics of the righteous, states: “وَمَشْيُهُمُ التَّوَاضُعُ”—their manner of walking is marked by humility. This humility is not confined to physical movement but extends to all aspects of life, including thought, judgment, and intellectual engagement. The lives of the Prophet and the Imams provide practical illustrations of this principle. It is reported that the Messenger of God would not allow people to walk beside him while he was mounted, as it might lead to pride in the rider and humiliation for the walker. He lived with simplicity: sitting on the ground, consuming modest food, and riding without display, even at the height of his authority. Similarly, ʿAlī (ʿalayhi al‑salām) engaged personally in household tasks, and al‑Ḥasan (ʿalayhi al‑salām), despite possessing means, undertook repeated journeys on foot to Bayt Allāh as an expression of humility. The subsequent verse reinforces the condemnation of earlier mentioned prohibitions—shirk, قتل نفس, زنا, killing of children, unjust appropriation of orphan wealth, and mistreatment of parents—stating: كُلُّ ذٰلِكَ كَانَ سَيِّئُهُ عِندَ رَبِّكَ مَكْرُوهًا — all of these are detestable in the sight of your Lord. This expression clarifies that such actions are inherently displeasing to God. It also demonstrates that, within the Qurʾānic vocabulary, even grave sins may be described with the term “مكروه”, indicating their moral reprehensibility. Thus, the passage integrates ethical refinement with theological grounding, presenting humility as a necessary trait and arrogance as a fundamental moral failing that undermines both spiritual and social order.

For further emphasis—and to affirm that all these wise directives originate from divine revelation—it is stated: ذٰلِكَ مِمَّا اَوْحیٰ إِلَیْکَ رَبُّکَ مِنَ الْحِکْمَةِ — these are among the wisdom-filled commands that your Lord has revealed to you. The use of the term ḥikmah indicates, firstly, that these commands originate in divine revelation, and secondly, that they fully conform to rational principles and are comprehensible to human reason. Who can deny the evil of shirk, murder, or causing harm to one’s parents? Likewise, who can deny the harmful consequences of adultery, arrogance, injustice toward orphans, or the breaking of covenants? Thus, these commands are established both through rational understanding and through divine revelation. At the same time, while the fundamental principles of divine law are accessible to reason, their detailed articulation often lies beyond the scope of unaided intellect and requires the illumination of revelation. Some exegetes have also inferred from the use of ḥikmah that the commands mentioned in these verses are firm, universal, and not subject to abrogation, having been present in all revealed religions. Acts such as shirk, murder, adultery, and breach of trust have never been regarded as permissible in any authentic religious system. Just as these commands begin with the prohibition of shirk, they conclude with its reaffirmed prohibition: وَلَا تَجْعَلْ مَعَ اللّٰهِ إِلٰہًا آخَرَ — do not associate another deity with God. For as a result, one will be cast into Hell, being both blameworthy and rejected: فَتُلْقَی فِی جَھَنَّمَ مَلُومًا مَدْحُورًا. In reality, all forms of deviation, crime, and moral disorder originate from shirk and dualism. Therefore, the entire sequence of ethical and legal teachings begins and ends with the prohibition of associating partners with God. In the concluding verse, the Qurʾān addresses a misguided and irrational belief held by certain polytheists, thereby exposing the weakness of their reasoning. They claimed that angels were the daughters of God, while at the same time considering the birth of daughters a cause of shame and misfortune in their own society. The Qurʾān responds using their own logic: اَفَاَصْفَاکُمْ رَبُّکُمْ بِالْبَنِینَ وَاتَّخَذَ مِنَ الْمَلَائِکَةِ إِنَاثًا — has your Lord favored you with sons, and taken for Himself daughters from among the angels? This argument highlights the inconsistency of their belief. While daughters are, in reality, equal manifestations of divine blessing and essential to the continuation of human existence, the جاهلی attitude that devalued them was rooted in ignorance and superstition. The Qurʾān, however, does not merely refute this belief abstractly; rather, it confronts its proponents on their own terms, demonstrating the contradiction inherent in attributing to God what they themselves disdained. The verse then concludes with a decisive judgment: إِنَّکُمْ لَتَقُولُونَ قَوْلًا عَظِیمًا — indeed, you are uttering a grave and tremendous statement. This assertion is unjustifiable on multiple grounds: it constitutes a gross misunderstanding of the nature of God, who is beyond physical attributes and the need for offspring; it reflects internal inconsistency in valuing sons over daughters while attributing daughters to God; and it diminishes the status of angels, who are honored servants of God. Thus, the passage presents a comprehensive critique of theological error, ethical inconsistency, and social prejudice, while affirming the unity of God as the foundational principle underlying all moral and spiritual order.

See ayat 44 for tafseer.

See ayat 44 for tafseer.

See ayat 44 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, the discourse concluded with the affirmation of tawḥīd. In the verses under consideration, this same principle is reiterated with decisive clarity. The first point highlighted is the extreme obstinacy of a group among the polytheists, despite the numerous arguments presented to them. It is stated: وَلَقَدْ صَرَّفْنَا فِي هٰذَا الْقُرْآنِ لِيَذَّكَّرُوا وَمَا يَزِيدُهُمْ إِلَّا نُفُورًا — We have presented various arguments in this Qurʾān in diverse forms so that they may take heed; yet it has only increased their aversion. The expression “صَرَّفْنَا” (from taṣrīf) signifies the use of a wide range of methods and styles. Sometimes the Qurʾān employs rational arguments, sometimes it appeals to fiṭrah, sometimes it warns, and at other times it encourages. In summary, every possible mode of communication has been employed to awaken them. However, a group remains so entrenched in obstinacy, prejudice, and rigidity that these arguments not only fail to guide them but instead intensify their rejection. A question naturally arises: if these expressions have the opposite effect on some individuals, what benefit remains in presenting them? The answer is clear. The Qurʾān is not addressed to a single group but to all humanity, and not all individuals respond in the same manner. Many seekers of truth derive guidance from these diverse arguments and attain clarity. For such individuals, even a single form of expression may suffice for awakening. Thus, the presence of those who respond negatively does not diminish the value of the message. Moreover, even the stubborn and misguided serve, indirectly, a comparative role for those seeking truth. Contrasts between light and darkness allow the value of truth to become more apparent. In this sense, even the behavior of the obstinate may serve as a lesson for others. From this verse, an important pedagogical principle may also be derived: achieving higher formative and educational objectives requires the use of varied approaches. A single method is not sufficient, because human capacities and dispositions differ. Effective communication must therefore adopt multiple styles appropriate to different individuals. This approach itself constitutes an important rhetorical and educational principle within the Qurʾānic method.

The subsequent verse points to a well‑known rational proof of tawḥīd, referred to among theologians and philosophers as dalīل التمانع. It is stated: قُلْ لَوْ كَانَ مَعَهُ آلِهَةٌ كَمَا يَقُولُونَ إِذًا لَابْتَغَوْا إِلَىٰ ذِي الْعَرْشِ سَبِيلًا — say: if there had been other deities with Him, as they claim, then they would have sought a way to the Possessor of the Throne. Although the apparent meaning of the phrase لَابْتَغَوْا إِلَىٰ ذِي الْعَرْشِ سَبِيلًا is that “they would seek a way toward the Lord of the Throne,” the rhetorical formulation indicates an intention of dominance—namely, that such alleged deities would attempt to establish supremacy and gain control over ultimate authority. The use of ذِي الْعَرْشِ instead of الله underscores this dimension of sovereignty, suggesting that each would seek to assume dominion over the cosmos. It is natural that any possessor of power seeks to expand authority and consolidate control. Thus, if multiple deities truly existed, this tendency would inevitably result in mutual rivalry and conflict. Some have suggested that multiple deities could cooperate harmoniously; however, plurality itself implies differentiation—whether in will, action, or governance. If no difference existed, multiplicity would be meaningless, and the entities would effectively be one. A similar argument appears in another verse: لَوْ كَانَ فِيهِمَا آلِهَةٌ إِلَّا اللهُ لَفَسَدَتَا — if there were other gods besides God in the heavens and the earth, both would be corrupted (al‑Anbiyāʾ 22). Although the two verses appear similar, they point to distinct aspects: one highlights فساد in the cosmic system resulting from multiplicity, while the other emphasizes inevitable tamānuʿ and conflict among multiple deities irrespective of the system itself. Since the مشرکین attributed such notions to God, the following verse immediately declares His transcendence: سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يَقُولُونَ عُلُوًّا كَبِيرًا — glorified and exalted is He above what they say, in great exaltation. This concise statement emphasizes divine transcendence through four reinforcing expressions: First, سُبْحَانَهُ affirms God’s freedom from all نقص; Second, وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يَقُولُونَ asserts His elevation above all their claims; Third, عُلُوًّا functions as an emphatic verbal noun; Fourth, كَبِيرًا intensifies the assertion further. The phrase عَمَّا يَقُولُونَ is comprehensive, encompassing all false attributions and their implications. The discourse then proceeds to describe divine majesty by stating that all elements of existence glorify Him: تُسَبِّحُ لَهُ السَّمَاوَاتُ السَّبْعُ وَالْأَرْضُ وَمَنْ فِيهِنَّ — the seven heavens, the earth, and all within them glorify Him. Despite this universal testimony, God is described as حلیم and غفور: إِنَّهُ كَانَ حَلِيمًا غَفُورًا — He is forbearing and forgiving. Thus, despite disbelief and shirk, divine response is not immediate punishment; rather, human beings are granted respite and the opportunity for reflection and repentance. In other words, human beings possess the capacity to perceive the universal glorification within creation and to attain recognition of the One God. Yet even when they fail to do so, divine forbearance allows them time to return from error and pursue the path of tawḥīd.

The Qurʾān, in numerous verses, affirms that the entities of the universe are engaged in glorifying and praising the Divine. Among these, the verse under consideration is perhaps the most explicit, for it presents this reality in a comprehensive manner, indicating that all beings without exception are occupied in tasbīḥ. According to this, the earth, the heavens, the stars, galaxies, human beings, animals, plants, and even the smallest atomic particles are participants in this universal glorification and praise. The Qurʾān portrays existence as entirely filled with resonance and harmony. Every being, in its own manner, is engaged in praising the Truth. Although the courtyard of existence appears silent, in reality it is continually filled with a subtle and ongoing melody. Those who are unaware do not possess the capacity to hear it, but people of insight—whose hearts and spirits are illuminated by the light of faith—perceive this sound from every direction, both inwardly and outwardly. As expressed poetically: 1. If the eye of the unseen were opened to you, the particles of the universe would converse with you. 2. The speech of water, earth, and flowers is محسوس to those endowed with inner awareness. 3. All the particles of existence secretly communicate with you day and night. 4. We hear, see, and are aware, yet we remain silent before those who are not permitted to understand. 5. If you move from lifelessness toward living awareness, you will hear the resonance of the cosmos. 6. The glorification of inanimate things will become evident to you, dispelling the doubt of interpretation. Concerning the reality of this glorification and praise, philosophers and exegetes have presented differing views. Some have described it as ḥālī, others as qālī. The most acceptable perspectives may be summarized as follows: First, one group maintains that all particles of existence—whether regarded as rational or non‑rational—possess a form of perception and consciousness, even though human beings lack the ability to comprehend the nature of their awareness or to hear their glorification. They support this view through verses such as: وَإِنَّ مِنْھَا لَمَا یَھْبِطُ مِنْ خَشْیَةِ اللهِ and فَقَالَ لَھَا وَلِلْاَرْضِ اِئْتِیَا طَوْعًا اَوْ کَرْھًا قَالَتَا اَتَیْنَا طَائِعِینَ Second, many interpret this tasbīḥ and ḥamd as belonging to what is termed the “language of condition” (lisān al‑ḥāl). In this view, the glorification is real rather than metaphorical, but it is expressed not through verbal articulation but through the state and condition of things. For example, when the face and eyes of a person reflect pain, grief, or sleeplessness, one may say that although the person does not speak, their eyes and face clearly convey their condition. At times, this “language of state” is so powerful that it cannot be concealed even when words attempt denial. As expressed poetically: “I sought through stratagem to conceal the secret within, But it could not remain hidden, for blood flowed from my eyes.” This idea is also reflected in the statement attributed to ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿalayhi al‑salām): ما اضمر احد شیئاً الاظہر فی فلتات لسانہ و صفحات وجھہ (see: Nahj al‑Balāghah, Kalimāt Qiṣār 26) The works of great poets, the design of monumental structures, and the functioning of complex systems all testify—through their very existence—to the abilities and qualities of their creators. Likewise, the vast and intricate system of the universe, with its order, mysteries, and astonishing precision, reflects the tasbīḥ and ḥamd of God. In this context, tasbīḥ signifies declaring God free from all نقص, and ḥamd signifies describing His attributes of perfection. The organization and structure of the cosmos indicate that its Creator is pure from all deficiency and characterized by infinite knowledge, absolute power, and comprehensive wisdom. With the advancement of scientific knowledge and the unveiling of certain aspects of the mysteries of existence, this universal ḥamd and tasbīḥ have become even more evident. If, at one time, a poet described every leaf as a page of divine recognition, today botanists and scientists have produced extensive studies examining the intricate structures of leaves—from cellular composition to layered organization, from respiration systems to networks of nourishment. Thus, every leaf continuously proclaims the melody of tawḥīd. The subtle resonance of this glorification echoes through gardens, mountains, and valleys, though those unaware perceive it as silent. This interpretation of universal glorification—as expressed through the “language of condition”—is fully comprehensible. It is not necessary to assume that all particles possess consciousness in the same sense as human awareness, for there is no definitive proof for such a claim. Rather, it is more probable that the verses refer to this expressive manifestation inherent in the very structure and condition of existence.

A question remains here: if tasbīḥ and ḥamd are understood as the indication of divine purity, greatness, power, and both the affirmative and negative attributes of God reflected in the system of creation, then why does the Qurʾān state that you do not understand their glorification and praise? Even if many people do not understand, at least scholars and learned individuals should be able to comprehend it. Two responses can be offered. First, the address is primarily directed toward the general mass of people—particularly the ignorant majority and the polytheists—while learned believers constitute an exception. Every general statement admits exceptions, and thus those endowed with knowledge and faith are not included in this عدمِ فہم in the same sense. Second, whatever knowledge we possess of the secrets of the universe, in comparison to what remains unknown, is like a drop in the ocean or a particle in relation to a vast mountain. Even what we consider knowledge, upon deeper reflection, scarcely deserves the name of true understanding. As expressed poetically: “My knowledge has reached the point that I have come to know that I do not know.” Accordingly, even if one is learned, one still does not truly comprehend the glorification and praise of these entities in their full reality. What is perceived is but a fragment, comparable to a single word of a vast and comprehensive book. In this sense, the statement functions as a general address to humanity: the glorification expressed by the universe through lisān al‑ḥāl remains beyond full comprehension, because what humans grasp is exceedingly limited and insignificant in comparison to the totality. A further interpretation, suggested by some exegetes, is that the universal glorification of beings comprises both lisān al‑ḥāl and lisān al‑maqāl. In other words, this glorification is both takwīnī and tashrīʿī: many humans and all angels praise God with conscious awareness, while the rest of creation expresses this praise through its state and condition. Although these two forms differ in mode, they converge within the broader meaning of glorification and praise. However, as previously explained, the interpretation based on lisān al‑ḥāl remains the most compelling and comprehensive.

The traditions transmitted from the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam) and the Imams of Ahl al‑Bayt (ʿalayhim al‑salām) on this matter contain striking and noteworthy expressions. A companion of Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām) relates that he asked about the verse “وَ إِنْ مِنْ شَیْءٍ إِلَّا یُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِہِ”, and the Imām replied: “کل شیء یسبح بحمدہ وانا لنریٰ ان ینقض الجدار وھو تسبیحھا”—every thing glorifies God with His praise; even when a wall collapses and we hear its sound, that too is its glorification (Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, jild 3, p. 168). It is also reported from Imām Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (ʿalayhi al‑salām): “نھی رسول الله عن ان توسھم البھائم فی وجوھھا، وان تضرب وجوھھا لانّھا تسبح ربھا”—the Messenger of God prohibited branding animals on their faces or striking them there, because they glorify their Lord (Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, jild 3, p. 168). From Imām al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām) it is reported: “ما من طیر یصاد فی بر ولا بحر ولا شیء یصاد من الوحش الّا بتضییعہ التسبیح”—no bird is caught on land or sea, nor any wild animal captured, except through neglect of glorification (Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, jild 3, p. 168). Another narration reports that Imām al‑Bāqir (ʿalayhi al‑salām), upon hearing the sound of a bird, said: “یسبحن ربھن عزوجل و یسئلن قوت یومھن”—they glorify the Exalted Lord and ask Him for their daily sustenance (Tafsīr al‑Mīzān, citing Ḥilyat al‑Awliyāʾ by Abū Nuʿaym Iṣfahānī). In another report, the Prophet (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam) said: “اما علمت ان الثوب یسبحن فاذا اتسخ انقطع تسبیحہ”—do you not know that garments glorify God, and when they become soiled their glorification ceases (Tafsīr al‑Mīzān, citing Ḥilyat al‑Awliyāʾ by Abū Nuʿaym Iṣfahānī). Another narration from Imām al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām) states that animals have rights over their owners: they should not be burdened beyond their capacity, their backs should not be used as places of idle conversation, they should be fed promptly upon arrival, their faces should not be branded or struck—because they glorify God—and they should be given access to water when passing by it (Tafsīr al‑Mīzān, citing al‑Kāfī, vol. 4). Collectively, these traditions—some of which contain subtle and nuanced meanings—demonstrate that the general principle of universal glorification encompasses all things without exception. They are also consistent with the interpretation that this glorification is primarily takwīnī and expressed through lisān al‑ḥāl. The statement that a garment’s glorification ceases when it becomes soiled may indicate that as long as things remain in a natural and pure state, they inspire remembrance of God; however, when they lose that state, this effect diminishes.

See ayat 48 for tafseer.

See ayat 48 for tafseer.

See ayat 48 for tafseer.

Al‑Ṭabrisī in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī in Tafsīr al‑Kabīr, and some other exegetes have reported various accounts regarding the occasion of revelation (shaʾn al‑nuzūl) of the above verses. According to one report, the first of these verses was revealed concerning a group among the polytheists. During the night, when the Messenger of God (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam) would recite the Qurʾān and perform prayer near the Kaʿbah, they would harass him—throwing stones at him and preventing him from inviting others to Islam. By divine grace, however, they were rendered incapable of harming him, perhaps due to the awe placed in their hearts (Majmaʿ al‑Bayān). Another report states that when the Messenger would recite the Qurʾān, two individuals from among the polytheists would stand to his right and two to his left, clapping, whistling, and reciting poetry loudly so that his voice would not reach the ears of people (Tafsīr al‑Kabīr, under the relevant verse). According to Ibn ʿAbbās, at times Abū Sufyān and Abū Jahl would come and listen to the Prophet. On one occasion, one of them said to the other: “I do not understand what Muḥammad is saying; it only appears that his lips are moving.” Abū Sufyān remarked that some of his statements seemed true, while Abū Jahl dismissed him as insane, and Abū Lahab described him as a soothsayer or a poet. Following these baseless accusations and inappropriate remarks, the aforementioned verses were revealed (Tafsīr al‑Kabīr, under the relevant verse).

In the preceding verses, the discussion concluded on the theme of tawḥīd. However, a question may arise: if the truth of tawḥīd is so evident, and if all beings in existence testify to it, then why do the polytheists fail to accept it? Why do they remain unmoved even after hearing the eloquent and compelling verses of the Qurʾān? The verses under consideration appear to address this question. It is stated: وَإِذَا قَرَأْتَ الْقُرْآنَ جَعَلْنَا بَيْنَكَ وَبَيْنَ الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْآخِرَةِ حِجَابًا مَّسْتُورًا — when you recite the Qurʾān, We place between you and those who do not believe in the Hereafter a concealed barrier. This “barrier” is not a physical obstruction but rather consists of internal conditions such as obstinacy, prejudice, egoism, arrogance, and ignorance. These qualities prevent individuals from perceiving the truths contained in the Qurʾān. They obscure understanding and block access to the recognition of tawḥīd, maʿād, and the truthfulness of the prophetic message. The following verse further explains this state: وَجَعَلْنَا عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ أَكِنَّةً أَن يَفْقَهُوهُ وَفِي آذَانِهِمْ وَقْرًا — We have placed coverings over their hearts so that they may not comprehend it, and heaviness in their ears. As a result of this condition, whenever the Prophet mentions tawḥīd in the Qurʾān, they turn away in aversion: وَإِذَا ذَكَرْتَ رَبَّكَ فِي الْقُرْآنِ وَحْدَهُ وَلَّوْا عَلَىٰ أَدْبَارِهِمْ نُفُورًا. This phenomenon represents an extraordinary form of flight—not merely from truth, but from guidance, success, and understanding itself. A similar description appears elsewhere in the Qurʾān: كَأَنَّهُمْ حُمُرٌ مُّسْتَنفِرَةٌ فَرَّتْ مِن قَسْوَرَةٍ — as though they were frightened donkeys fleeing from a lion (al‑Muddaththir 50–51). The verses then clarify that the Prophet’s opponents did not listen with the intention of seeking truth: نَحْنُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يَسْتَمِعُونَ بِهِ إِذْ يَسْتَمِعُونَ إِلَيْكَ وَإِذْ هُمْ نَجْوَىٰ — We are most aware of how they listen when they listen to you, and when they converse privately. Their intent was not to understand but to undermine. This is evident in their statements: إِنْ تَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا رَجُلًا مَّسْحُورًا — you are following none but a man influenced by magic. Thus, their engagement with the message was neither sincere nor open. Hearts that are veiled and ears that are burdened cannot receive truth; they listen only to oppose, distort, and mislead others. The final verse responds decisively: انظُرْ كَيْفَ ضَرَبُوا لَكَ الْأَمْثَالَ فَضَلُّوا فَلَا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ سَبِيلًا — see how they coin examples for you; thus they have gone astray and are unable to find the way. This indicates that their deviation is not due to a lack of clarity in the truth or obscurity in the message. Rather, it stems from their own internal condition—blindness of perception, loss of sound judgment, and the dominance of prejudice and stubbornness. The path of truth remains open and evident, but they lack the capacity and willingness to follow it.

The verses under consideration present a profound analysis of the condition of misguided individuals and identify the principal obstacles that prevent them from recognizing the truth. In summary, these verses indicate that there are three major barriers which, if removed, would make the perception of truth clear and accessible. First, the Qurʾān points to the existence of a ḥijāb (barrier) between the Prophet and such individuals. This barrier is not physical; rather, it consists of inner states such as hatred, malice, envy, and hostility that they harbor toward the Messenger. Because of these negative dispositions, they are unable to perceive his profound moral and intellectual stature, nor can they comprehend the greatness of his message. Consequently, even virtues appear to them as faults. Second, beyond their hostility toward the Prophet, their hearts are veiled by ignorance and blind imitation. These internal coverings prevent them from engaging with truth in an open and receptive manner. As a result, they are not prepared even to listen sincerely to statements of truth, as their intellectual faculties are constrained by inherited prejudices and unexamined beliefs. Third, the instruments of perception themselves—such as hearing—are rendered ineffective for receiving truth. Their ears, metaphorically, are burdened to such an extent that they react against truth as though they were deaf to it. In contrast, falsehood appeals to them and is readily accepted. Experience confirms that individuals tend to hear and understand more readily that which aligns with their inclinations, while they struggle to attend to what contradicts their desires. Thus, internal inclinations exert a decisive influence over outward perception. The combined effect of these obstacles is threefold. First, they flee from hearing the word of truth, particularly when it concerns the unity of God, as it directly challenges the foundations of their polytheistic beliefs. Second, they attempt to justify their deviation by attributing false interpretations to the Prophet and his message, labeling him variously as a magician, poet, or madman. Third, their opposition is not rooted in lack of clarity in the message, but in the internal distortions that prevent proper reception of truth. This condition is not unique to a particular group but characterizes all opponents of truth whose moral failings act as barriers to understanding. The broader implication is that the path to truth requires prior moral and spiritual refinement. One must purify the heart from hatred, envy, arrogance, and stubbornness. When the inner self is cleansed of such defects and becomes like a polished mirror, it becomes capable of reflecting reality accurately. For this reason, it is often observed that individuals with sincere and pure hearts may grasp truths even without extensive formal knowledge, whereas those lacking moral refinement—despite intellectual training—fail to perceive them.

As in many other Qurʾānic verses, the attribution of ḥijāb (barriers) to God is found in the verses under discussion. It is stated that God places coverings upon their hearts, establishes a barrier between the Prophet and them, and imposes heaviness in their hearing. At first glance, such expressions might lead uninformed individuals to infer a deterministic (jabr) interpretation. However, this is not correct. In reality, these conditions are themselves the consequences and outcomes of human actions. It is human beings who, through their own deeds—through sin, misconduct, and morally corrupt dispositions—create these barriers within themselves. The attribution of these effects to God is based on the principle that the properties and causal effects of all things ultimately originate from Him. God has endowed actions and moral traits with specific effects. Thus, wrongful actions and reprehensible characteristics possess the inherent capacity to obscure understanding and create such veils. Since this capacity itself is granted by God, the resulting effects may also be attributed to Him.

In this regard, there are several different opinions among the exegetes. For example: (a) Some understand "مستور" as an attribute of "حجاب" (veil), interpreting the Quranic expression to mean that the veil is hidden from sight. In reality, the veil of hatred, enmity, envy, and malice is not one visible to the eye; rather, due to these, a thick barrier is placed between the one who envies or harbors hatred and the other. (b) Some other commentators understand "مستور" to mean "covering" or "concealer," since the passive participle (اسم مفعول) sometimes carries the meaning of the active participle (اسم فاعل), as in the noted verses where some interpreters understand "مسحور" to mean "ساحر" (magician). (Explanatory note: It has been transmitted from Akhfash that he said: The passive participle can sometimes mean the active participle. For example, "میمون" means "یامن," and "مشئوم" means "شائم.") (c) Some consider "مستور" as a metaphorical description of "حجاب" and say that it does not mean that this veil itself is hidden, but rather the realities beyond this veil are hidden (for instance, the personality of the Prophet Muhammad, the greatness of his invitation, and the grandeur of his teachings). However, upon reflecting on these three interpretations, it becomes clear that the first interpretation aligns more closely with the apparent meaning of the verse. Some traditions also mention that at times the most severe enemies of the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) would come to him while he was engaged in reciting the Holy Quran with his companions, but they would not be able to see him. It was as if, due to his dazzling greatness, these spiritually blind hearts could neither see nor recognize him; thus, he remained protected from their harm.

The term “اَكِنَّه” is the plural of “كِنان” (pattern zayān), and it originally refers to anything that covers or conceals. The word “كَنّ” (pattern jinn) denotes a container or vessel in which something is preserved; its plural is “اَكْنان”. Subsequently, the meaning was extended to include anything that serves as a covering or place of concealment—such as a curtain, a house, or any object behind which a person may hide. The word “وَقْر” (pattern jabr) denotes heaviness that occurs in the ear, whereas “وِقْر” (pattern rizq) signifies a heavy burden.

Its commentators have provided two interpretations: Al-Tabarsi, in Majma' al-Bayan, and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, in Tafsir Kabir, along with some other commentators, have taken it to mean “the cause of listening,” that is, we know why they listen attentively to your words—for understanding the truth? No, rather for mockery, making connections, and presenting twisted explanations; in brief, for misguidance and leading others astray. Allama Tabatabai, in Al-Mizan, and some other commentators have taken it to mean “a means of listening,” that is, we know by what ears they attentively listen to your words, and we are aware of their hearts and their whispers. (The first interpretation appears to be more accurate).

Why did they refer to the Messenger of God (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam) as “مسحور”? The term “مسحور” means “one who has been affected by magic,” while “ساحر” means “one who performs magic.” The opponents used the term “مسحور” for the Prophet in order to attribute a form of mental disturbance to him. They intended to suggest that his intellect had been influenced or impaired, alleging that magicians had affected his mind and senses (God forbid). Some exegetes have also proposed another interpretation: that “مسحور” here carries the meaning of “ساحر”, since in certain contexts the passive form (ism al‑mafʿūl) may be used in the sense of the active form (ism al‑fāʿil). According to this understanding, they accused the Prophet himself of being a magician, claiming that his extraordinary speech was a form of magic exerting influence over people’s hearts. At the same time, this accusation implicitly acknowledged the remarkable and powerful effect of his words, even while attempting to discredit them.

The verses under consideration indicate that the polytheists would become deeply disturbed upon hearing the call to tawḥīd and would turn away from it immediately. This reaction is understandable when viewed against the foundations of their social and ideological system. Their entire way of life—religious, social, economic, political, cultural, and civilizational—was built upon shirk and idol worship. The establishment of tawḥīd would therefore not only challenge their religious beliefs but would also dismantle the entire structure of power from which they benefited. A monotheistic worldview would bring about justice, undermine systems of oppression and exploitation, eliminate class-based privilege, and transfer authority from the مستکبرین to the مستضعفین. Consequently, those whose influence and wealth depended upon the perpetuation of shirk made determined efforts to prevent the message of tawḥīd from reaching people. Thus, their rejection was not merely intellectual disagreement but a deliberate act of preserving their position and interests. In doing so, they committed ظلم not only against others—especially the oppressed—but also against themselves, since every ظالم ultimately contributes to his own downfall. It is noteworthy that the Qurʾān identifies another dimension of their behavior. It states: بَلْ يُرِيدُ الْإِنسَانُ لِيَفْجُرَ أَمَامَهُ، يَسْأَلُ أَيَّانَ يَوْمُ الْقِيَامَةِ — rather, human beings wish to continue committing wrongdoing, and therefore they ask: when will the Day of Resurrection be? (al‑Qiyāmah 5–6). This indicates that such questioning was not motivated by genuine inquiry but served as an excuse to evade responsibility and accountability. By casting doubt on the وقوع of the Hereafter, they sought justification for continuing in wrongdoing without restraint. Thus, the rejection of tawḥīd and the questioning of the Hereafter are both presented as interconnected manifestations of a deeper moral and social refusal to accept responsibility, justice, and ethical transformation.

See ayat 52 for tafseer.

See ayat 52 for tafseer.

See ayat 52 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, discussion centered on tawḥīd and the struggle against shirk. In the verses under consideration, however, the focus shifts toward maʿād (resurrection and the Hereafter), and at every stage, this discussion serves to complete and reinforce the doctrine of divine unity. As has been noted earlier, belief in origin (mabdaʾ) and return (maʿād) constitutes one of the most fundamental principles of Islamic belief. This doctrine plays a decisive role in moral and practical formation: it restrains individuals from فساد and sin, encourages fulfillment of duties, and directs them toward growth and perfection. In these verses, three objections raised by the deniers of resurrection are addressed. The first objection is expressed as follows: وَقَالُوا اَئِذَا كُنَّا عِظَامًا وَرُفَاتًا اَئِنَّا لَمَبْعُوثُونَ خَلْقًا جَدِيدًا — they say: when we become bones and these bones decay into scattered particles, shall we truly be resurrected as a new creation? This objection reflects their assumption that disintegrated matter cannot be reconstituted into a living, conscious being. The Qurʾānic response to this objection is: قُلْ كُونُوا حِجَارَةً اَوْ حَدِيدًا اَوْ خَلْقًا مِمَّا يَكْبُرُ فِي صُدُورِكُمْ — say: become stones or iron, or any form more difficult in your understanding. The purpose of this response is to demonstrate that even if human beings imagine themselves transformed into the most rigid and lifeless substances, the divine power that brought them into existence initially is fully capable of restoring them again. Indeed, the transformation of clay into living beings already illustrates that seemingly inanimate matter contains the potential for life by divine command. The second objection raised by the deniers concerns the agent of resurrection: فَسَيَقُولُونَ مَن يُعِيدُنَا — they say: who will bring us back? The Qurʾān answers succinctly: قُلِ الَّذِي فَطَرَكُمْ اَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ — say: the One who created you the first time. Thus, if doubt exists regarding the process, attention is directed to the initial act of creation; if doubt concerns the agent, it is resolved by recalling divine creative power, which remains unchanged and unrestricted. The third objection relates to the timing of resurrection: فَسَيُنْغِضُونَ اِلَيْكَ رُؤُوسَهُمْ وَيَقُولُونَ مَتٰى هُوَ — they shake their heads in disbelief and ask: when will it be? The Qurʾān responds: قُلْ عَسٰى اَنْ يَّكُوْنَ قَرِيْبًا — say: it may be near. This response highlights two dimensions. First, from the perspective of eternity, even vast stretches of time are negligible, so the Hereafter is inherently “near.” Second, individual death represents an immediate transition (qiyāmah ṣughrā), rendering accountability personally imminent. Thus, speculation about distant timeframes becomes irrelevant. Additionally, the use of “عسىٰ” suggests that the precise timing of the Hour remains within divine knowledge alone. The following verse further describes the nature of resurrection: يَوْمَ يَدْعُوكُمْ فَتَسْتَجِيْبُوْنَ بِحَمْدِهِ — the day when He will call you, and you will respond, praising Him. This indicates the immediacy and inevitability of divine summons. It continues: وَتَظُنُّوْنَ اِنْ لَّبِثْتُمْ اِلَّا قَلِيْلًا — you will think that you remained (in the intermediate state) only for a short time. This reflects the relativity of human perception in relation to the eternal realm. Even prolonged durations will appear insignificant when contrasted with the infinite expanse of the Hereafter. Some have also suggested that this refers to the brevity with which worldly life itself will be perceived. Thus, the verses collectively provide a rational, theological, and existential response to denial of resurrection, demonstrating that objections arise from محدود perception, while divine power and the reality of accountability transcend such limitations.

See ayat 57 for tafseer.

See ayat 57 for tafseer.

See ayat 57 for tafseer.

See ayat 57 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, the discussion centered on mabdaʾ and maʿād, presenting arguments regarding these two fundamental doctrines. In the verses under consideration, however, attention is directed to the ethics and manner of dialogue with opponents—particularly the polytheists. The essential point conveyed is that even if a doctrine is intellectually elevated and its arguments are strong, it will not produce the desired effect if the mode of discussion is characterized by harshness and severity rather than gentleness and refinement. Accordingly, the verse states: وَقُلْ لِعِبَادِی یَقُولُوا الَّتِی ھِیَ اَحْسَنُ — say to My servants that they should speak in the best manner. This includes excellence in content, style, ethical tone, and adherence to the highest standards of human conduct. The reason for this directive is immediately clarified: if one abandons قول احسن and resorts to harsh and rigid speech, then إِنَّ الشَّیْطَانَ یَنزَغُ بَیْنَھُمْ — Satan will incite discord among them. Moreover, Satan is described as a manifest enemy of human beings: إِنَّ الشَّیْطَانَ کَانَ لِلْإِنسَانِ عَدُوًّا مُبِینًا. Exegetes have differed regarding the referent of “عبادی”. One interpretation is that it refers to the polytheists, whom God addresses in a manner intended to awaken their moral sensibility, inviting them toward التی ھی احسن—that is, toward tawḥīd and away from shirk. A second interpretation holds that the address is directed to the believers, instructing them on the proper method of engaging with opponents. According to this latter understanding, believers are cautioned against responding to hostility with similar harshness. In early stages of propagation—particularly during the Makkan period, when direct confrontation was not sanctioned—dialogue through reasoned argument was the primary method. Thus, believers are instructed to maintain dignity and gentleness in speech, avoiding provocation and preventing the escalation of disputes. The subsequent verse provides further clarification: رَبُّکُمْ اَعْلَمُ بِکُمْ إِنْ یَشَاْ یَرْحَمْکُمْ اَوْ إِنْ یَشَاْ یُعَذِّبْکُمْ — your Lord knows you best; if He wills, He may show you mercy, and if He wills, He may punish you. This statement can be understood in two complementary ways: It may be addressed to the disbelievers, reminding them of both divine mercy and the possibility of punishment. It may also address believers, warning them against self‑righteousness and reminding them that ultimate judgment rests with God alone, who knows the inner states of all individuals. The verse concludes with a consoling directive to the Prophet: وَمَا اَرْسَلْنَاکَ عَلَیْھِمْ وَکِیلًا — We have not sent you as a guardian over them. This clarifies that the Messenger’s responsibility is limited to conveying the message with clarity; acceptance or rejection lies beyond human control. The same principle extends to all who دعوت to truth: their duty is to communicate with wisdom and excellence in speech, without resorting to coercion or harshness. The following verse further reinforces this perspective by affirming divine knowledge: وَرَبُّکَ اَعْلَمُ بِمَنْ فِی السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْاَرْضِ. It then adds: وَلَقَدْ فَضَّلْنَا بَعْضَ النَّبِیِّینَ عَلٰی بَعْضٍ وَآتَیْنَا دَاوُودَ زَبُورًا. This serves as a response to objections concerning prophetic selection, emphasizing that God appoints and prefers individuals based on wisdom known to Him alone. The mention of Dāwūd and the Zabūr may reflect its distinctive character—comprising supplication, moral exhortation, and refined expression—closely aligned with the principle of قول احسن. Finally, the concluding verses return to refuting polytheistic beliefs. The instruction is given: قُلِ ادْعُوا الَّذِینَ زَعَمْتُمْ مِنْ دُونِہِ — call upon those you claim besides God. Yet, فَلَا یَمْلِکُونَ کَشْفَ الضُّرِّ عَنْکُمْ وَلَا تَحْوِیلًا — they possess no power to remove harm or alter its condition. The following verse explains the reason: اُولٰئِکَ الَّذِینَ یَدْعُونَ یَبْتَغُونَ إِلٰی رَبِّھِمُ الْوَسِیلَةَ — those whom you call upon are themselves seeking nearness to their Lord. They hope for His mercy and fear His punishment. Thus, the verses establish a coherent framework: the necessity of refined and ethical discourse, the recognition of human responsibility as limited to communication of truth, the affirmation of divine knowledge and wisdom, and the refutation of reliance on intermediaries lacking independent power. Together, they integrate theological truth with ethical method, demonstrating that the effectiveness of truth depends not only on its content but also on the manner in which it is conveyed.

The word "Waseelah" (means of approach) is used in the Quran in two instances: one in the above verse and the other in Surah Al-Ma'idah, Ayah 35. As we have mentioned under Surah Al-Ma'idah, Ayah 35, "Waseelah" signifies attaining nearness or that by which nearness is achieved, or it means the result obtained from that nearness. In this way, "Waseelah" has a broad meaning that includes every good deed and every good attribute because all these lead to nearness to the Lord. In Nahj al-Balagha, Sermon 110, Imam Ali (peace be upon him) has very profound words regarding this: "The best means by which servants seek nearness to God are faith in God, establishing prayer, paying zakat, fasting in the month of Ramadan, performing Hajj and Umrah, maintaining kinship ties, secret and open charity in the way of God, and all good deeds that save a person from decline and lowliness." (Explanatory note: This is a summary of Sermon 100 of Nahj al-Balagha. Its explanation has been provided in Tafseer Namuna, Vol. 4, p. 276 [Urdu translation]). Similarly, the intercession of the Prophets, God’s righteous servants, and those close to His presence is also a means of nearness, and this intercession is explicitly mentioned in the verses of the Quran. To avoid misunderstanding: seeking "Tawassul" (intercession) through those close to the presence of the Lord does not mean that a person independently demands from a Prophet or Imam or asks them for the solution to a difficulty in that sense; rather, the intention is that one follows their path, aligns with their programs, and invokes God by referring to their status and rank so that God grants permission for intercession and mediation. (Explanatory note: For further clarification, please consult Tafseer Namuna, Vol. 4, p. 277 [Urdu translation]).

See ayat 60 for tafseer.

See ayat 60 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, the discussion focused on tawḥīd and maʿād. In the first of the verses under consideration, the polytheists are addressed in a manner intended to awaken them by presenting a vivid image of the transient nature of the world. The aim is to make them realize that this world is a temporary abode (sarā‑yi fanāʾ), while the abode of permanence lies elsewhere, so that they may prepare themselves to face the consequences of their actions. It is stated: وَإِنْ مِنْ قَرْيَةٍ إِلَّا نَحْنُ مُهْلِكُوهَا قَبْلَ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ أَوْ مُعَذِّبُوهَا عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا — there is no settlement on earth except that We will destroy it before the Day of Resurrection or subject it to severe punishment. The oppressors, wrongdoers, and rebellious are destroyed through severe punishment, while others meet their end through natural death or general events. Ultimately, this world will come to an end and all will pass away. This is a definitive and established principle, recorded in divine decree: كَانَ ذٰلِكَ فِي الْكِتَابِ مَسْطُورًا. This “book” refers to al‑Lawḥ al‑Maḥfūẓ, the infinite knowledge of God, and the immutable laws governing existence. Recognition of this fixed decree should prompt the misguided to consider the outcome of their actions. Even if they were to live until the end of this world, they would inevitably face death, followed by reckoning and recompense. A further objection of the مشرکین is then addressed. They claimed readiness to believe, but only on the condition that the Prophet produce miracles according to their specific demands. The Qurʾān responds: وَمَا مَنَعَنَا أَنْ نُرْسِلَ بِالْآيَاتِ إِلَّا أَنْ كَذَّبَ بِهَا الْأَوَّلُونَ. This indicates that sufficient signs demonstrating the truthfulness of the Prophet have already been provided. Their demands for additional miracles are not genuine requests for guidance but expressions of obstinacy, similar to earlier communities who, despite witnessing clear signs, still rejected them. A specific example is given: وَآتَيْنَا ثَمُودَ النَّاقَةَ مُبْصِرَةً فَظَلَمُوا بِهَا. The people of Thamūd were given a clear and manifest sign in the form of the she‑camel, yet they ظلم it and ultimately rejected the sign. The Qurʾān then clarifies that miracles are not sent arbitrarily to satisfy every demand: وَمَا نُرْسِلُ بِالْآيَاتِ إِلَّا تَخْوِيفًا. Miracles serve the purpose of warning and establishing proof, not of fulfilling all requests. The role of the prophets is to convey the divine message, provide moral and spiritual guidance, and establish justice—not to respond to every challenge posed by opponents. In addressing the Prophet, the Qurʾān offers reassurance: وَإِذْ قُلْنَا لَكَ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ أَحَاطَ بِالنَّاسِ. God is fully aware of human conditions. Throughout history, the response to prophetic دعوت has followed a consistent pattern: sincere individuals accept the message, while those characterized by prejudice and stubbornness resort to rejection and hostility. It is further stated: وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الرُّؤْيَا الَّتِي أَرَيْنَاكَ إِلَّا فِتْنَةً لِلنَّاسِ. Similarly, the mention of الشَّجَرَةَ الْمَلْعُونَةَ فِي الْقُرْآنِ also functions as a test. These elements serve as means of trial, distinguishing those who respond with faith from those who persist in rejection. Finally, the verse concludes: وَنُخَوِّفُهُمْ فَمَا يَزِيدُهُمْ إِلَّا طُغْيَانًا كَبِيرًا. Despite repeated warnings delivered in various forms, those whose hearts are not receptive do not benefit; rather, their resistance intensifies. Thus, these verses illustrate a fundamental principle: when the human heart is not prepared to accept truth, even clear evidence fails to guide it. Instead, due to stubbornness and inner corruption, such individuals may respond with increased opposition and deviation.

Among the exegetes, there has been considerable اختلاف regarding the meaning of “رؤیا” in these verses: First, some interpreters maintain that “رؤیا” here does not refer to a dream but rather to an actual visual experience. According to this view, the reference is to the event of Miʿrāj, mentioned at the beginning of this sūrah. On this interpretation, the verse indicates that the experience of Miʿrāj served as a trial for people. When the Prophet recounted this event publicly, it generated significant reaction: opponents mocked it, individuals of weak faith began to doubt, while true believers accepted it without hesitation, recognizing that such matters are entirely within divine power. The principal objection to this interpretation is that the word “رؤیا” is ordinarily used in the sense of a dream, rather than a waking vision. Second, according to a report from Ibn ʿAbbās, “رؤیا” refers to a dream experienced by the Prophet in Madinah during the year of Ḥudaybiyyah (sixth year after Hijrah), in which he saw that the believers would soon enter al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām peacefully and achieve victory over Quraysh. When this did not materialize immediately, some individuals of weak faith were subjected to doubt, although the realization occurred two years later at the conquest of Mecca. An objection to this interpretation, however, is that this sūrah is Makkan, whereas the event of Ḥudaybiyyah occurred later in Madinan life. Third, some Sunni and Shiʿi exegetes relate that the term refers to a well‑known dream in which the Prophet saw monkeys ascending his pulpit. This caused him deep sorrow and, according to reports, after this dream he rarely smiled. These monkeys are interpreted as Banū Umayyah, who would successively occupy positions of authority and, through imitation, misuse the institution associated with the Prophet. This interpretation is mentioned in Tafsīr al‑Kabīr, al‑Qurṭubī’s al‑Jāmiʿ, Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, and other exegetical works. Fayḍ Kāshānī in Tafsīر Ṣāfī notes that this report is widely transmitted. Although these interpretations appear divergent, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive; however, the second interpretation appears less consistent with the Makkan context of the sūrah. As for “الشَّجَرَةَ الْمَلْعُونَةَ”, various interpretations have likewise been proposed: One interpretation identifies it as شجرة الزقوم, the tree of Hell. According to Sūrat al‑Ṣāffāt (64), it grows from the depths of Hell: إِنَّهَا شَجَرَةٌ تَخْرُجُ فِی اَصْلِ الْجَحِیمِ. It serves as the food of sinners and is described as intensely harmful and distressing. The مشرکین mocked this concept, questioning how a tree could grow in fire, and even ridiculed it in their speech. Thus, the Qurʾān presents it as a means of trial: the obstinate mock it, while sincere believers accept it. A second interpretation identifies “الشَّجَرَةَ الْمَلْعُونَةَ” with a rebellious and condemned people, such as certain groups among Banū Isrāʾīl, symbolized as a tree with many branches yet rejected at the divine court. A third interpretation, found in several Sunni and Shiʿi sources, identifies it with Banū Umayyah. This view is supported through certain narrations attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās and others. It is linked to broader Qurʾānic language, such as the notion of “شجرة خبيثة” in Sūrat Ibrāhīm (26), where the term khabītha (impure) is conceptually associated with malʿūna (cursed). These interpretations may, in fact, be understood collectively rather than exclusively. The expression “الشجرة الملعونة” may serve as a general category encompassing all manifestations of فساد, deviation, and rejection of divine guidance. Thus, it may include historical groups characterized by ظلم and corruption, as well as symbolic representations such as شجرة الزقوم, which can be understood as the ultimate manifestation of such فساد in the Hereafter. In this sense, the concept functions as a آزمائش for humanity: different groups respond differently depending on their inner disposition. Those characterized by sincerity accept the truth, whereas those marked by stubbornness and hostility respond with denial, mockery, or distortion.

Some uninformed individuals in our time claim that the Messenger of Islam (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam) possessed no miracle other than the Qurʾān. In support of this assertion, they put forward various arguments and even cite the verse “وَمَا مَنَعَنَا أَنْ نُرْسِلَ بِالْآيَاتِ…” as evidence that, unlike earlier prophets, he did not present any miracle. However, it is noteworthy that while they cite the beginning of the verse, they neglect its concluding part, which states: “وَمَا نُرْسِلُ بِالْآيَاتِ إِلَّا تَخْوِيفًا” — We send signs only as a warning. This formulation indicates that miracles are of two types. One type consists of those signs necessary to establish the truth of the prophetic mission, to strengthen the faith of believers, and to warn the deniers. The second type comprises those arbitrary and self‑selected demands for miracles made by opponents as a pretext. The history of prophecy shows many instances where such demands were met, yet disbelief persisted. Consequently, those communities became deserving of divine punishment because they rejected even after witnessing the requested signs. Accordingly, the verse in question denies only the second category of miracles in relation to the Prophet, not the first. The first category is indispensable for establishing prophethood, and therefore cannot be negated. It is correct that the Qurʾān itself constitutes a clear, enduring, and comprehensive miracle. Even if no other miracle had been presented, its presence alone would suffice to demonstrate the truth of the prophetic claim, especially for those capable of reflection and understanding. However, it is equally evident that the Qurʾān represents a spiritual and intellectual miracle, and for broader segments of society, especially those less inclined toward abstract reflection, the presence of additional perceptible miracles holds particular importance. Moreover, the Qurʾān frequently refers to the miracles of earlier prophets. This naturally raises the question for some: how can the Messenger be regarded as the final and most elevated prophet if he did not demonstrate similar or even lesser miracles? In response to such concerns, historical sources and Qurʾānic indications affirm that the Prophet did manifest various forms of miracles. These include accurate prophecies concerning future events, instances of unseen assistance—such as the support of angels in critical circumstances—and other extraordinary occurrences, particularly those associated with significant events and engagements. Thus, the claim that the Prophet possessed no miracle other than the Qurʾān does not fully reflect the breadth of the tradition. Rather, the Qurʾān stands as the central and enduring miracle, while other signs—appropriate to the context of guidance and proof—were also manifested as part of the prophetic mission.

In the preceding verses, it was stated that earlier communities demanded specific miracles, yet even after their manifestation they rejected them. Therefore, similar demands from the present opponents are not to be accepted. This gives rise to a question: can the rejection of earlier peoples become the cause of deprivation for later generations? The answer becomes clear from what has been explained earlier. It is a common argumentative method that when someone persistently makes pretexts, one may say: “We do not accept your demands,” and if asked why, the response is that similar demands were made previously, yet those who made them did not accept the truth even after witnessing it. Your condition resembles theirs, as your behavior shows that your intention is not genuine inquiry but rather the construction of excuses, followed by obstinacy and denial. Consequently, complying with such demands would produce no positive outcome. For this reason, when the Messenger described that in the depths of Hell there exists a tree possessing certain characteristics, from which the inhabitants of Hell derive their sustenance, the polytheists immediately began to mock the statement. At times they claimed that “zaqqūm” was nothing more than dates and butter, inviting others sarcastically to consume such food in imitation of it. At other times they argued that if Hell is a place where even stones are burned, how could a tree possibly grow within it. However, it was clear that such a tree does not resemble the trees of this world. Their reaction therefore did not arise from intellectual difficulty but from a disposition inclined toward ridicule and rejection.

See ayat 65 for tafseer.

See ayat 65 for tafseer.

See ayat 65 for tafseer.

See ayat 65 for tafseer.

The verses under consideration address the episode of Iblīs’ refusal and disobedience. They describe how God commanded the angels to prostrate before Ādam (ʿalayhi al‑salām), yet Iblīs refused. In addition, they refer to the consequences of this act and mention certain related developments that followed. Previously, the discussion focused on the obstinate مشرکین. The present verses, by referring to Satan, implicitly draw a parallel: Iblīs represents a complete model of arrogance, disbelief, and rebellion. The implication is that those who follow his path will ultimately face a similar outcome. At the same time, these verses indicate that the misguided state of the مشرکین is not surprising, since Satan continually seeks to mislead human beings and carry out the program he had declared—to lead most of the progeny of Ādam astray. It is first stated: وَإِذْ قُلْنَا لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ اسْجُدُوا لِآدَمَ فَسَجَدُوا إِلَّا إِبْلِيسَ — when We said to the angels, “prostrate before Ādam,” they all prostrated except Iblīs. As explained in discussions of the creation of Ādam, this prostration was a form of respect and acknowledgment of his elevated status, or an act of devotion to God in recognition of this unique creation. Although Iblīs is mentioned in the context of the angels, he was not one of them but belonged to the jinn; yet, due to his عبادت, he had been included among them. Iblīs’ refusal arose from arrogance and self‑regard. He considered himself superior because of his origin, believing that fire was superior to clay. Thus, he objected: قَالَ أَأَسْجُدُ لِمَنْ خَلَقْتَ طِينًا — shall I prostrate to one whom You created from clay? When he realized that his arrogance had led to his rejection from the divine presence, he declared: لَأَحْتَنِكَنَّ ذُرِّيَّتَهُ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا — if You grant me respite until the Day of Resurrection, I will certainly mislead his progeny, except a few. The term أحتنکنّ conveys either the meaning of uprooting completely or of placing a controlling restraint, implying that he would attempt to dominate and divert human beings from obedience. God granted him respite, thereby establishing a field of آزمائش for humanity, within which moral growth, steadfastness, and distinction between truth and falsehood become possible. It was then declared: فَمَن تَبِعَكَ مِنْهُمْ فَإِنَّ جَهَنَّمَ جَزَاؤُكُمْ جَزَاءً مَّوْفُورًا — whoever follows you, their recompense will be Hell, a sufficient recompense. The methods employed by Satan are then outlined: وَاسْتَفْزِزْ مَنِ اسْتَطَعْتَ مِنْهُمْ بِصَوْتِكَ — incite them with your voice; وَأَجْلِبْ عَلَيْهِم بِخَيْلِكَ وَرَجِلِكَ — mobilize your mounted and foot soldiers; وَشَارِكْهُمْ فِي الْأَمْوَالِ وَالْأَوْلَادِ — share in their wealth and offspring; وَعِدْهُمْ — and give them promises. However, these promises are devoid of truth: وَمَا يَعِدُهُمُ الشَّيْطَانُ إِلَّا غُرُورًا — Satan promises nothing but deception. Finally, a decisive principle is affirmed: إِنَّ عِبَادِي لَيْسَ لَكَ عَلَيْهِمْ سُلْطَانٌ — indeed, My servants, you have no authority over them. وَكَفَى بِرَبِّكَ وَكِيلًا — and your Lord is sufficient as a guardian. Thus, the passage outlines both the nature of satanic deception and the means of protection: while the forces of misguidance are active and multifaceted, they remain ineffective against those who retain sincerity, awareness, and reliance upon God.

"Istafizz" derives from the root "Istifzaaz," meaning to provoke and incite. It carries the sense of a quick and simple stimulation, but fundamentally, the word means to cut and tear. Hence, when a cloth or garment is torn, the Arabs say: تفزز الثوب (the cloth has been torn). The meaning of being stirred and aroused arises from the cutting away of truth and turning towards falsehood. "Ajlab" from the root "Ajlaab" essentially means a harsh kind of shouting and yelling. "Ajlaab" means to raise noise and clamour by shouting and calling out. Some narrations prohibit "Jalb" (calling out loudly). This means that when a person appointed to collect zakat goes to the pasture to take the lawful due, he should not shout lest the animals become frightened; or it means that in a horse race, no participant should cause a noise in front of the other’s horse so that it may run properly. (Refer to: Mufradat-e-Raghib and Majma' al-Bayan.) "Khail" has two meanings: horses, and horsemen/riders. Here, it has the second meaning, referring to mounted troops or cavalry. In contrast, "Rijl" means foot soldiers or infantry. However, the Satanic mounted and foot troops do not refer to any formal army. But we know that among his own kind and among humans, there are many helpers and associates who spread misguidance and wrongdoing for him. Among these helpers, some are faster and stronger, like cavalry, and others are comparatively slower, like foot soldiers.

In the verses under consideration, although the خطاب is directed toward Satan—where God, in a tone of warning, permits him to employ whatever means he can to mislead the children of Adam—this discourse is, in reality, a clear admonition for all human beings. It serves as an alert, exposing the methods through which satanic influences operate and cautioning humanity against them. It is noteworthy that the verse highlights four fundamental modes through which such deception is carried out, and human beings are warned to remain vigilant regarding each of them: (a) Propaganda as a primary tool: The verse states: وَاسْتَفْزِزْ مَنِ اسْتَطَعْتَ مِنْهُمْ بِصَوْتِكَ — incite whom you can among them with your voice. While some exegetes have restricted this to seductive music or immoral songs, the expression has a much broader meaning. It encompasses all forms of misleading influence exerted through sound and communication. In contemporary terms, this extends to all auditory and audiovisual media through which persuasion, manipulation, and distortion of truth may occur. Thus, it represents the use of communication as an instrument of misguidance. (b) The use of organized force: Another dimension is the mobilization of power in organized forms, expressed in the Qurʾānic language as assembling forces. Historically, coercive power has been a principal instrument employed by those seeking to maintain unjust systems. Whenever there arises a possibility of intellectual or moral independence among people, such forces are deployed to suppress it. This illustrates the structured and strategic dimension of opposition to truth. (c) Economic influence and material entanglement: Another method involves participation in wealth and livelihood. While some interpretations have limited this to specific forms such as interest or illegitimate gain, the broader implication is that economic systems and financial incentives can become channels of influence. Through such means, dependence may be created, priorities may be altered, and ethical boundaries may be compromised. Thus, material engagement becomes a subtle yet powerful avenue for shaping behavior and belief. (d) Psychological influence through persuasion and illusion: A further method lies in the use of enticing promises and psychological manipulation: inciting hopes, creating illusions of success, or, conversely, instilling fear and inferiority. Such strategies aim either to inflate unrealistic expectations or to weaken resolve, thereby diverting individuals from truth and independent judgment. Despite the multiplicity and complexity of these methods, the verses ultimately emphasize that such influences do not possess independent authority over those who remain firmly grounded in ایمان and rely upon God. The concluding principle affirms: وَكَفَىٰ بِرَبِّكَ وَكِيلًا — your Lord is sufficient as a guardian. Thus, the essential message is twofold: On the one hand, there is a detailed exposition of the varied avenues through which deviation may occur. On the other, there is a reaffirmation of divine protection for those who remain conscious, discerning, and committed to truth. In this way, the passage integrates awareness with assurance—warning humanity of خطرات while simultaneously strengthening their confidence in divine guidance and support.

We have already discussed this in detail in the tafseer of Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 36. Similarly, various kinds of satanic whispers and the term Satan have been discussed on page 65 of volume 4 and page 162 of volume 1. (Urdu translation)

See ayat 69 for tafseer.

See ayat 69 for tafseer.

See ayat 69 for tafseer.

As noted earlier, the preceding discussion addressed tawḥīd in relation to shirk, and the present verses continue this discourse. In these verses, the subject is examined from two perspectives: one through rational argument (istidlāl wa burhān) and the other through inner awareness (wijdān wa ḍamīr). First, in reference to rational proof of tawḥīd, it is stated: “رَبُّكُمُ الَّذِی یُزْجِی لَكُمُ الْفُلْكَ فِی الْبَحْرِ”—your Lord is the One who causes ships to sail upon the sea, in a continuous and sustained motion. It is evident that the movement of ships upon seas depends upon a number of interconnected systems. On the one hand, water has been created with particular properties; on the other, certain substances possess a specific density that allows them to remain afloat. Furthermore, objects can be designed in such a way that, practically, their effective weight becomes less than that of water, enabling them to carry heavy loads and numerous passengers. In addition, the force required for movement is also necessary; in earlier times, this role was fulfilled by organized winds, which blow across the seas in a systematic manner. Mariners, through their knowledge of these winds, navigated sailing vessels and determined routes by reference to the sun and stars, and in modern times by means of compasses and maps. If these various elements were not harmonized and interconnected, this essential means of transport would not have been available to humanity. Ships have always been among the most important instruments of human movement and exchange, and in the modern age, large vessels exist that resemble entire cities in scale. It is then stated: “لِتَبْتَغُوا مِنْ فَضْلِهِ”—so that you may seek the bounty of God, whether in facilitating travel, transporting goods, or fulfilling needs in both religious and worldly domains, “إِنَّهُ كَانَ بِكُمْ رَحِيمًا”—for He is merciful toward you. This represents an instance of rational argument for tawḥīd, pointing toward divine knowledge, power, and wisdom through a single aspect of the system of creation. The discourse then shifts toward the dimension of innate recognition: “وَإِذَا مَسَّكُمُ الضُّرُّ فِی الْبَحْرِ ضَلَّ مَنْ تَدْعُونَ إِلَّا إِيَّاهُ”. When hardship befalls you at sea, and you are engulfed by terrifying waves and dangers, those whom you invoke besides God vanish from your consciousness, and only He remains as your support. Such a realization should indeed occur, for in moments of extreme crisis, the veils of imitation and prejudice are lifted from human nature, and the light of innate disposition (fiṭrah) emerges—this is the light of tawḥīd and recognition of the One God. In such circumstances, all imagined deities fade away, dissolving like snow under intense sunlight. This reflects a general principle: in times of severe distress, when life itself is threatened and apparent causes fail, human beings instinctively turn toward a supreme source of knowledge and power capable of resolving the most difficult situations. Regardless of the name attributed to this source, a window of hope opens within the heart, and a subtle yet powerful light encompasses the inner being. This represents one of the closest pathways to awareness of God within the human soul. However, it is further stated: “فَلَمَّا نَجَّاكُمْ إِلَى الْبَرِّ أَعْرَضْتُمْ وَكَانَ الْإِنسَانُ كَفُورًا”—when you are delivered safely to land, you turn away, and the human being is indeed ungrateful. Once again, arrogance, heedlessness, blind imitation, and prejudice veil this divine light, and the dust of sin and attachment to material life obscures its radiant presence. The verses then warn: “أَفَأَمِنتُمْ أَن يَخْسِفَ بِكُمْ جَانِبَ الْبَرِّ”—do you feel secure that He will not cause the earth to swallow you while you are on land? Or that He will not send upon you a storm of stones: “أَوْ يُرْسِلَ عَلَيْكُمْ حَاصِبًا ثُمَّ لَا تَجِدُوا لَكُمْ وَكِيلًا”—leaving you without any protector? Those familiar with desert environments are particularly aware of such devastating sandstorms, in which entire caravans may be buried beneath dunes formed in moments. Finally, the warning is reiterated: “أَمْ أَمِنتُمْ أَن يُعِيدَكُمْ فِيهِ تَارَةً أُخْرَى فَيُرْسِلَ عَلَيْكُمْ قَاصِفًا مِنَ الرِّيحِ فَيُغْرِقَكُمْ بِمَا كَفَرْتُمْ ثُمَّ لَا تَجِدُوا لَكُمْ عَلَيْنَا بِهِ تَبِيعًا”. Do you feel secure that He will not return you to the sea once more and send destructive winds that will drown you because of your disbelief, after which you will find no one to demand accountability on your behalf?

Many people invoke God in times of hardship but forget Him in moments of comfort and ease. Such individuals fail to reflect upon the fundamental realities of life, and as a result, they develop a habitual tendency toward forgetfulness. Consequently, occasions in which they turn toward God and the deeper truths of existence remain exceptional states, requiring intense and extraordinary circumstances. So long as these conditions persist, they remain mindful of God; however, as soon as the crisis subsides, they return to their deviant disposition and once again fall into forgetfulness. In summary, it is rare to find individuals who, in the face of severe and overwhelming difficulties, do not humble themselves before the majestic presence of God. Nevertheless, it is evident that this form of اضطراری awakening and attention holds little intrinsic value. True believers and sincere Muslims are those who remain conscious of God in all conditions—whether in ease or hardship, health or illness, prosperity or scarcity, authority or imprisonment. In every circumstance, they maintain remembrance of Him, and external changes do not alter their inner state. Their spiritual stature is such that all conditions are encompassed within them. An exemplary instance is that of ʿAlī (peace be upon him), whose worship, asceticism, and concern for the needy remained constant whether in positions of authority or in solitude. As he himself describes the attributes of the pious: “نزلت انفسہم منہم فی البلاء کالتی نزلت فی الرخاء” Their souls remain in the same state in hardship as they do in ease (Nahj al‑Balāghah, Sermon 193). In brief, faith, remembrance of God, reliance upon Him, acts of worship, repentance, and submission before Him possess value only when they are continuous and enduring. As for temporary or situational expressions of faith, repentance, and devotion—performed only under compulsion or in response to personal interests—they are of little or no worth. The Qurʾān repeatedly condemns such inconsistent attitudes.

Some people—such as the idolaters of the pre‑Islamic period—would turn toward God only when afflicted by severe difficulties, for example when caught in a storm in the midst of the sea, or confronted with danger in a perilous valley, or stricken by a serious illness. However, upon closer reflection, it becomes evident that at all times and in every situation, the human being is constantly exposed to potential danger. Whether on land or at sea, in health or illness, or in the face of immediate destruction or otherwise, all conditions are fundamentally alike. A minor tremor of an earthquake may suddenly transform a secure dwelling into a devastated ruin; a small clot of blood may block a vital artery; a brief malfunction of the heart or brain may result in death. Attention to such realities makes it clear how irrational it is to remain heedless of God and to forget His sacred presence. Those who maintain that religion is founded upon fear may attempt to present such situations as evidence, arguing that fear of natural phenomena directs human beings toward belief in God. However, Qurʾānic verses refute such misconceptions, for the Qurʾān does not base knowledge of God upon fear. Rather, it establishes this knowledge through reflection upon the order of creation and through reasoning that leads from such reflection to recognition of the Divine. As observed in the verses under discussion, rational reflection (imān istidlālī) is presented prior to the appeal to innate awareness (tawḥīd fiṭrī). The events of distress are therefore described not as the foundation of knowledge of God, but as reminders that bring individuals back to Him. For seekers of truth, recognition of God is already clear both through rational argument and through the innate disposition, which independently reveals the reality of divine unity.

The term “yuzjī”, as noted previously, is derived from the root “izjāʾ”, meaning to set something into continuous motion. “ḥāṣib” refers to a wind that carries along pebbles and stones and forms heaps or dunes from them. This term is derived from “ḥaṣbāʾ”, which means small stones or pebbles. “qāṣif” means something that breaks or shatters; here it refers to a violent storm that destroys and devastates everything in its path. “tabīʿ” means “follower” or “one who pursues.” In this context, it refers to a person who rises to demand retribution for blood or blood‑money and pursues the case accordingly.

See ayat 72 for tafseer.

See ayat 72 for tafseer.

One of the important methods of moral guidance and تربیت is to remind human beings of their dignity and elevated status. The Qurʾān adopts this very method. In the preceding verses, the discussion concerned مشرکین and deviated individuals; in the present verses, attention is directed toward the exalted position of humanity and the divine blessings conferred upon it, so that human beings may recognize their true worth, preserve their noble station, and not degrade themselves for trivial gains. It is thus stated: “وَلَقَدْ کَرَّمْنَا بَنِی آدَمَ”—We have endowed the children of Ādam with honor and dignity. Following this, three categories of divine blessings bestowed upon humankind are mentioned: First, “وَحَمَلْنَاھُمْ فِی الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْر”—We provided them with means of transport on land and sea. This refers to the ability granted to human beings to move, travel, and utilize various modes of transportation for their benefit. Second, “وَرَزَقْنَاھُمْ مِنَ الطَّیِّبَاتِ”—We have provided them with sustenance from pure and wholesome provisions. The term “ṭayyibāt” encompasses all kinds of pure and beneficial resources, and reflection upon its breadth reveals the vast extent of divine نعمت. Third, “وَفَضَّلْنَاھُمْ عَلَیٰ کَثِیرٍ مِمَّنْ خَلَقْنَا تَفْضِیلًا”—We have given them preference over many of those whom We have created. This indicates the elevated rank of human beings among creation, reflecting both their potential and their entrusted responsibility.

It is a point worthy of attention that among the blessings Allah has bestowed upon mankind, the first mentioned is his movement and travel on land and sea. This may be because it is not possible to benefit from nature and various kinds of sustenance without motion and travel, and for this journey across the earth's surface, man needs a means of transportation. It is rightly said that there is blessing in movement. Or it may be that Allah Almighty wishes to describe human sovereignty on this earth. Whether the sea or the desert, human authority exists. The dominion of other beings on this earth is limited and confined to a specific part. It is only man who rules over the entire globe. On land, sea, heights, depths, and in the air, human governance prevails.

The verse under discussion states that God has conferred dignity upon the human being. This statement, however, is presented in a general and implicit manner, and exegetes have offered various interpretations regarding the specific nature of this bestowed honor. Some interpreters have understood it to refer to the faculties of intellect and speech, as well as the diverse capacities and freedom of will granted to human beings. Others consider it to signify the harmonious physical structure and upright stature of the human form. Still others suggest that it alludes to the human hand, particularly the fingers, through which a wide range of delicate and precise actions may be performed, including the ability to write. Some hold that it refers to the human capacity to consume food with one’s own hands, a capability relatively unique among living beings. A further interpretation emphasizes the elevated status of the human being in possessing dominion over all terrestrial entities. Others understand it as an indication of humanity’s ability to attain knowledge of God and to obey His commands. It is, however, evident that all these blessings coexist within the human being and are not mutually exclusive. Thus, the dignity and honor conferred upon this noble creation are based upon the totality of these attributes and other blessings as well. In summary, the human being possesses numerous distinctions over other creatures, each of which is, in its own way, remarkable and significant. Beyond physical distinctions, the human being is endowed with a روح that contains immense potential and possesses great capacities for attaining perfection.

Various interpretations have been proposed in this regard. Some have argued that “کرّمنا” refers to those blessings that God has inherently bestowed upon human beings, whereas “فضّلنا” refers to those virtues that human beings have acquired through divine enablement (tawfīq). Another plausible interpretation is that “کرّمنا” alludes to the material aspects of human dignity, while “فضّلنا” pertains to the spiritual dimensions. This interpretation appears particularly sound, as the term “فضّلنا” is generally employed in the Qurʾān to denote spiritual excellence.

Some exegetes have argued that the verse under discussion serves as evidence for the superiority of the angels over the entirety of the descendants of Ādam. They reason that since the verse states, “We have given them superiority over many of those whom We have created,” it implies that there exists a group over whom human beings are not superior. According to this view, that group can be none other than the angels. However, when one considers the account of the creation of Ādam, the prostration and humility of the angels before him, and the fact that knowledge of the names (ʿilm al‑asmāʾ) was taught to them by Ādam, no room remains for doubt that the human being possesses superiority over the angels. Therefore, the term “کثیر” in this context would effectively carry the meaning of “جمیع”. The eminent exegete al‑Ṭabrisī, in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, observes that in Arabic usage it is quite common for the word “کثیر” to be employed in the sense of “جمیع”. According to him, the meaning of the verse would be: “We have given them superiority over all those whom We have created, and these created beings are numerous.” In support of this usage, the Qurʾān states regarding the devils: “وَأَكْثَرُهُمْ كَاذِبُونَ” (al‑Shuʿarāʾ 223), where it is evident that all of them are liars, not merely the majority. Even if one were to regard this interpretation as contrary to the apparent wording, the verses concerning the creation of humanity themselves provide a clear contextual indication supporting this understanding.

The answer to this question is not complex, for it is evident that the human being is the only entity in which diverse material and spiritual, as well as bodily and intellectual, capacities are combined. It is the human being who is capable of growth amidst opposing tendencies, and who alone possesses the unlimited potential for perfection, development, and progress. A narration attributed to ʿAlī (peace be upon him) further supports this point. He states: God has created creation in three categories: angels, animals, and humans. Angels possess intellect without the faculties of desire and anger; animals are governed by desire and anger without intellect; while the human being is a synthesis of both, so that it may become apparent which faculty prevails. If intellect prevails over desire, the human being becomes superior even to the angels; but if desire prevails over intellect, he becomes lower than the animals (Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 3, p. 188). A further question arises: are all human beings superior to the angels, while many individuals appear immoral, oppressive, and devoid of faith, thus ranking among the lowest of creation? In other words, does the term “بنی آدم” in the verse encompass all human beings, or only a specific group among them? The answer may be expressed succinctly: all human beings are superior in terms of potential and capacity. Every human being possesses this inherent dignity and capability; however, the realization or neglect of this capacity depends upon the individual. If a person fails to actualize it and falls below his true station, this is attributable to his own actions. Although human superiority over other beings is primarily understood in spiritual and moral terms, it is not inappropriate—according to some scholars—to acknowledge certain aspects of physical superiority as well, even if in certain respects humans may appear weak. Alexis Carrel, in Man the Unknown (Insān Mawjūd Nā‑Shenākhtah), observes that the human body possesses extraordinary resilience and adaptability, capable of enduring diverse hardships such as hunger, fatigue, and suffering. He argues that it is through such remarkable physical and intellectual capacities that humanity has achieved its present level of civilization and established its distinction among living beings. In the subsequent verse, another divine blessing is mentioned in connection with the human being, along with the grave responsibility that follows from it. The verse emphasizes the concept of leadership and its decisive role in shaping human destiny: “یَوْمَ نَدْعُو کُلَّ أُنَاسٍ بِإِمَامِهِمْ”—on the Day of Resurrection, every group will be called along with its leader. This implies that those who followed the prophets and their successors will be gathered with them, while those who followed false leaders—such as Shayṭān, misguided authorities, or unjust rulers—will be raised alongside them. Thus, the relationship of leadership and followership established in this world will be fully reflected in the Hereafter, resulting in a clear separation between the people of salvation and the people of punishment. Some exegetes have understood the term “إمام” here in a broad sense, encompassing all forms of guidance—prophetic leadership, righteous imams, scholars, and also misleading leaders associated with disbelief and error. Accordingly, each individual will be aligned with the leader whose path he followed in this world. This expression not only describes the process of ultimate accountability but also serves as a warning, urging human beings to exercise discernment in the selection of their guides and not to entrust their intellectual and moral direction to unworthy leaders. The Qurʾān then describes the division of humanity into two groups: “فَمَنْ أُوتِیَ كِتَابَهُ بِیَمِینِهِ…”—those who receive their record in their right hand will read it with joy and dignity, and will not be wronged even by the smallest measure (فَتِیلًا). In contrast: “وَمَنْ كَانَ فِی هَذِهِ أَعْمَىٰ فَهُوَ فِی الْآخِرَةِ أَعْمَىٰ وَأَضَلُّ سَبِیلًا”. Those who were spiritually blind in this world will remain blind in the Hereafter, and even further astray. Such individuals neither find the path of guidance in this life nor attain felicity in the next, for they have deliberately closed their eyes to truth, avoided reflection upon divine signs, and deprived themselves of the blessings granted by God. Since the Hereafter is a reflection of this world, it is not surprising that such people will appear there in a state corresponding to their inner blindness.

The collective and social life of human beings cannot be separated from the issue of guidance, because to clearly show the true path of any group, there is always a need for a leader and guide. In principle, perfection and the evolution of existence is not possible without a guide. This is the very secret behind the sending and selection of the Prophets and the successors (Awsiya). In the science of beliefs and theology (Ilm al-Aqaid wa Kalam), by also benefiting from the principle of divine grace (Qaidah al-Lutf) and in terms of achieving order in society and protecting it from deviation, the necessity of a guide has been proven in relation to the mission of the Prophets and the Imam who is present in every era. Just as a divine guide and a knowledgeable, righteous person’s guidance makes it easier and faster for a human being to reach the true goal, likewise, accepting the leadership of the Imams of disbelief and misguidance leads a human being into the pit of misery and ruin. There are numerous Islamic hadiths related to the interpretation of this verse available in various sources. Studying them clarifies the meaning of the verse and the objective of Imamat. One hadith has been reported with authentic chains of narration by both Shia and Sunni scholars from Imam Ali ibn Musa al-Ridha (عليه السلام). In it, the Imam, through his forefathers, narrated the interpretation of this verse from the Holy Prophet: "يدعي كل اناس بإمام زمانهم وكتاب ربهم وسنة نبيهم" On that Day, every nation will be called with the Imam of their time, their Divine Book, and the Sunnah of their Prophet. (Reference: Majma' al-Bayan, under the related verse) Also, it is narrated from Imam al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) that he said: "ألا تحمدون الله إذا كان يوم القيامة فدعا كل قوم إلى من يتولونه ودعانا إلى رسول الله وفزعتم إلينا فإلى أين ترون يذهب بكم إلى الجنة ورب الكعبة" (repeated three times) Do you not praise Allah that when the Day of Resurrection comes, God will call every group to the one whose wilayah (leadership) they have accepted; He will call us to the Messenger of Allah, and He will call you to us. Where do you think He will take you? By the Lord of the Kaaba! To Paradise. Then the Imam (عليه السلام) repeated this declaration three times. (Reference: Majma' al-Bayan, under the related verse)

The expression “بنی آدم” in the Qurʾān is generally employed as an honorific designation for human beings, carrying connotations of dignity, respect, and commendation. In contrast, the term “انسان” is, in several instances, associated with descriptions such as “ظلوم”, “جہول”, “ہلوع” (impatient or weak in resolve), “ضعیف”, disobedient, and ungrateful. This distinction suggests that the term “بنی آدم” refers either to cultivated and refined human beings, or at least emphasizes the positive capacities inherent within humanity. The honor and distinction associated with Ādam (peace be upon him), and his superiority over the angels, which is implicitly contained within the expression “بنی آدم”, further supports this interpretation. By contrast, the word “انسان” is used in its general and absolute sense and, at times, serves to highlight the negative aspects or weaknesses of human nature. Accordingly, in the verses under discussion—where the dignity and excellence of the human being are emphasized—the expression “بنی آدم” has been employed.

A famous hadith is narrated from Imam Baqir (عليه السلام). It states that once he (عليه السلام) was discussing the fundamental pillars of Islam. At that time, he designated the fifth pillar as Wilaya (spiritual leadership) and introduced it as the most important pillar, while according to this hadith, Salaat (prayer), which manifests the relationship between the Creator and His creation; Sawm (fasting), which is the secret of resisting desires; Zakat (almsgiving), which expresses a person's social relationship; and Hajj (pilgrimage), which represents the collective aspects of Islam, are the other four fundamental pillars. Later, the Imam (عليه السلام) further said: Nothing holds as much importance as Wilaya (because the fulfillment of the other pillars depends on it). (Explanatory Note: The wording of the hadith is as follows: قال الباقر (ع): بنی الاسلام علیٰ خمس علی الصلوٰة والزکوٰة والصوم والحج والولایة ولم یناد بشیءٍ کما نودی بالولایة (Usul al-Kafi, Vol. 2, p. 15). For this reason, in a famous hadith of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), it is narrated that he said: "من مات بغیر امام مات میتة الجاھلیة" Whoever dies without an Imam dies the death of ignorance. (Reference: Nur al-Thaqalayn, Vol. 3, p. 194, and many other books). History shows many instances where a nation rose to the forefront of the world’s peoples due to great and capable leadership and guidance, and at other times, the same nation, despite possessing the same human resources and means, became weak and degraded because of incompetent and unworthy leaders. Were not the Arabs of the age of ignorance immersed in ignorance, misfortune, sedition and corruption, humiliation and disgrace, and disintegration and decline because they had no capable leader? But when the Divine Leader, Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), appeared, that nation achieved such progress, perfection, and greatness that it astonished the whole world. Yes, this is the effect of leadership—in that time, in this time, and in every time. Indeed, Allah Almighty appoints a leader for the salvation and guidance of humanity in every era because His wisdom requires that the decree of felicity not be issued without a guarantor. However, it is very important that people recognize their leader and do not fall into the trap of misleading, corrupt, and destructive leaders, for then liberation from their grasp becomes difficult. The belief of the Shi‘ahs is that there is an infallible Imam in every era. The philosophy behind this belief is the same, as Imam Ali (عليه السلام) states: اللّٰہم بلیٰ لا تخلوا الارض من قائم للّٰہ بحجة، اما ظاھراً مشہوراً و اما خائفاً مغموراً، لئلا تبطل حجج اللّٰہ و بیّناتہ (O Allah, never let the earth be void of a proof standing for Allah, whether openly manifest or hidden and concealed, lest the proofs and evidences of Allah become invalid.) Indeed! By Allah, the earth is never without such a leader who stands with the proof of Allah, whether apparent or (because of a lack of followers) hidden and solitary. The existence of such a leader is necessary so that the signs of Allah and the proofs of His command do not cease. (Nahj al-Balagha, Short Sayings 147). The concept of Imamat and its indispensable necessity for humanity has also been discussed by us under verse 124 of Surah Al-Baqarah in the first volume.

In the verse under consideration, the Qurʾān employs a highly expressive term in describing the polytheists and wrongdoers, namely “أعمى” (blind). This expression points to the reality that the face of truth is manifest everywhere; however, it requires a seeing eye. Such an eye must be capable of perceiving the signs of God within the vastness of the universe, of deriving lessons from the pages of history, and of observing the ultimate fate of tyrants and oppressors. In essence, there is a need for an open and perceptive vision through which truth may be recognized. However, when thick veils of ignorance, arrogance, prejudice, obstinacy, desire, and passion are drawn over the human intellect, the capacity to perceive is lost. The beauty of truth is not itself concealed, but such an eye becomes incapable of witnessing it. In the interpretation of this verse, a narration from Imām Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (peace be upon him) states: “من لم یدلّه خلق السماوات والارض، واختلاف اللیل والنهار، و دوران الفلک والشمس والقمر والایات العجیبات علی أن وراء ذلک امر اعظم منه، فهو فی الاٰخرة أعمى وأضل سبیلاً.” Whoever is not guided by the creation of the heavens and the earth, the alternation of night and day, the movement of celestial bodies such as the sun and the moon, and these wondrous signs toward a reality greater than them, will be blind in the Hereafter and most severely astray (Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 3, p. 196). In addition, some narratives interpret this verse as referring to a person who possesses the ability to perform ḥajj yet fails to do so throughout his life. However, this represents only one particular instance and does not limit the broader meaning of the verse. It may be that participation in the rites of ḥajj, attendance at this عظیم gathering, and witnessing its profound spiritual and social dimensions contribute to awakening the human perception and enabling recognition of many truths. Other narrations identify the most severe form of blindness as the blindness of the heart: “شرّ العمى عمى القلب”—the worst blindness is the blindness of the heart. In any case, as has been repeatedly emphasized, the Hereafter is a reflection of beliefs and actions in this world. For this reason, Sūrah Ṭāhā (124–126) states: “وَمَنْ اَعْرَضَ عَنْ ذِكْرِی فَاِنَّ لَهُ مَعِيشَةً ضَنْكًا وَنَحْشُرُهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ اَعْمَى قَالَ رَبِّ لِمَ حَشَرْتَنِی اَعْمَى وَقَدْ كُنْتُ بَصِيرًا قَالَ كَذٰلِكَ اَتَتْكَ آيَاتُنَا فَنَسِيتَهَا وَكَذٰلِكَ الْيَوْمَ تُنْسَى” Whoever turns away from My remembrance shall have a constrained life, and We shall raise him blind on the Day of Resurrection. He will say: “My Lord, why have You raised me blind when I was once able to see?” The reply will be: “Thus did Our signs come to you, but you neglected them; and thus today you are neglected.”

See ayat 75 for tafseer.

See ayat 75 for tafseer.

With respect to these debated verses (āyāt), exegetes have transmitted various reports regarding their occasions of revelation (shaʾn al‑nuzūl). Some of these reports do not correspond to the historical context of revelation; however, since certain deviant groups have relied upon them as evidence, they are mentioned for completeness. In this regard, al‑Ṭabrisī records five distinct views in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān: First, it is reported that Quraysh said to the Messenger of God (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam): “We will not allow you to touch the Black Stone unless you show at least some respect toward our deities.” The Prophet is said to have considered that, since he inwardly rejected these idols, merely looking at them outwardly would present no harm. At this point, the verses were revealed, prohibiting such accommodation. Second, it is reported that Quraysh proposed: “Refrain from criticizing our gods, cease calling us ignorant, and distance yourself from these lowly followers whose presence we find unpleasant; then we will attend your assemblies and listen to your message.” Hoping that they might accept Islam, the Prophet is said to have considered compliance in a limited sense, but the verses were revealed, forbidding such a concession. Third, it is narrated that when the Prophet removed idols from al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām, Quraysh requested that an idol near Mount Marwah be left in place. The Prophet initially considered this for strategic purposes but later abandoned the idea and ordered its destruction. The verses were then revealed. Fourth, representatives of the tribe of Thaqīf came to the Prophet proposing three conditions for their allegiance: that they would not perform bowing or prostration in prayer, that they would not destroy their idols themselves, and that the idol Lāt be left for one year. The Prophet rejected these conditions, declaring that a religion without prayer was of no value, and that idol worship could not be tolerated. Despite persistent demands, the verses were revealed, decisively rejecting their proposal. Fifth, another report concerning representatives of Thaqīf states that they requested a one‑year delay during which they would retain the offerings presented to their idols before ultimately accepting Islam. The Prophet considered this proposal but was then prohibited by the revelation of these verses. In addition to these, similar reports have been transmitted. However, careful analysis shows that many of them are inconsistent with the chronological context. The arrival of tribal delegations, the removal of idols, and related events largely occurred after the conquest of Mecca in the eighth year after the Hijrah, whereas this sūrah was revealed in the Makkan period, when the Prophet did not possess the external authority implied in these narratives. Furthermore, the internal inconsistencies within some of these reports themselves indicate their unreliability, and their lack of conformity becomes evident when examined in light of the broader exegetical discussion.

In the preceding verses, the discussion was centered on shirk and the condition of the مشرکین. In the verses under consideration, however, the Messenger of God (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam) is cautioned against being influenced by their insinuations, so that no degree of weakness should arise in the struggle against idolatry. Therefore, it is essential that this struggle be maintained with complete firmness and decisiveness. It is first stated: وَإِنْ كَادُوا لَيَفْتِنُونَكَ عَنِ الَّذِي أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ لِتَفْتَرِي عَلَيْنَا غَيْرَهُ وَإِذًا لَاتَّخَذُوكَ خَلِيلًا — they were close to tempting you away from what We revealed to you, so that you might attribute something else to Us; and in that case, they would have taken you as an intimate associate. The verse indicates that the opponents sought to influence the Prophet’s position, attempting to secure even a minor compromise in the matter of revelation. Their intention was that if such a concession were made, they would outwardly accept him and establish a relationship of apparent closeness, although this would in fact undermine the integrity of the message. The next verse emphasizes: وَلَوْلَا أَنْ ثَبَّتْنَاكَ لَقَدْ كِدْتَ تَرْكَنُ إِلَيْهِمْ شَيْئًا قَلِيلًا — had We not strengthened you, you might have inclined toward them slightly. This expression does not indicate actual inclination but rather highlights the intensity of the pressure and the closeness of the test. It makes clear that divine support (tathbīt) ensured complete steadfastness. This divine stabilization corresponds to what is described as the station of ʿiṣmah, by which the Prophet is preserved from any deviation. Finally, the consequences of such a hypothetical inclination are described: إِذًا لَأَذَقْنَاكَ ضِعْفَ الْحَيَاةِ وَضِعْفَ الْمَمَاتِ ثُمَّ لَا تَجِدُ لَكَ عَلَيْنَا نَصِيرًا — in that case, We would have made you taste a double punishment in life and a double punishment after death, and you would not have found any helper against Us. This conditional formulation does not indicate that such a deviation occurred; rather, it underscores the seriousness of any potential compromise in relation to divine truth. Given the elevated responsibility associated with the prophetic office, any deviation—even in hypothesis—would entail greater accountability. Thus, the verses emphasize the necessity of unwavering commitment to tawḥīd, the impermissibility of compromise in matters of revelation, the role of divine support in ensuring steadfastness, and the proportional relationship between responsibility and accountability.

Some individuals have attempted to use the above-mentioned verses as evidence for their belief that the prophets are not infallible. They argue that these verses, together with the reported occasions of revelation, indicate that the Messenger of God (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam) showed a degree of inclination toward the suggestions of idolaters, and that God immediately reproached him for this. However, these very verses themselves provide such clear and self‑evident evidence against this claim that no additional proof is required to refute it. The second of the verses explicitly states: “وَلَوْلَا اَنْ ثَبَّتْنَاکَ لَقَدْ کِدْتَ تَرْکَنُ اِلَیْھِمْ شَیْئًا قَلِیلًا” — “Had We not strengthened you, you might have inclined toward them slightly.” The implication of this statement is that tathbīt al‑ilāhī (divine strengthening), which may be identified with what is termed the “station of infallibility” (maqām al‑ʿiṣmah), acted as a barrier preventing any such inclination. It does not suggest that the Messenger had already inclined and was then restrained or held accountable; rather, it indicates that divine support prevented even the slightest deviation. The clarification of this matter lies in recognizing that the first and second verses refer to two distinct aspects of the Prophet’s condition. The first reflects the human dimension common to all individuals, namely the potential susceptibility to external pressures and suggestions—especially in circumstances where such inclinations might appear, superficially, to serve beneficial purposes, such as the hope of persuading influential leaders to accept Islam or avoiding conflict and hardship. Such considerations could naturally present themselves to any human being, regardless of strength. The second verse, however, highlights the spiritual dimension—divine protection, infallibility, and God’s special grace bestowed upon the prophets, particularly the Messenger of Islam during moments of intense trial. Thus, while the human aspect allows for the possibility of exposure to such thoughts, divine support ensures that they are neither accepted nor actualized. This expression is analogous to the description given in Sūrah Yūsuf concerning a critical moment: “وَلَقَدْ ھَمَّتْ بِہِ وَھَمَّ بِھَا لَوْلَا اَنْ رَأیٰ بُرْھَانَ رَبِّہِ...” (Yūsuf 24). Here, the presence of divine proof (burhān) prevents any wrongful action, illustrating that what is described is the proximity of a trial, not its وقوع. Accordingly, these verses not only fail to negate the doctrine of infallibility but rather serve as evidence in its favor. The divine strengthening mentioned here is not confined to this single instance but is indicative of a continuous divine support that preserves the prophets from error. As for the third verse, which states that had any inclination occurred, a doubled punishment would have followed, this reinforces the principle that prophetic infallibility is not a matter of compulsion (iḍṭirār), but rather of conscious, deliberate steadfastness grounded in knowledge and faith. Theoretically, the commission of sin remains within the realm of possibility in terms of abstract capacity; however, due to the highest degree of awareness and conviction, the prophets never commit sin in practice. If, hypothetically, such an act were to occur, it would entail accountability, as indicated in the verse. Thus, these verses affirm both the human dimension of the Prophet and the decisive role of divine grace in preserving him from deviation, thereby reinforcing rather than undermining the principle of prophetic infallibility.

It is clear that the higher a person's status is in terms of knowledge, awareness, understanding, faith, and certainty, the deeper and more valuable their righteous deeds will be. Naturally, their reward and recompense will also be greater. This is mentioned in some narrations: إن الثواب على قدر العقل The reward given to a person will be according to the measure of their intellect. (Reference: Usul al-Kafi, Vol. 1, Book "Al-‘Aql wal-Jahl," p. 9, Hadith 8). Punishment and penalty will also be in proportion to this. It is not unexpected for an illiterate person with weak faith to commit major sins; therefore, their punishment will be less. However, if a faithful person, one possessing knowledge with a bright past, commits even a small sin, it will be very surprising, and it is possible that the punishment for that small sin will be more severe and harsh than the punishment for the major sins committed by a common illiterate person. On this basis, the Qur'an says about the wives of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم: يَانِسَاءَ النَّبِیِّ مَنْ یَاْتِ مِنْکُنَّ بِفَاحِشَةٍ مُبَیِّنَةٍ یُضَاعَفْ لَھَا الْعَذَابُ ضِعْفَیْنِ وَکَانَ ذٰلِکَ عَلَی اللهِ یَسِیرًا۔ وَمَنْ یَقْنُتْ مِنْکُنَّ لِلّٰہِ وَرَسُولِہِ وَتَعْمَلْ صَالِحًا نُؤْتِھَا اَجْرَھَا مَرَّتَیْنِ وَاَعْتَدْنَا لَھَا رِزْقًا کَرِیمًا O wives of the Prophet! Whoever among you commits a clear indecency, her punishment will be doubled, and that is easy for Allah. And whoever among you is devoutly obedient to Allah and His Messenger and does righteous deeds, We will give her her reward twice over, and We have prepared for her a generous provision. (Al-Ahzab: 30-31) It is also narrated in the traditions: يغفر للجاهل سبعون ذنبا قبل أن يغفر للعالم ذنب واحد۔ (Reference: Usul al-Kafi, Vol. 1, p. 37) Allah forgives seventy sins of the ignorant before forgiving one sin of the learned. The above verses also indicate this reality; they are addressing the Prophet, saying that if you incline towards the polytheism of the disbelievers, your worldly life and Hereafter punishment will be doubled.

It is also necessary to note that in Arabic usage, the term “ḍaʿf” does not denote only doubling, but can also signify multiplication in a broader sense—ranging from doubling to several times over. The renowned eighth‑century lexicographer al‑Fīrūzābādī, in his work al‑Qāmūs, states that the expression “ḍaʿf shayʾ” may refer to either twofold or threefold increase, as the term itself conveys the meaning of indefinite augmentation. This is supported by Qurʾānic usage. For example, concerning good deeds, it is stated: “اِنْ تَكُ حَسَنَةً یُضَاعِفْهَا”—if a good deed is performed, God multiplies it (al‑Nisāʾ: 40). Elsewhere, it is said: “مَن جَاءَ بِالْحَسَنَةِ فَلَهُ عَشْرُ اَمْثَالِهَا”—whoever brings a good deed shall receive ten times its reward (al‑Anʿām: 160). In Islamic narrations, Imām al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), in his interpretation of Sūrah al‑Baqarah (161), is reported to have said: “اذا احسن المومن عمله ضاعف الله عمله بكل حسنة سبع مائة ضعف، وذلك قول الله والله یضاعف لمن يشاء.” When a believer performs a good action, God multiplies its reward seven hundredfold, and this is the meaning of His saying: “والله یضاعف لمن يشاء”—God multiplies for whomsoever He wills (Tafsīr al‑Mīzān, vol. 2, p. 424; citing Tafsīr al‑ʿAyyāshī). Nevertheless, this does not preclude the fact that when the term appears in the dual form, such as “ḍaʿfān” or “ḍaʿfayn”, it denotes a twofold increase. Similarly, when used in certain construct forms (iḍāfah), it may specifically indicate a limited multiple, such as threefold, depending upon the linguistic context.

Among the commentators, this meaning is well-known: "If you were inclined towards the desires of the polytheists, they would have considered you a friend." However, some have suggested the possibility that this sentence means: "If you were inclined towards the desires of the polytheists, they would have considered you poor and dependent on them." In the first case, "خلیل" (khalil) is derived from "خلہ" (in some dialects "قلہ") meaning friend. In the second case, "خلیل" (khalil) comes from "خلہ" (in some dialects "غَله") meaning dependent or poor. But it is clear that the correct interpretation is the first one.

It is reported in Islamic sources that when the verses under discussion were revealed, the Prophet (peace be upon him) supplicated before the Divine Presence: “اللهم لا تكلنی الى نفسی طرفة عین ابداً” O God, do not leave me to myself even for the blink of an eye. This deeply meaningful supplication conveys a profound lesson for all. It teaches that one must seek refuge in God in every circumstance and rely upon His grace and mercy. Even the infallible prophets, without divine assistance, would not remain safeguarded from error—let alone ordinary individuals, who are constantly exposed to satanic whisperings.

See ayat 77 for tafseer.

It is reported that the verses under discussion were revealed concerning the people of Mecca. They had conspired among themselves to expel the Prophet (peace be upon him) from Mecca. Later, however, their plan changed, and they resolved to kill him. They surrounded his house, yet he emerged from this siege in a miraculous manner and set out toward Medina. From this point, his Hijrah began. Some have suggested that these verses were revealed regarding the Jews of Medina, who devised a plan to expel him from that city. According to this narrative, they approached him and said: this land is not the land of prophets; rather, the region of the prophets is Syria. If you wish for your mission to flourish, you should go there. However, considering that this sūrah is Makkan, the second interpretation does not appear sound. Moreover, as will be evident from the exegesis, the wording of the verses themselves does not correspond to that reported context of revelation.

In the preceding verses, it was observed that the polytheists sought, through various insinuations, to influence the Prophet (peace be upon him) and divert him from the straight path. However, divine grace supported the Noble Prophet, and the schemes of the polytheists were rendered ineffective. Following this, the verses under discussion indicate that they devised a further plan to undermine his mission. According to this scheme, they intended to exile him from his birthplace to a remote, desolate, and inactive region. This plan, too, was thwarted by divine assistance. In the first of these verses, it is stated: “وَاِنْ كَادُوا لَيَسْتَفِزُّونَكَ مِنَ الْاَرْضِ لِيُخْرِجُوكَ مِنْهَا”—they were close to driving you out of the land through a calculated strategy. The term “يستفزون”, derived from “استفزاز”, may denote uprooting, or urging someone with speed and skill toward a particular action. Attention to these meanings indicates that the polytheists had devised a deliberate and calculated plan: either to create such conditions that the Prophet would no longer be able to endure them, or to incite the uninformed masses to the extent that they would force him out of Mecca. Yet they failed to recognize that the power of God, exalted beyond their comprehension, surpasses their own strength, rendering them utterly incapable before His will. The Qurʾān then warns them: if they had succeeded in such an action, they would not have remained long afterward—“وَاِذًا لَا يَلْبَثُونَ خِلَافَكَ اِلَّا قَلِيلًا”. They would soon have been destroyed, for it constitutes a grave offense for a people to expel their compassionate and salvific guide from their land, thereby displaying ingratitude toward the greatest divine blessing. A people who act in such a manner forfeit the right to continue, and the destructive punishment of God inevitably befalls them. This principle is not limited to the Arab polytheists; rather, it reflects a universal divine pattern: “سُنَّةَ مَنْ قَدْ اَرْسَلْنَا قَبْلَكَ مِنْ رُسُلِنَا وَلَا تَجِدُ لِسُنَّتِنَا تَحْوِيلًا”. Such has been the established practice concerning the messengers sent before you, and no change will be found in this divine order. The foundation of this divine practice rests upon a clear rationale: a community that extinguishes its own source of guidance, forfeits the very means of its salvation, and afflicts the one who seeks to heal its deepest afflictions cannot be considered worthy of divine mercy. Consequently, such a people inevitably becomes subject to punishment. It is well understood that divine justice does not operate upon discrimination or inconsistency. The same actions under similar conditions entail the same outcomes. This constancy constitutes the unchanging nature of divine law. In contrast, human systems of conduct are often subject to change in accordance with shifting interests and circumstances. What is deemed beneficial at one moment may be abandoned the next, and standards may fluctuate even within a single context. Human conventions may change due to ignorance, which is later corrected through the passage of time, or due to changing interests and conditions, or as a result of self‑interest. However, such factors have no relevance to the divine order. The divine practices established by God, grounded in perfect wisdom, remain consistent and unaltered across all circumstances.

See ayat 81 for tafseer.

See ayat 81 for tafseer.

See ayat 81 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, the discussion centered on tawḥīd and shirk, including reference to the conspiracies and insinuations of the polytheists. In the verses under consideration, however, attention is directed toward prayer, orientation toward God, devotion, and humble supplication. These elements serve as effective means in confronting shirk and as instruments for removing all forms of satanic insinuation from the human heart and soul. Indeed, it is prayer that reminds the human being of God, purifies the heart and spirit from the pollution of sin, and dispels satanic whispers. It is first stated: أَقِمِ الصَّلَاةَ لِدُلُوكِ الشَّمْسِ إِلَى غَسَقِ اللَّيْلِ وَقُرْآنَ الْفَجْرِ إِنَّ قُرْآنَ الْفَجْرِ كَانَ مَشْهُودًا — establish the prayer from the decline of the sun until the darkness of night, and the recitation at dawn; indeed, the recitation of dawn is witnessed. The expression دُلُوكِ الشَّمْسِ refers to the decline of the sun from the meridian, which marks the time of the noon prayer. Based on transmitted reports, it has been interpreted as the moment of solar decline. A narration from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq explains that God has prescribed four prayers beginning from the time of solar decline until midnight (Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿah, jild 3, p. 115). Another narration from Imām Muḥammad al‑Bāqir clarifies that غَسَقِ اللَّيْلِ refers to midnight, encompassing four obligatory prayers, while قُرْآنَ الْفَجْرِ refers to the morning prayer (Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, jild 3, p. 205). Thus, this verse provides a general indication of the five daily prayers, the detailed timings of which are elaborated in the Prophetic tradition. Certain verses refer to individual prayers (e.g., الصَّلَاةِ الْوُسْطَى), while others mention multiple prayers collectively, and this verse offers a general framework. The phrase إِنَّ قُرْآنَ الْفَجْرِ كَانَ مَشْهُودًا indicates that the dawn prayer is “witnessed.” According to transmitted reports, it is observed by both the angels of the night and the angels of the day, who exchange duties at that time (as cited in Tafsīr Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī, jild 15, p. 126). This suggests that the earliest moments of dawn constitute the most virtuous time for performing this prayer. After mentioning the obligatory prayers, the verse adds: وَمِنَ اللَّيْلِ فَتَهَجَّدْ بِهِ — and during a part of the night, remain awake and recite it. This is understood as a reference to ṣalāt al‑tahajjud (night prayer). It is further stated: نَافِلَةً لَّكَ — as an additional duty for you. Many scholars interpret this as indicating that the night prayer was specifically obligatory for the Prophet, as an additional obligation beyond the prescribed daily prayers. The outcome of this spiritual and devotional practice is then described: عَسَىٰ أَنْ يَبْعَثَكَ رَبُّكَ مَقَامًا مَّحْمُودًا — it may be that your Lord will raise you to a مقام محمود. This is understood in Islamic tradition as maqām al‑shafāʿah al‑kubrā, the station of supreme intercession. The following verse directs toward a fundamental principle: وَقُل رَّبِّ أَدْخِلْنِي مُدْخَلَ صِدْقٍ وَأَخْرِجْنِي مُخْرَجَ صِدْقٍ — say: my Lord, cause me to enter with truth and to depart with truth. This expresses a comprehensive principle: that all actions should begin and conclude with truthfulness, sincerity, and integrity. The success of all endeavors lies in adherence to truth at both the beginning and the end. It is then said: وَاجْعَل لِّي مِن لَّدُنكَ سُلْطَانًا نَّصِيرًا — grant me from Yourself a supporting authority. This reflects the recognition that human effort alone is insufficient; divine assistance is essential for overcoming challenges and achieving success. Finally, the passage concludes with a decisive affirmation: وَقُلْ جَاءَ الْحَقُّ وَزَهَقَ الْبَاطِلُ إِنَّ الْبَاطِلَ كَانَ زَهُوقًا — say: truth has come, and falsehood has vanished; indeed, falsehood is destined to perish. Although falsehood may appear powerful, it lacks permanence. Ultimately, truth and those who uphold it will prevail.

During the day, continuous noise and activity attract human attention in multiple ways and disperse thought in various directions. In such circumstances, concentration and inner presence become difficult. However, in the stillness of the night—particularly at dawn—when the tumult of material life subsides, and after some rest has restored the body and spirit, a person experiences a unique state of vitality and focused awareness. In this environment, free from ostentation and self‑display, and characterized by inner presence, a condition arises that is deeply nurturing for the spirit and conducive to perfection. For this reason, the friends of God and those devoted to Him have always drawn strength from worship during the latter part of the night for the purification of the soul, the revival of the heart, the strengthening of resolve, and the attainment of sincerity. At the beginning of Islam, the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam) made use of this spiritual method to train his companions and elevate their character to such a degree that they appeared transformed into entirely new individuals—firm in resolve, courageous, faithful, pure, and sincere. It is possible that the “مقامًا مَّحْمُودًا” mentioned in the verse as a result of night prayer alludes to this profound transformation. Numerous traditions emphasize the excellence of ṣalāt al‑tahajjud. For example: 1. The Prophet (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam) said: “خیركم من اطاب الکلام واطعم الطعام وصلی باللیل والناس نیام”—the best among you is the one who speaks gently and purely, feeds the hungry, and performs prayer at night while others sleep (Biḥār al‑Anwār, jild 87, pp. 142–148). 2. ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ʿalayhi al‑salām) stated: night worship brings health to the body, divine pleasure, divine mercy, and aligns one with the character of the prophets (Biḥār al‑Anwār, jild 87, pp. 142–148). 3. Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām) said: do not abandon night prayer, for the one deprived of it is indeed deprived (ibid.). 4. The Prophet stated: “من صلی باللیل حسن وجھہ بالنھار”—whoever performs night prayer will have a radiant appearance during the day (ibid.). 5. A person once complained to ʿAlī (ʿalayhi al‑salām) of being deprived of night prayer; he replied: your sins have restrained you (ibid.). 6. Imām al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām) narrated that a person may commit a lie that deprives him of night prayer, and deprivation from night prayer in turn leads to deprivation from provision (ibid.). 7. The Prophet instructed ʿAlī (ʿalayhi al‑salām): “وعلیک بالصلٰوة اللیل، وعلیک بالصلٰوة اللیل، وعلیک بالصلٰوة اللیل”—upon you is the night prayer (Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿah, jild 5, p. 268). 8. In a report from Jibrāʾīl, the Prophet was advised: live as long as you will, for you will die; love whom you will, for you will part; act as you will, for you will meet your deeds; and know that the honor of a believer lies in night prayer and his dignity lies in refraining from harming others (Wasāʾil al‑Shīʿah, jild 5, p. 269). 9. Imām al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām) stated that three things constitute the honor and adornment of a believer: prayer in the final part of the night, independence from what is in the hands of others, and allegiance to the rightful Imām from the family of Muḥammad. 10. Another narration states that while rewards for all good deeds are mentioned explicitly in the Qurʾān, the reward for night prayer is not specified due to its عظمت; instead, it is referred to in general terms: تَتَجَافَىٰ جُنُوبُهُمْ عَنِ الْمَضَاجِعِ… فَلَا تَعْلَمُ نَفْسٌ مَا أُخْفِيَ لَهُمْ… (al‑Sajdah 16–17) (Biḥār al‑Anwār, jild 87, p. 140). As for its practical form, ṣalāt al‑tahajjud consists of eleven units: eight units performed in sets of two (nafl al‑layl), followed by two units known as nafl al‑shafʿ, and one unit known as nafl al‑witr. It is performed similarly to the morning prayer, without adhān and iqāmah, and it is recommended that the supplication (qunūt) in the witr prayer be prolonged as much as possible.

As the words indicate, "Maqam-e-Mahmood" (the Praiseworthy Station) has a broad meaning. It includes every position worthy of praise and commendation, but it is agreed that here it points to such an eminent and exalted status attained by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family) through night worship, pre-dawn sighing, and midnight supplication. Among the commentators, it is well-known, and we have stated earlier, that this is the station of the great intercession for him. Numerous narrations also describe this interpretation. In Tafsir Ayyashi, it is mentioned that Imam Muhammad Baqir (peace be upon him) or Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him) said regarding the verse "عسی ان یبعثك ربك مقامًا محمودًا" (Perhaps your Lord will raise you to a praiseworthy station): "It is the intercession." This is the intercession itself. Some commentators have tried to derive this reality directly from the meaning of the verse. They hold that "عسی ان یبعثك" (perhaps your Lord will raise you) is evidence that this is a position that God will grant you which will lead everyone to praise, because all will benefit from it (since the word "محمود" is used in an absolute sense here within the sentence under discussion, with no limitation or condition). Furthermore, praise and commendation are acts of free will, and apart from the general station of intercession of the Messenger of Allah, there is nothing that possesses the qualities of praise and commendation. (Reference: Al-Mizan, vol. Q, p. 178). It is also possible that Maqam-e-Mahmood refers to the utmost nearness to the Lord, one of whose manifestations is intercession. (Consider this carefully.) Though the apparent address in this verse is to the Messenger of Allah, this command can be taken in a generalized sense, and it can be said that all the faithful who perform the divine spiritual work of night recitation and night prayer will share a portion of "Maqam-e-Mahmood," and according to the measure of their faith and actions, they will attain access to the court of divine proximity. Accordingly, they will be intercessors and helpers for those who have gone astray; for we know that every believer, according to the radiance of their faith, will be associated with a station of intercession. However, the most complete and perfect embodiment of this verse is the noble person of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family).

In the struggles between truth and falsehood, the forces aligned with falsehood are often superior in terms of numbers and material resources; yet, despite their limited numbers and means, the forces of truth frequently achieve remarkable success. Battles such as Badr, Aḥzāb, and Ḥunayn illustrate this reality. Even in the contemporary period, it has been observed that oppressed groups (mustadʿafūn) have attained success in their struggles against powerful adversaries. This outcome is due to the distinctive spiritual قوة possessed by the supporters of truth. It is this قوة that transforms an individual into a complete community. The verses under consideration identify three essential factors of success. The contemporary condition of Muslims reflects a considerable distancing from these principles, which explains their recurring defeats in the face of dominant adversaries. These three factors are as follows: First and second, entering into actions with truth and sincerity and emerging from them with the same commitment, while maintaining this attitude consistently: رَبِّ أَدْخِلْنِی مُدْخَلَ صِدْقٍ وَأَخْرِجْنِی مُخْرَجَ صِدْقٍ Third, reliance upon divine power, coupled with self‑confidence and freedom from dependence on others: وَاجْعَل لِّی مِن لَّدُنكَ سُلْطَانًا نَّصِیرًا Accordingly, no approach to success is more effective than a policy grounded in truthfulness, and no support is superior to independence, freedom from reliance upon others, and trust in God (tawakkul ʿalā Allāh). One may ask how a community can achieve success against adversaries who have deprived it of its resources, while at the same time remaining dependent upon those very adversaries in military, economic, and political terms. Weapons acquired from an opponent cannot provide the means for overcoming that opponent. Such an assumption reflects a fundamentally flawed and unrealistic mode of thought.

In the preceding verses, a fundamental and universal principle, along with a permanent divine law, is articulated. This principle is deeply inspiring for all adherents of truth: namely, that ultimately truth will prevail, and falsehood is destined for annihilation. Falsehood may display power and wealth; it may exhibit grandeur, noise, and force. It may appear formidable, thunderous, and imposing, but its duration is brief, and in the end it is inevitably destroyed. In Qurʾānic terms, falsehood is likened to foam upon the surface of water—it appears momentarily, creates disturbance and agitation, but soon disappears, while the water itself, which is the source of life, remains. As it is stated: فَاَمَّا الزَّبَدُ فَيَذْهَبُ جُفَاءً وَاَمَّا مَا يَنفَعُ النَّاسَ فَيَمْكُثُ فِي الْاَرْضِ (al‑Raʿd 17) The very concept of bāṭil implies its transitory nature. It refers to that which is not in harmony with the laws of creation and has no true basis in reality. Its existence is artificial, deceptive, rootless, and void of substance. Being internally hollow, it cannot endure. In contrast, ḥaqq is identical with reality. It is founded upon truth and correctness, possesses a firm basis, and is characterized by depth and coherence. It is aligned with the order of creation, and therefore its استمرار is inherent. The followers of truth are equipped with the power of faith. They adhere to principles of fidelity, truthfulness in speech, self‑sacrifice, and unwavering commitment. They are prepared to persevere even to the point of self‑offering. Their hearts are illuminated with knowledge and awareness. They fear none but God and rely upon none but Him. This constitutes the essential secret of their ultimate success.

In some traditions, the phrase "جاء الحق وزھق الباطل" has been interpreted with reference to the rise of Prophet Mahdi (peace be upon him). Imam Baqir (peace be upon him) said: The meaning of this statement of God is that: اذا قام القائم ذھبت دولة الباطل۔ When the Qa’im (the one who rises) stands, the rule of falsehood will disappear. At the time when Imam Qa’im will rise, the government of falsehood will come to an end. (Reference: Noor al-Thaqalayn, Vol. 3, pp. 112-113). In another tradition, when Imam Mahdi was born, it was inscribed on his arm: ”جاء الحق وزھق الباطل ان الباطل کان زھوقا“. (Same reference) It is understood that these hadiths do not mean that the meaning of the verse is restricted to only one specific instance; rather, they indicate that the rise of Mahdi is among the clearest manifestations of this verse when the truth will ultimately attain final victory over falsehood throughout the entire world. Regarding the circumstances of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), on the day of the conquest of Makkah, you entered Masjid al-Haram where the Arab tribes had placed 360 idols around the Kaaba. You struck each one down one after another with your blessed staff, continuously reciting: جاء الحق وزھق الباطل ان الباطل کان زھوقا The truth has come and falsehood has vanished; indeed, falsehood is bound to vanish. In brief, this is a universal law of God and an unchanging principle of creation. In every era, it has its own manifestation. The victory of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) over the armies of polytheism and idolatry is a clear example of this law, and similarly, the uprising of Mahdi (peace be upon him) (may our souls be sacrificed for him) against global oppressors and tyrants is another shining manifestation. Likewise, it is a divine law that He grants the followers of the path of truth hope and steadfastness in difficulties, and bestows upon us enthusiasm and strength in our efforts for Islam.

In the preceding verses, the discussion focused on tawḥīd and truth, as well as the struggle against shirk and falsehood. In the verse under consideration, attention is drawn to the profound effectiveness and constructive influence of the Qurʾān. It is stated: وَنُنَزِّلُ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ مَا هُوَ شِفَاءٌ وَرَحْمَةٌ لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ — We send down from the Qurʾān that which is a healing and a mercy for the believers. However, as is their consistent pattern, the ظالم do not benefit from this means of guidance; rather, it results only in an increase in their loss: وَلَا يَزِيدُ الظَّالِمِينَ إِلَّا خَسَارًا.

We know that the particle “مِن” in such contexts is commonly used in the sense of partitivity. However, since the characteristic of being a source of shifāʾ and raḥmah is not confined to a specific portion of the Qurʾān—rather, it constitutes an intrinsic and comprehensive quality of all its verses—prominent exegetes have interpreted “مِن” here not as partitive but as explanatory (bayāniyyah). At the same time, some have suggested that even if “مِن” is understood in its partitive sense, it may refer to the gradual revelation of the Qurʾān (particularly in view of the use of the imperfect verb “نُنَزِّلُ”). On this interpretation, the meaning of the statement would be approximately as follows: We send down the Qurʾān, and whatever portion of it is revealed, it itself serves as a source of healing and mercy.

We know that healing generally occurs in response to diseases, defects, and deficiencies. Therefore, the primary function of the Qur’an for humans is to cleanse the individual and society from all kinds of intellectual and moral ailments. After that comes the stage of "mercy." This is essentially the stage of shaping human ethics into the mold of divine ethics. At this stage, the Qur’an grafts the blossoms of the highest human virtues into the human being. In other words, "healing" points towards purification, and "mercy" points towards reconstruction. Or, in the terminology of philosophers and mystics, it refers first to the stage of "Takhliyah" (emptying) and then to the stage of "Tahliyah" (filling).

In numerous Qurʾānic verses, it is observed that the opponents of truth, instead of illuminating their hearts and souls through the light of divine revelation and thereby diminishing their inner darkness, derive the opposite effect. The verses increase only in their ignorance and misery. This is because disbelief (kufr), ظلم, and hypocrisy reshape and transform their inner conscience. As a result, whenever they encounter the light of truth, they rise to oppose it. Their struggle against truth merely intensifies their moral corruption and impurity, strengthening their tendency toward rebellion and defiance. An illuminating analogy may be drawn: if nourishing food is given to a learned and striving individual, it provides strength for knowledge, discipline, and effort in the path of God. However, if the same nourishment is given to a ظالم, it may instead strengthen him in oppression and wrongdoing. The difference lies not in the food itself, but in the temperament and disposition of the recipient. In a similar way, Qurʾānic verses resemble rainwater: in fertile land they produce flowers and vegetation, while on barren land they produce only weeds and thorns. Therefore, benefiting from the Qurʾān requires prior readiness and receptivity. There must be a capacity for acceptance. In technical terms, alongside the effectiveness of the agent (fāʿil), the receptivity of the subject (qābil) is also necessary. From this discussion, the answer also becomes clear to the question: why does the Qurʾān, despite being a source of guidance, not guide certain individuals? The Qurʾān undoubtedly serves as guidance even for the misguided, but on the condition that they are genuinely seekers of truth. Such individuals approach the Qurʾān with the intention of understanding and employ their intellect and reflection to grasp its message. By contrast, those who are obstinate, prejudiced, and determined in their opposition approach the Qurʾān in a completely negative state. It is evident that in such a condition they cannot benefit from it; rather, their hostility and disbelief may increase, as repeated wrongful action deepens and reinforces these tendencies within the human soul.

There is no doubt that a person's spiritual and moral illnesses closely resemble their physical diseases. Both types of ailments are enemies of human beings and both require physicians, treatment, and caution. Both kinds of diseases can be transmitted from one to the other. One must know the fundamental cause of both and, by identifying their root, provide treatment. Sometimes, both types of diseases reach a stage where the person becomes incurable; however, in most cases, they are treatable. This is a striking, excellent, and meaningful simile. Yes! The Quran is a life-giving prescription. For those who rise up in struggle against ignorance, arrogance, envy, and hypocrisy. Yes! The Quran is a healing medicine. For the cure of humiliation, backwardness, disunity, and baseless dangers. Yes! The Quran is a healing treatment. For those who are immersed in the love of the world, who are engulfed in materialism, and who have become powerless before desires. Yes! The Quran is a soothing, healing prescription. For this world, where the fire of wars is blazing on every side, where the weight of weaponry has bowed its back, where the greatest economic and human capital is trampled under the feet of the monsters of war and armaments. Yes! The Quran is a healing prescription. For those whose desires and dark veils of lust have become barriers on the path to nearness to Allah. In Surah Yunus, verse 57, it is stated: قَدْ جَائَتْکُمْ مَوْعِظَةٌ مِنْ رَبِّکُمْ وَشِفَاءٌ لِمَا فِی الصُّدُورِ This Quran has come to you as advice from your Lord and as healing for what is in the breasts. In Surah Fussilat, verse 44, it is also mentioned: قُلْ ھُوَ لِلَّذِینَ آمَنُوا ھُدًی وَشِفَاءٌ Say, "It is for those who believe a guidance and healing." Tell these black-hearted infidels that this Quran is a source of guidance and healing for the believers. Hazrat Ali (peace be upon him) beautifully expressed this reality in one of his sermons in Nahj al-Balagha: فاستشفوہ من ادوائکم واستعینوا بہ علی لاوائکم۔ فان فیہ شفاء من اکبر الداء۔ وھو الکفر والنفاق والغی والضلال۔ Seek healing from this book for your diseases and seek help through it for your difficulties, for in it is healing from the greatest illness, which is disbelief, hypocrisy, falsehood, and misguidance. (Reference: Nahj al-Balagha, Sermon 176) Another statement about the Quran attributed to Hazrat Ali (peace be upon him) is: الا انّ فیہ علم ما یاتی والحدیث عن الماضی و دواء دائکم و نظم ما بینکم۔ Know that in it is knowledge of what will come, accounts of the past, the remedy for your ailment, and the regulation of your mutual affairs. (Reference: Nahj al-Balagha, Sermon 158) On another occasion, the same revered Imam (peace be upon him) said: وعلیکم بکتاب اللّٰہ فانه الجبل المتین والنور المبین والشفاء النافع۔ والرای الناقع۔ والعصمة للمتمسک والنجاة للمتعلق۔ لایعوج فیقام۔ ولا یزیغ فستعتب۔ ولاتخلقة کثرة الرد و ولوج السمع۔ من قال بہ صدق ومن وعمل بہ سبق۔ Hold firmly to the Book of Allah for it is the solid mountain, the clear light, the beneficial healing, the sharp opinion, the protection for those who grasp it, and salvation for those attached to it. It does not bend to be made straight, nor does it stray requiring admonition. It does not become old due to frequent repetition, nor do the ears tire of hearing it. Whoever speaks by it speaks truthfully, and whoever acts by it takes the lead over others. (Reference: Nahj al-Balagha, Sermon 156) These powerful and clear statements, whose examples are abundant in the teachings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his progeny), Hazrat Ali (peace be upon him), and other Imams of Guidance (peace be upon them), firmly establish that the Quran is such a remedy through which all miseries can be removed. It has come to deliver the individual and society from all kinds of moral and social diseases. The best proof of this reality is the comparison between the pre-Islamic Arabs of the Jahiliyyah era and the followers trained under the school of Prophethood in early Islam. We have seen that the bloodthirsty, ignorant, and foolish tribe, laden with all kinds of social and moral ailments, was treated with this healing prescription; not only was it cured, but it rose to such power that global tyrants and superpowers bowed before them. This is the reality that contemporary Muslims have forgotten, which is why they remain engulfed in the current troubling conditions, of which we are witnesses. Today, Muslims are victims of division and discord. Global predatory powers have taken control over their resources and wealth. Their destinies are decided by others. Their links with outsiders and lack of independence have led them to weakness, decline, and humiliation. Those who possess the healing prescription in their homes should not seek treatment from such people as...They stretched out their hands more than those who were sicker than them. Their end used to be the same. The Quran not only heals but also strengthens them during the convalescent period after recovery through various messages because the Quran is "healing" and "mercy." It is noteworthy that medicines for physical diseases generally leave undesirable effects on the organs of the body. Even a famous Hadith states: "ما من دواء الا ویھیج داء" There is no medicine that does not cause another disease. (Reference: Safinat al-Bihar) But the Quran is the healing medicine that does not produce any undesirable effect on the human soul, thought, heart, or vision. On the contrary, it is all goodness and blessings. There is an expression in Nahj al-Balagha: "شفاء لاتخشی اسقامہ" The Quran is such a healing medicine from which no disease arises. (Reference: Nahj al-Balagha, Sermon 198) If we commit to practicing this healing prescription even for a month and observe this commitment; if we adopt its commands in knowledge and awareness, justice and fairness, piety and abstinence, unity and sincerity, and self-sacrifice and bravery, then we will see our miseries turn into happiness. It is also necessary to mention that this prescription, like other prescriptions, can be effective only when practiced; otherwise, no matter how many times we read the best healing prescription, place it on our heads, touch it with our eyes, and kiss it, if we do not act upon it, we will gain no benefit from it.

See ayat 84 for tafseer.

The verses under consideration point to a profound moral condition present in unrefined human character. It is stated: وَإِذَا أَنْعَمْنَا عَلَى الْإِنسَانِ أَعْرَضَ وَنَأَىٰ بِجَانِبِهِ — when We bestow a blessing upon the human being, he turns away and distances himself in arrogance. But when he is touched by hardship, even in a minor form, he falls into intense despair: وَإِذَا مَسَّهُ الشَّرُّ كَانَ يَئُوسًا. The term “أعرض” signifies turning away, here referring to turning away from God and truth. The expression “نَأَىٰ بِجَانِبِهِ” denotes distancing oneself, conveying a state of pride, arrogance, and aversion. Together, these expressions reveal that individuals of weak or absent faith, when blessed with prosperity, become so self‑satisfied and arrogant that they not only forget the source of their نعمت but also disregard it altogether and distance themselves in a state of self‑importance. Conversely, when faced with even a slight adversity, they lose composure, become mentally unsettled, and are overwhelmed by despair. The subsequent verse addresses the Messenger: قُلْ كُلٌّ يَعْمَلُ عَلَىٰ شَاكِلَتِهِ — say: each person acts according to his own shākilah (disposition, character, or habitual inclination). Thus, believers derive healing and mercy from the Qurʾān, while the unjust derive only loss. Similarly, those who are granted blessings become arrogant, and those afflicted by hardship become despairing—each acting in accordance with their internal disposition. This disposition is not accidental but develops through repeated actions and habits over time. The verse concludes: فَرَبُّكُمْ أَعْلَمُ بِمَنْ هُوَ أَهْدَىٰ سَبِيلًا — your Lord knows best who is most rightly guided. This indicates that God possesses complete knowledge of the inner states of individuals and is fully aware of those whose disposition aligns them more closely with guidance.

It is a familiar observation that individuals often say, or one hears it said of others, that a person has ceased to remain a servant of God once he has attained wealth. It is also frequently witnessed that when individuals suddenly acquire prosperity they forget God, yet when that prosperity is taken away or when they fall into difficulty, they become so disturbed and despondent that it is difficult to believe that they are the same persons they were before. Indeed, this is the condition of all those who are intellectually limited, lacking in faith, and weak in character. In contrast, the friends of God and the righteous respond to adversity by rising to confront it. In the face of divine command, their state is characterized by humility and submission. If the entire world were granted to them, they would not lose balance, and even if all were taken away, their composure would remain unaffected. It is noteworthy that those who are inwardly unstable and weak often turn toward God in times of hardship; their innate disposition (fiṭrah) becomes awakened, and they return to themselves. However, as soon as the difficulty subsides, they revert to their previous condition, behaving as though they had never known God. The Qurʾān has repeatedly described this state in various places (e.g., Yūnus 12; Luqmān 32; al‑Fajr 14–15; Ḥā Mīm al‑Sajdah 48–49). This constitutes a profound deficiency, for it prevents the individual from attaining stability and a true position in life. The only remedy for this condition lies in elevating one’s intellectual and spiritual level through knowledge and faith, freeing oneself from excessive attachment to material considerations, and adopting a disciplined and constructive form of restraint (zuhd). This discussion also clarifies the apparent difference in Qurʾānic descriptions, where such individuals are described in one context as despairing in difficulty, while in another (e.g., al‑ʿAnkabūt 65) they are referred to as “مخلصين له الدين”. These two states are not contradictory; rather, one serves as a prelude to the other. When such individuals encounter hardship, they lose hope in worldly means, and this very despair removes the veils from their innate nature, causing them to turn toward God. However, this orientation is compelled and incidental; it does not signify lasting honor or true awakening. Once the hardship is removed, they return to their previous ingrained condition. In contrast, the devoted servants of God do not fall into despair when confronted with difficulties. Rather, challenges strengthen their perseverance and resolve. With trust in God and confidence in themselves, they actively confront adversity. There is no space within them for despair. They do not recognize God only in times of difficulty but live in constant awareness of Him in all circumstances, placing their trust in His pure essence, while His mercy continually encompasses their hearts.

The term “شاکلة” is derived from the root “شکل”, which originally denotes the act of restraining or controlling an animal with a bridle. The word “شِکال” refers to the bridle itself. Since every human being is constrained and directed by his temperament, emotions, and habits into a particular pattern of conduct, this condition is described as “شاکلة”. Similarly, the term “اشکال” (problems or complications) is used because such matters restrict or bind a person in certain ways (see: Mufradāt Rāghib, under the root “shakal”). From this explanation, it becomes clear that “شاکلة” is not limited to innate disposition alone. For this reason, al‑Ṭabrisī, in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, presents two principal meanings: first, natural disposition and constitution; second, method, religion, and customary practice—since each of these places a form of constraint upon human action. This clarification demonstrates the extent of misunderstanding among those who interpret the verse as evidence for determinism (jabr) and the domination of inherent traits over human beings, to the point of denying the efficacy of moral and spiritual cultivation. Such a mode of thought has emerged due to various political, social, and psychological causes. It has also appeared prominently in the literary traditions of many societies, where individuals invoke this idea to justify their shortcomings and errors. In reality, it constitutes one of the most dangerous doctrines, for it leads societies toward humiliation, stagnation, and prolonged decline. This perspective is reflected in poetic expressions suggesting that a tree inherently bitter in nature will remain so even if planted in the garden of paradise and nourished with the finest substances. According to this view, inherent disposition completely determines outcome, leaving no room for transformation. However, if educational and social development were truly based on such a premise, all efforts toward training and moral refinement would become meaningless. For this reason, the doctrine of determinism has historically served as a convenient instrument for oppressive powers, enabling them to suppress movements of reform and resistance by attributing all conditions to inevitability. This is reflected in the well‑known expression: الجبر والتشبیہ امویان والعدل والتوحید علویان — determinism and anthropomorphic conceptions are associated with the Umayyad outlook, whereas justice and tawḥīd are foundational to the Alid perspective. In summary, “شاکلة” does not refer to an unchangeable innate nature; rather, it encompasses all acquired habits, methods, dispositions, and beliefs that shape the direction of human life. Habits formed through repeated voluntary actions, as well as beliefs adopted through reasoning or conditioning, exert a profound influence on behavior and collectively define one’s shākilah. Human dispositions and traits generally emerge through a gradual process. The initial stage is termed a ḥālah (temporary state), the second an ʿādah (habit), and the third a malakah (firm disposition or faculty). Through repetition, actions form enduring qualities that in turn shape conduct and determine one’s path in life. However, since these qualities originate from voluntary actions, they themselves remain rooted in human choice. In some narrations, “شاکلة” has been interpreted as intention (niyyah). In al‑Kāfī, a report from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām) states: “النیة افضل من العمل الا وانّ النیة ھی العمل… قل کل یعمل علی شاکلتہ”—intention is superior to action; indeed, intention itself is action. The verse “قل کل یعمل علی شاکلتہ” is then interpreted as referring to intention (Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, jild 3, p. 114). This interpretation highlights an important principle: human action originates from intention, which itself emerges from beliefs and dispositions. In this sense, intention constitutes a form of shākilah, guiding and determining action. For this reason, intention is sometimes regarded as identical to action, and at other times as superior to it, since action follows the direction established by intention. Another narration relates that Imām al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām) was asked about performing prayer in synagogues and churches. He replied affirmatively, adding that one should face one’s own direction of worship while others remain engaged in their practices. He then recited: “قل کل یعمل علی شاکلتہ فربکم اعلم بمن ھو اهدی سبیلا” (Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, jild 2, p. 114). This reinforces the principle that each individual acts in accordance with his own disposition and orientation, while ultimate knowledge of true guidance rests with God.

In the preceding verses, responses were provided to certain significant questions posed by the مشرکین or the People of the Book. It is stated: وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ قُلِ الرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّي وَمَا أُوتِيتُمْ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا — they ask you about the روح; say: the روح is from the command of my Lord, and you have been given but little knowledge. Classical and later exegetes have extensively discussed the meaning of رُوح and the interpretation of this verse. This discussion may be approached from several perspectives. From a linguistic standpoint, the term رُوح is associated with meanings such as breath and movement. Some have noted a connection between رُوح and ریح (wind), suggesting that the human spirit is so named due to its life‑giving quality, subtlety, and invisibility, resembling air or breath in these aspects. Within the Qurʾān, the term appears in multiple senses. At times, it refers to a sacred support granted to prophets, as in: وَأَيَّدْنَاهُ بِرُوحِ الْقُدُس — We strengthened him with the Holy Spirit. In other instances, it denotes a divine aid granted to believers: وَأَيَّدَهُمْ بِرُوحٍ مِنْهُ — He strengthened them with a Spirit from Him. It is also used to indicate the trustworthy agent of revelation: نَزَلَ بِهِ الرُّوحُ الْأَمِينُ عَلَىٰ قَلْبِكَ — the trustworthy Spirit has brought it down upon your heart. In other contexts, it refers to a عظیم created being associated with the angels: تَنَزَّلُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ وَالرُّوحُ and يَوْمَ يَقُومُ الرُّوحُ وَالْمَلَائِكَةُ صَفًّا. At times, it signifies revelation itself: وَكَذَٰلِكَ أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ رُوحًا مِنْ أَمْرِنَا. And in some verses, it clearly refers to the human soul: وَنَفَخَ فِيهِ مِنْ رُوحِهِ. In the context of the present verse, the indications—both internal and external—suggest that the question pertains to the human روح: that remarkable reality which distinguishes human beings from other creatures, constitutes the foundation of their dignity, and serves as the source of their knowledge, movement, and agency. Through this faculty, humanity engages with the cosmos, explores knowledge, and uncovers the mysteries of existence. The structure and nature of the روح differ fundamentally from material composition. The principles governing it are distinct from physical and chemical laws. Therefore, the response directs attention to its belonging to أمر ربّي, indicating that its reality is part of the divine domain of command—subtle, profound, and beyond ordinary empirical comprehension. The verse concludes by emphasizing the limitation of human knowledge. Despite the proximity of the روح to human existence, its full nature remains beyond complete understanding. This limitation in knowledge is not exceptional but characteristic of human cognition in relation to deeper realities. Accordingly, the inability to fully comprehend the nature of the روح is neither surprising nor problematic; rather, it reflects the broader limits inherent in human knowledge.

In Tafseer Ayyashi, it is narrated from Imam Baqir (peace be upon him) and Imam Ja'far Sadiq (peace be upon him) that regarding the interpretation of the verse "وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ" they said: Indeed, the rūḥ (spirit) is a creation of His creation; it has sight, strength, and support, and He places it in the hearts of the messengers and the believers. The rūḥ is among the creations of God and it possesses sight and strength. God places it in the hearts of the Prophets and the believers. (Reference: War al-Thaqalayn, Vol. 3, p. 216) Another narration is transmitted from one of these two great Imams, in which it is stated: هِيَ مِنَ الْمَلَكُوتِ مِنَ الْقُدْرَةِ The rūḥ is from the realm of the unseen (malkūt) and from God's power. (Reference: War al-Thaqalayn, Vol. 3, p. 216) In numerous narrations from both Shia and Sunni books, it is related that the polytheists of Quraysh sought this question from the scholars of the People of the Book, intending through this to test the Messenger of Allah (PBUH & His Pure Progeny). They were told that if Muhammad revealed much about the rūḥ, it would serve as evidence against his truthfulness. However, the Prophet (PBUH & His Pure Progeny) gave a brief yet meaningful response that astonished them. Moreover, certain other narrations transmitted through the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) describe the rūḥ as a creation superior to Gabriel and Michael and as being present with the prophets and Imams, restraining them from deviation in their duties. (Reference: Tafseer Noor al-Thaqalayn, Vol. 3, p. 215) What we have stated regarding the interpretation of the verse is not only not contradictory to these narrations but is indeed in harmony with them. This is because the human rūḥ has different levels and ranks, and the rank of the Prophets and Imams is extraordinary and very exalted. They are infallible from sin and error, the effects of which are manifest. Also, having extensive knowledge and awareness is among its manifestations. It is agreed upon that this rank of the rūḥ will be superior to all angels, including Gabriel and Michael. (Consider and reflect)

The history of human knowledge demonstrates that the question of the rūḥ, its structure, and its enigmatic characteristics has always been a central subject of intellectual inquiry. Scholars in every age have exerted their utmost efforts to enter the domain of its mysteries. Consequently, the theories regarding the rūḥ are numerous and diverse. It is possible that neither our current knowledge nor that of future generations will fully penetrate all of its secrets, even though the rūḥ is closer to us than anything else in this world, while its essential nature remains entirely distinct from the material realities with which we are ordinarily familiar. This situation should not be regarded as surprising. The inability to fully comprehend such an extraordinary and supra‑material reality is consistent with the broader limitations of human knowledge. Nevertheless, this limitation does not prevent us from examining certain aspects of the rūḥ through rational reflection and from recognizing some of the general principles governing it. Among the most fundamental of these is the question of the independence and essential nature of the rūḥ. Materialist thinkers consider the rūḥ to be a material phenomenon, identifying it with the physical properties of the brain and the activity of nerve cells (Nerve Cells). According to this view, the rūḥ does not exist independently of matter; rather, it is simply a manifestation of physical and chemical processes within the human body. The relationship between the rūḥ and the body is therefore understood as analogous to the functioning of bodily organs, without any independent or transcendental dimension. It is important, however, to clarify that the relationship between the rūḥ and the body is not that of indwelling (ḥulūl) or physical mixture. The rūḥ is not contained within the body in the manner of a substance diffused in air; rather, there exists a form of ارتباط based on governance, direction, and control. Some have compared this relationship to that between word and meaning. This point becomes clearer when the independence of the rūḥ is examined in detail. There is no doubt that human beings differ fundamentally from inanimate objects such as stones and wood, and even from plants. Human beings possess faculties such as thought, will, love, and aversion—qualities absent in inanimate entities. This fundamental distinction is attributed to the existence of the human rūḥ. Even materialists do not deny the observable phenomena associated with consciousness and inner experience; this is why fields such as Psychology and Psychoanalysis are considered legitimate areas of study. The debate between materialist philosophers and those who uphold a metaphysical understanding of the rūḥ centers on its nature. The proponents of metaphysical philosophy maintain that, beyond the material composition of the human body, there exists another reality—an immaterial essence—that governs and influences bodily processes. This rūḥ is understood as a metaphysical entity whose structure and function differ entirely from those of matter, even though it remains connected to the material world. By contrast, materialist philosophers assert that there exists no independent reality beyond matter. For them, all human functions are reducible to physical and chemical processes. They describe the brain and nervous system as complex machinery operating under physico‑chemical laws, analogous to other bodily systems. For example, they compare the functioning of the nervous system to that of bodily glands, such as the Salivary Glands, which act through measurable physical and chemical processes. In their view, thought itself corresponds to electrical activity in the brain, measurable through modern instruments. On this basis, materialists draw several conclusions: first, mental activity, like other bodily functions, arises with the development of the organism and ceases with its death; second, the rūḥ is a property of the body and thus entirely material; third, the same laws governing physical processes apply equally to the rūḥ; fourth, the rūḥ has no independent existence apart from the body. Thus, the core of the debate lies in whether the rūḥ should be understood as an independent metaphysical reality or as a derivative function of material processes within the human organism.

Materialist thinkers maintain that the rūḥ, thought, and all manifestations attributed to it are fundamentally material in nature; that is, they are nothing more than the physical and chemical properties of brain and nerve cells. In support of this claim, they present several forms of evidence. First, it is observed that if a specific region of the brain or a particular set of nerves ceases to function, then a corresponding aspect of mental activity is also impaired. For example, experiments have shown that when a certain part of a pigeon’s brain is removed, the pigeon does not die, yet a significant portion of its acquired information is lost. It continues to eat and digest food when fed, but if food is simply placed before it, it does not eat and may eventually die of starvation. Similarly, in human beings, injuries to the brain or certain illnesses that impair brain function lead to loss of memory or other mental faculties. Such cases indicate a close relationship between neural activity and mental phenomena. Second, during intellectual activity, measurable material changes occur within the brain. The brain consumes more nourishment and releases substances such as phosphorus. In contrast, during sleep—when cognitive activity is reduced—the consumption of such resources is correspondingly diminished. From this, materialists infer that thought is a material process. Third, observational claims have been made that individuals engaged in intellectual activity possess, on average, a greater brain mass than others. From this, it is argued that mental capacity correlates with material structure, reinforcing the view that the rūḥ is a material entity. Fourth, it is argued that if mental faculties and conscious experiences are taken as evidence of an independent rūḥ, then similar reasoning would require attributing such an independent entity to animals, since they too possess forms of perception and awareness appropriate to their level. In summary, materialist thought emphasizes that human experience does not require positing an independent immaterial reality called the rūḥ. Rather, advances in human knowledge, particularly in physiology (Physiology), are interpreted as increasingly confirming the close relationship between mental phenomena and the physical processes of the brain and nervous system.

Materialists have made a great error in this reasoning, which is that they have considered the instruments as the actual agents of action. To clarify how they came to regard the instruments as agents, allow us to present an example. Please reflect on the following example: After Galileo, there was a revolution in the study of the arrangement and nature of the heavens. The Italian Galileo succeeded in making a small telescope with the help of a spectacle maker. He was very delighted with it. When he began studying the celestial stars at night through the telescope, he witnessed an astonishing sight—one that no human had seen before. He understood that he had made an important discovery. Thus, from that day on, humans became capable of studying the mysteries of the heavens. Until then, humans were like a moth that had seen only a few branches around it, but when it peered through the telescope, it saw a vast forest of nature. Progress and perfection continued in this regard until large telescopes were invented for viewing stars, whose lenses measured five meters or even more in diameter. They were installed on such high mountain peaks that had clear and transparent air. Such telescopes were built that were equivalent to multi-story buildings. Through them, humans were shown many worlds in the heavens—worlds so detailed that even a thousandth part would not be visible to the naked eye. Now consider this: if one day technology advances to the point that humans create a telescope with a lens diameter equal to one hundred meters and equipment and scope comparable to that of a city, how many worlds will be revealed to us! Here arises the question: if these telescopes are taken away from us, undoubtedly part of our knowledge and observation about the heavens will be suspended, but who truly observes—the telescopes or are we the observers? Are telescopes merely our instruments, or are they themselves the agents of action and the actual observers? No one denies concerning the brain that without its cells, thinking and contemplation are impossible, but is the brain merely an instrument of the soul’s action or is it the soul itself? In short, all the arguments presented by materialists only prove that there is a connection between the brain cells and our perception, but none of these arguments establishes that the brain itself thinks—that it is an instrument of perception (consider this closely). From this, it becomes clear that if the dead understand nothing, it is because the soul’s connection with the body has been severed, not because the soul has perished. This is exactly like a ship or an aircraft whose wireless communication breaks down and it cannot connect with the shore or airport, because the medium of communication has been cut off.

Materialists argue that the effects and activities attributed to the soul should instead be understood as properties of the brain’s cells. Accordingly, thought, memory, creativity, love, hatred, anger, and knowledge are all to be regarded as phenomena that can be observed and analyzed within the laboratory, and therefore must be interpreted in accordance with the laws governing the material world. In contrast, philosophers who advocate the استقلالِ روح (independence of the soul) present strong arguments rejecting this view. Some of these arguments may be briefly indicated below:

The first question that can be posed to materialists is this: if the thoughts and effects of the soul are simply physico-chemical properties of the brain, then there should be no fundamental difference between the functions of the brain, stomach, heart, liver, and so forth. For example, the stomach’s function is a combination of physical and chemical activity. The stomach prepares food for digestion and absorption in the body through its specific movements and the secretion of acids. Similarly, as stated, the function of saliva is a combination of physical and chemical processes, yet we observe that the functions of the soul are distinct from all these. The functions of all the bodily mechanisms bear some resemblance to one another, but the state of the brain is exceptional. The functions of all the machinery are internal in nature, whereas the functions that manifest from the soul are external, and they inform us about the state outside our existence. To clarify this discussion, attention should be paid to a few points: First, does a world exist outside of our existence or not? It is established that there is indeed a world outside. The idealists deny the existence of the external world. They claim that all that exists is only ourselves, and that our perceptions and the external world are exactly like the scenes we see in dreams, being nothing but mere notions. These people are gravely mistaken. In the relevant discussion, we have demonstrated their confusion—that idealists in practice become realists—and what they think conceptually in a bookish world is forgotten as soon as they step into the streets, markets, and the environment of ordinary life. The second point is whether we are aware of the world outside of our existence or not. Certainly, the answer to this question is also affirmative because we possess much knowledge and awareness about the world outside of our existence, and we know a great deal about entities that are far away from us. At this point, the question arises: can the external world enter into our existence? It is established that it cannot. Rather, we have a map of it, and by making use of the characteristic of representation, we can know the world outside our existence. This representation cannot be the physico-chemical properties of the brain alone because these properties are the result of external effects on us, i.e., they are their effects. Just as food leaves an effect on our stomach, does the physico-chemical action and reaction on the stomach caused by food imply that the stomach is aware of the food? Then how can our brain be aware of the world outside itself? In other words, awareness of external and actual entities requires a kind of encompassing of them, and this encompassing is not the function of the brain’s cells. The brain’s cells are only affected by the outside, and this effect is similar to that on the body’s machinery, which is influenced by an external state. We understand this well. If being affected by the external world were proof of awareness of the external, then it would be necessary for us to obtain awareness through our stomach and tongue as well, but this is not the case. In summary, the exceptional nature of our perceptions is proof that another reality is hidden in them, whose system is entirely different from the physical and chemical system (consider this carefully).

The second argument that may be advanced in support of the independence of the rūḥ is the problem of the unity of personal identity throughout human life. The explanation is as follows: even if we were to entertain doubt about everything else, we do not doubt that “we exist.” The certainty expressed by “I am” is immediate and direct; our awareness of our own existence is ʿilm ḥuḍūrī, not acquired knowledge. We are present to ourselves and are not separated from our own being. Thus, self‑awareness is among the most evident forms of knowledge and does not require demonstration. The well‑known argument of the French philosopher Descartes—“I think, therefore I am”—appears unnecessary and problematic, because in the very formulation of the argument he presupposes his own existence twice: once in saying “I” and again in saying “am.” On the other hand, this “I” remains a single, continuous identity throughout the span of life. The “I” of today is the same as the “I” of yesterday, the same “I” that existed twenty years ago. From childhood to old age, it remains one and the same person. This continuity persists despite the fact that one acquires knowledge, undergoes development, and attains higher stages of perfection; yet this does not transform the individual into a different being. Accordingly, from the beginning to the end of life, others recognize the same individual, bearing the same name and identity. The question then arises: what is this unified reality that persists throughout life? Is it merely the aggregate of bodily particles, cells, or neural structures, along with their physical and chemical processes? It is well established that the material components of the human body undergo continuous change. Over time, cells are replaced, and the physical structure is renewed. It has been observed that within a span of several years, much of the body’s cellular composition changes. By analogy, a building whose bricks are gradually replaced becomes structurally different, even if outwardly it appears unchanged; similarly, a body of water continuously replenished will eventually contain entirely new contents. On this basis, if the human being were solely reducible to its material components—as asserted by materialist thinkers—then the identity of the “I” would have undergone multiple complete transformations over the course of a lifetime. For example, a person at seventy years of age would, in terms of material composition, differ entirely from the same individual in earlier stages of life. Yet, rationally, we do not perceive the individual as having become a different person altogether. This demonstrates that beyond the changing material components, there must exist a stable and continuous reality that persists throughout life. It is this enduring reality that forms the true foundation of personal existence and accounts for the unity of personality. This stable, non‑changing principle is identified as the rūḥ.

Some individuals have assumed that the cells of the brain do not change, arguing—on the basis of certain physiological discussions—that the number of brain cells remains constant from the beginning to the end of life. According to this view, although these cells may grow in size, they are neither replaced nor regenerated if damaged. From this premise, they conclude that a stable and enduring entity must exist in the human being in the form of brain cells themselves, and that these are the basis of personal identity and continuity. This view, however, involves a significant misunderstanding, arising from a confusion between two distinct issues. What has been established in contemporary science is that while the number of brain cells may remain relatively constant, their constituent materials and internal composition are not fixed. As with all cells in the human body, brain cells require continuous nourishment, and their internal elements are subject to ongoing processes of renewal and change. Just as a person who continually earns and spends money may maintain the same total amount of wealth while its components change over time, so too the material composition of cells undergoes gradual transformation while the overall structure remains apparently stable. An illustrative analogy may be drawn from a pool of water: if water continuously flows out from one side while new water enters from another, then after a certain period the entire content of the pool will have been replaced, even though its outward appearance and volume remain unchanged. Similarly, in the human body, old cellular components are constantly replaced by new ones. This principle applies to all bodily systems, including the brain. Therefore, even though the number of brain cells may not increase or decrease significantly, their material constitution is subject to continuous change. Consequently, brain cells cannot be regarded as a fixed and unchanging basis for personal identity. Like other bodily components, they too are involved in a process of gradual renewal and transformation.

Assume that we are seated on the bank of a beautiful river. Small boats are floating upon its waves, and there is also a large vessel. On one side, the sun is setting, while on the other, the moon is rising. Graceful water birds descend upon the surface and then fly away. Nearby stands a great mountain whose summit seems to reach the sky. Now, if we close our eyes for a few moments and reproduce this entire scene within our minds—the same vast mountain, the same expanse of the river, the same large vessel—it appears upon the page of our imagination as though this extensive landscape is present before, or within, our روح. At this point, a question arises: where is the “location” of this mental scene? Is it possible that such an expansive image could be contained within the limited space of the brain’s minute cells? Clearly, it cannot. It thus becomes necessary to acknowledge that there exists within us another dimension of being, one that transcends physical matter and possesses sufficient capacity to encompass these extensive forms and representations. Consider, for example, whether a building covering five hundred square meters can be reproduced with its full dimensions within a few square millimeters of space. The answer is evidently in the negative, for a larger entity cannot be fully accommodated within something significantly smaller without loss of proportion. If this is the case, then how is it that we are able to construct vast conceptual images—such as the Earth, which spans immense dimensions, or the sun, which is far greater in size than the Earth, or even entire galaxies—within the confines of our mental awareness? These representations are grasped and held within our consciousness, yet it is impossible for them to exist materially within the limited physical structure of the brain. This indicates that there must exist, beyond the physical body, a reality capable of encompassing such vast representations. Consequently, the existence of a non‑material dimension within the human being becomes necessary—one which can receive and contain these expansive images without being constrained by the limitations inherent to physical matter.

It may be said that our mental maps are like microfilms or geographical maps. For example, 1/1,000,000 or 1/100,000,000 (meaning one centimeter equals one million centimeters, etc.). In geographical maps or microfilms, we specify such a scale. This scale tells us that if we enlarge the map according to this ratio, we will get the actual measurement. Also, we have often seen that the size of a gigantic ship is not apparent from its picture alone; therefore, before taking its photograph, a person is placed on its deck so that by comparing the two images, one can estimate the ship’s size. It may be said that our mental maps are also small pictorial images that have been reduced according to a specific scale, and if enlarged proportionally, they would become an actual map. It is certain that these small maps can form within the cells of the brain (consider this carefully). Now we come to the answer to this question. The main point is that microfilms are generally enlarged and projected onto a screen through projectors. Similarly, according to the scale given in geographical maps, we multiply and reflect the map in our mind. The question arises: where is that large screen on which our large mental films are projected? Is that large screen composed of brain cells? Certainly not. The small geographical map, which we enlarge by multiplying with a large number to convert it into a large map, surely requires space for that; can the small brain cells provide a place for it? In clearer terms: what is outside, in the case of microfilms and geographical maps, is indeed the same small film and map. But in our mental maps, precisely those maps exist according to the amount of their external existence. Therefore, they themselves require space equal to and proportional to their own quantity; and we know that brain cells are far too small to reflect them according to that magnitude. In short, we imagine mental maps according to their intellect, but this large image cannot be reflected in such small cells. Thus, they require some space. From here, we find evidence of a true existence beyond the cells.

Another argument that may be presented in support of the independence of the rūḥ and its non‑material nature is that certain characteristics and qualities of mental phenomena differ fundamentally from those of material entities. This is because: First, material entities exist within time and possess a gradual, temporal dimension. Second, they are subject to decay and deterioration over time. Third, they are divisible into parts and can be analyzed into constituent elements. However, mental realities and the entities formed within the mind do not exhibit these properties. For instance, we are able to construct within our minds an entire world comparable to the present physical world without the necessity of temporal progression or gradual development. Moreover, the images that were imprinted upon the mind in childhood do not become worn or diminished with the passage of time; they retain their original form. The brain itself may age, but the mental image—such as a house envisioned years earlier—remains stable and unchanged. This stability is characteristic of realities that transcend matter. In addition, the human mind possesses an extraordinary capacity for forming images. Within a moment and without prior preparation, we can generate representations of vast entities—celestial bodies, galaxies, rivers, or mountains. Such an instantaneous and comprehensive representation is not characteristic of material entities; rather, it indicates a dimension beyond matter. Furthermore, consider abstract concepts such as the equality expressed in the equation 4 = 2 + 2. While the numbers themselves may be analyzed or divided conceptually, the relation of equality itself cannot be partitioned. It represents a single, indivisible meaning: it either holds or it does not. It cannot be split into parts. Since such mental concepts are not divisible, they cannot be material. If they were material, they would necessarily be subject to division and decomposition. Therefore, the fact that the human mind apprehends such indivisible and non‑material meanings indicates that the rūḥ, which serves as the locus of these realities, cannot itself be material. Accordingly, the rūḥ must be understood as a reality that transcends matter.

See ayat 87 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, the discussion centered on the Qurʾān. The present two verses continue this theme. It is stated: وَلَئِنْ شِئْنَا لَنَذْهَبَنَّ بِالَّذِي أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ — if We so willed, We could take away what We have revealed to you. In such a case, it is added, you would not find any protector against Us: ثُمَّ لَا تَجِدُ لَكَ بِهِ عَلَيْنَا وَكِيلًا. This indicates that the knowledge and revelation granted to the Prophet originate entirely from God. They have been bestowed so that he may guide humanity, and if God were to will otherwise, He could withdraw them. Thus, no independent agency exists alongside divine will. In connection with the preceding discussion—where it was stated that human beings possess only a limited amount of knowledge—this verse further emphasizes that even the knowledge granted to the Prophet is entirely dependent upon divine bestowal. The following verse presents an exception: إِلَّا رَحْمَةً مِنْ رَبِّكَ — except as a mercy from your Lord. That is, this knowledge is not withdrawn because it is part of divine mercy—not only for the guidance and salvation of the Prophet, but also for the guidance and well‑being of humanity as a whole. This mercy itself is a continuation of the divine attribute that brought creation into existence and provided human beings with the means of development and perfection. In accordance with this mercy, God has sent guides endowed with knowledge, protection, steadfastness, and compassion, so that humanity may be directed toward the proper path. It is part of this same principle that the earth is never left devoid of divine proof. The verse concludes with emphasis: إِنَّ فَضْلَهُ كَانَ عَلَيْكَ كَبِيرًا — indeed, His grace upon you is great. On one side, the Prophet’s devotion, self‑purification, and striving prepared the ground for divine favor; on the other, the necessity of guidance for humanity became the basis for an exceptional manifestation of divine grace, through which knowledge was granted, the secrets of guidance were disclosed, and protection from error was provided. It is also important to note that the phrase of exception is directly connected to the preceding statement. The meaning is that although God has the power to remove revelation, He does not do so because of His mercy toward the Prophet and humanity. This formulation does not imply that such a withdrawal will actually occur; rather, it underscores that even the Prophet possesses nothing independently. All knowledge and revelation originate from God and remain contingent upon His will.

See ayat 89 for tafseer.

The preceding and following verses discuss the Quran itself, whereas the verses under consideration explicitly speak about the miraculous nature of the Quran. In this regard, there is no need to explain the connection of the verses under discussion with the preceding or following verses. Moreover, the upcoming verses elaborate on the excuses made by the polytheists, describing how they demanded various types of preferred miracles. In this context, the current verses serve as an introduction to the forthcoming discussion and make it clear to those who make excuses that the highest, living, and eternal miracle confirming the truthfulness of the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is this Quran, which will forever shine in history; thus, their excuse-making is baseless. Some have related these verses to the previous ones by drawing a comparison between the mysterious nature of the soul and the mysterious nature of the Quran (see Fi Zilal al-Quran, Vol. 5, p. 358, under the verse in question). However, the connection we have noted is more apparent. In any case, here Allah Almighty addresses the speech to His Messenger and says: Say: "If all mankind and jinn were to gather together to produce the like of this Quran, they could not produce the like of it, even if they aided one another." (قُلْ لَئِنْ اجْتَمَعَتْ الْإِنسُ وَالْجِنُّ عَلىٰ اَنْ یَاْتُوا بِمِثْلِ ھٰذَا الْقُرْآنِ لَایَاْتُونَ بِمِثْلِہِ وَلَوْ کَانَ بَعْضُھُمْ لِبَعْضٍ ظَھِیرًا) This verse clearly challenges the entire world. Whether they are small or large, Arab or non-Arab, human or non-human intelligent beings, scholars, philosophers, literati, historians, geniuses or non-geniuses—in short, the Quran invites all, without exception, to compete with it, stating that if you believe the Quran is not the word of God but rather a human creation, then bring its likeness, even though you are human yourselves. If, despite collaborative effort, you find yourselves unable, then this stands as the best evidence of the Quran’s miraculous nature. Scholars of theology and creed refer to this invitation to competition as "tahaddi" (challenge). This challenge is an essential feature of every miracle. Wherever such an expression appears, it becomes clear that this matter is among the miracles.

The challenge presented here possesses several notable dimensions: (1) It is universal in scope, encompassing all human beings and other rational creatures. (2) This challenge is enduring, without restriction to a particular time, such that it applied during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon him), applies in the present, and will continue to apply in the future. (3) The expression “اجتمعت” implies a call for collective effort, intellectual collaboration, and mutual cooperation in attempting to respond to the challenge. It is evident that such cooperation significantly amplifies human capacity. (4) The phrase “ولو كان بعضهم لبعض ظهيراً” further reinforces this notion, emphasizing combined effort and mutual support, and implicitly highlighting the importance and effectiveness of cooperation in achieving objectives. (5) The expression “مثل هذا القرآن” is comprehensive, indicating resemblance in all aspects—eloquence and rhetoric, conceptual content, human development, intellectual discourse, life‑giving social legislation, historically reliable narratives free from myth, predictive elements, and all other dimensions. (6) The invitation addressed to all human beings indicates that the miraculous nature of the Qurʾān is not confined merely to its linguistic features and rhetorical excellence. If it were so, inviting non‑Arabic speakers would have been devoid of purpose. (7) A compelling and articulate miracle is one in which its originator not only invites opponents to challenge it but also actively encourages and provokes them to do so by all means within their capacity. In the present verse, this is clearly demonstrated: all humanity is addressed, their inability is explicitly affirmed through “لا يأتون بمثله”, and further emphasis is added through “ولو كان بعضهم لبعض ظهيراً”. The subsequent verse addresses another dimension of the Qurʾān’s miraculous nature, namely its comprehensiveness. It states: “وَلَقَدْ صَرَّفْنَا لِلنَّاسِ فِی هَذَا الْقُرْآنِ مِنْ كُلِّ مَثَل”—in this Qurʾān, We have presented every kind of example for humanity. The term “صرفنا”, derived from “تصريف”, denotes variation, transformation, and the presentation of matters in diverse forms. Despite this richness, most people have responded with denial—“فَأَبَى أَكْثَرُ النَّاسِ إِلَّا كُفُورًا”—as though they had never truly observed the evidences of guidance. The breadth of Qurʾānic discourse is remarkable. It presents firm rational arguments in matters of belief, establishes enduring principles addressing the essential needs of humanity, relates historical narratives that are free from distortion and imbued with deep ethical and intellectual significance, and advances moral teachings that transform the inner being in a manner akin to life‑giving rain upon barren land. It also addresses practical issues while revealing truths that were, at the time of revelation, unknown to contemporary scholars. In sum, every domain of the Qurʾān reflects the highest degree of excellence and eloquence. Considering the limited nature of human knowledge—particularly within the historical context in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) was raised—this comprehensive and enduring body of discourse cannot reasonably be attributed to human intellect. Even if contemporary scholars and experts across various disciplines were to collaborate in producing an encyclopedic work of exceptional quality, its relevance would inevitably diminish over time, and signs of obsolescence would appear. In contrast, the Qurʾān, regardless of the era in which it is read, retains a sense of immediacy, as though it were revealed for that very time. No evidence of temporal decay is perceived within it.

See ayat 93 for tafseer.

See ayat 93 for tafseer.

See ayat 93 for tafseer.

In Islamic traditions and the tafseer of various scholars, multiple narrations regarding the circumstances of revelation (Shan-e-Nuzool) of the above verses have been recorded in different texts. Their summary is as follows: Some of the polytheists of Makkah, among whom were Walid bin Mughirah and Abu Jahl, gathered in front of the Kaaba. They spoke among themselves about the Messenger of Allah, and ultimately concluded that someone should be sent to him with a message: “Your tribe, Quraish, the noble assembly, have gathered and wish to speak with you. Therefore, come to us.” The Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) hoped that perhaps the light of faith had dawned in their hearts and that they were ready to accept the truth. Thus, he immediately went to them. When he reached them, they spoke as follows: “O Muhammad! We have summoned you to put an end to this dispute. We do not know of any person who has caused so much trouble to his people and tribe as you have. You have insulted our gods, mocked our religion, called our intellect foolish, and sown seeds of discord among us. Tell us, what do you actually want? If you need wealth, we will give you enough so that you become self-sufficient. If you seek status and rank, we are ready to grant you great positions. If you are ill (and suffer from some psychological ailment), we will bring you the best physicians for your treatment.” The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said: “None of this is my matter. Allah has sent me to you and given me a heavenly book. If you accept it, then in it is your welfare in this world and the Hereafter; and if you do not accept it, I will endure patiently until Allah decides between you and me.” They said: “Very well, if that is the case, then no city is as narrow as ours” (referring to the mountains surrounding Makkah) “Ask your Lord to move these mountains back and cause rivers to flow here like Syria and Iraq, so that this dry and barren land becomes irrigated. Also ask Him to bring back our elders to life, especially Qusayy bin Kilab, for he was a truthful elder, so that we may ask him whether what you say is true or false.” The Messenger of Allah replied indifferently: “I am not charged with these matters.” They said: “If you will not do this, then at least ask your God to send an angel to support your claim. Besides that, grant us gardens, treasures, and palaces of gold.” He said: “I was not sent for such matters. I have come with a call from Allah; if you accept it well, otherwise Allah will judge between you and me.” They said: “As you believe, your God can cause stones to fall on our heads whenever He wishes. Let these heavenly stones rain down upon us.” The Prophet said: “This is for Allah; if He wills, He will do so.” One among them said: “Even if you do this, we will not believe. We will believe only when you bring Allah and His angels before us.” The Messenger of Allah heard these absurd words, stood up, and began to leave the gathering. Some of them followed him and said: “O Muhammad! You rejected every proposal that your people presented before you. Then you did not fulfill even some of the requests that concerned you. You refused to bring about the punishment that you keep threatening us with. By Allah! We will never believe in you unless you set up a ladder to the sky and, by it, ascend above us and return with a few angels and a letter that testifies to the truth of your claim.” Abu Jahl said: “Leave him alone; he knows nothing except cursing our idols. I have sworn by Allah that when he prostrates, I will lift a huge stone and strike him on the head.” The Messenger of Allah returned from there with a heart full of sorrow and grief because of the ignorance, stubbornness, and arrogance of this people. At this moment, the verses under discussion were revealed. (Tafseer al-Majma‘ al-Bayan; also mentioned with some variations in Dar al-Manthur under these verses).

In the preceding verses, the greatness and miraculous nature of the Qurʾān were discussed. In the present verses, attention is directed toward some of the pretexts advanced by the polytheists—pretexts that clearly reveal that their objective was not sincere inquiry, but rather obstinacy, hostility, defiance, and pride in response to the life‑giving call of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Instead of engaging with the rational arguments and evident proofs presented to them, they made irrational and unreasonable demands. The verses enumerate several such demands: First, it is stated: they said, “لَنْ نُؤْمِنَ لَكَ حَتَّی تَفْجُرَ لَنَا مِنَ الْأَرْضِ يَنْبُوعًا”—we will not believe in you unless you cause a spring to gush forth from the earth for us. The terms “فجور” and “تفجیر” denote the act of splitting or opening, whether of the earth by a spring or of the horizon by the light of dawn. However, “تفجیر” conveys a stronger sense of emphasis and intensity. The word “ينبوع”, derived from “نبع”, refers to a source from which water bursts forth, and in some interpretations, it signifies a spring that does not dry up. Second, they demanded: “أَوْ تَكُونَ لَكَ جَنَّةٌ مِنْ نَّخِيلٍ وَعِنَبٍ فَتُفَجِّرَ الْأَنْهَارَ خِلَالَهَا تَفْجِيرًا”—or that you possess a garden of date‑palms and grapes, through which you cause rivers to flow abundantly. Third, they said: “أَوْ تُسْقِطَ السَّمَاءَ كَمَا زَعَمْتَ عَلَيْنَا كِسَفًا”—or cause the sky to fall upon us in fragments, as you claim. Fourth, they demanded: “أَوْ تَأْتِيَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْمَلَائِكَةِ قَبِيلًا”. The term “قبیلًا” has been understood in several ways: it may signify a guarantor or witness, something brought directly before one’s sight, or alternatively groups presented collectively. Accordingly, the meaning may be that they demanded God and the angels be brought before them as witnesses, presented directly before them, or brought in visible groups. These interpretations are not mutually exclusive and may all be encompassed within the expression. Fifth, they proposed: “أَوْ يَكُونَ لَكَ بَيْتٌ مِّن زُخْرُفٍ”—or that you possess a house of “زخرف”. The term “زخرف” originally denotes adornment or ornamentation; by extension, it refers to gold as well as to richly decorated structures, and even to embellished or deceptive speech. Sixth, they stated: “أَوْ تَرْقَى فِي السَّمَاءِ وَلَنْ نُّؤْمِنَ لِرُقِيِّكَ حَتَّى تُنَزِّلَ عَلَيْنَا كِتَابًا نَّقْرَؤُهُ”—or ascend to the sky; yet even then we will not believe in your ascent unless you return with a written document that we can read. In response to these contradictory, incoherent, and unreasonable demands, the Qurʾān commands the Prophet (peace be upon him) to declare: “قُلْ سُبْحَانَ رَبِّي”—glory be to my Lord. This affirms the transcendence of God beyond such baseless expectations. The Prophet is further instructed to say: “قُلْ كُنتُ إِلَّا بَشَرًا رَّسُولًا”—I am nothing but a human being who has been sent as a messenger. Thus, these verses emphasize that the mission of the Prophet is to convey divine guidance, not to fulfill arbitrary and sensational demands rooted in denial and obstinacy.

As indicated by the context of revelation and the tone of the verses themselves, the unusual and excessive demands made by the polytheists were not rooted in a genuine search for truth. Rather, their aim was to preserve the religion of idol‑worship and shirk, since the authority of the Meccan elites was closely tied to that system. They sought, by any means, to prevent the Prophet (peace be upon him) from continuing his mission of tawḥīd. In response, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was instructed to present two clear, logical, and concise answers. First, he declares: “قُلْ سُبْحَانَ رَبِّي”. This affirms that his Lord is exalted and free from such baseless demands. God is not subject to arbitrary requests, nor does He submit to irrational and contradictory proposals. He is transcendent above all such expectations and is not bound to respond to whimsical conditions imposed by others. Second, the Prophet states: “هَلْ كُنتُ إِلَّا بَشَرًا رَسُولًا”. This emphasizes that he is merely a human being sent as a messenger. The sending of miracles is not within his personal authority; rather, it is entirely subject to the will and command of God. It is not for the messenger to produce miracles at the request of others, nor even to demand them independently. Whenever God, in accordance with His wisdom, deems it necessary to provide a sign for the affirmation of the message, He does so. Although these two answers are interconnected, they represent distinct points: one establishes the transcendence of God above such demands, and the other clarifies that the messenger does not possess the capacity to fulfill arbitrary requests for miracles. In essence, a prophet is not someone who fabricates miracles or performs them at will in response to the preferences of individuals. The laws and principles of creation are not subject to being turned into a spectacle. The role of the prophet is to demonstrate his connection with God through the signs granted to him. Once a sufficient and appropriate miracle has been presented, his responsibility is fulfilled. He may not even determine the timing of such miracles; he seeks them only when he knows that it accords with the divine will.

Every person speaks according to the limits of their own understanding. This is why the words of every individual reflect the level of their intellect. Those who have no concern other than wealth and status believe that everyone else is also erring in that same mindset. For this reason, the narrow-minded chiefs of the Quraysh sometimes offered the Holy Prophet wealth and at other times status and position, hoping that he (peace be upon him) would abandon his mission. They measured the wise spirit of the Prophet by the limited scale of their own thinking. They even believed that if a person’s effort was not for wealth or status, then he must be mad, and that there was no third possibility. Therefore, they said: "If you neither desire wealth nor position, then accept the third option and allow us to bring a physician for you." Their example is like a person confined in a very small room who has never seen the vast open sky, the shining sun, mountains, rivers, and deserts, and thus cannot comprehend the grandeur of the universe. They wanted to measure the great and unseen spirit of the Messenger of Allah by their narrow yardsticks. Putting all this aside, what was it that they desired from the Prophet which was not already present in Islam? They asked for lush lands, water-filled springs, gardens of dates and grapes, and adorned, prosperous homes. And we know that in its program of progress, Islam carried within it every form of rich civilization—such a civilization that allowed the possibility of every kind of economic development. We have observed that under the shadow of this Qur’an and its program, the Muslims advanced far beyond what the polytheists of Arabia, with their limited thinking, could even desire. If only their eyes could see the reality, they would witness spiritual perfection as well as material progress in this religion, for both are guarantors of true success. We dismiss these childish or foolish demands because—sometimes they said, "Bring for us the torment of God, and cast heavenly stones upon our heads," or, "Climb ladders to the heavens and be sacrificed for us; bring some letter from there," or, "Bring God and the angels before us in troops," without ever saying, "Take us to them." This human displays a strange manifestation of ignorance, arrogance, and pride.

In the preceding verses, the discussion concerned tawḥīd and the struggle against shirk and falsehood. The present verses are likewise clear in their meaning, indicating the nature of the demands made by the مشرکین of Makkah from the Messenger of God (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam) and explaining why these demands were rejected. Despite this clarity, some contemporary interpreters insist that these verses negate all forms of miracle for the Prophet. They claim that since the opponents demanded various kinds of miracles—including material benefits from the earth and sky as well as extraordinary supernatural signs—and these were not fulfilled, the Prophet must have possessed no miracles. However, this conclusion rests on a misunderstanding of the verses themselves. First, several of the demands mentioned were inherently unreasonable or absurd. For instance, requests such as bringing God and the angels visibly before them or producing a written document directly from the heavens addressed to them personally are clearly not rational demands. Other requests were reckless to the extent that fulfilling them would have resulted in the destruction of the requesters themselves—such as causing stones to rain down upon them from the sky—leaving no opportunity for belief or repentance. Still other demands were related merely to worldly comfort, wealth, or material luxury, whereas the mission of the prophets was never intended to provide such worldly advantages. Even if these objections were set aside, the overall context shows that these demands were not made sincerely but as pretexts for denial. The function of a prophet is not to submit to every arbitrary demand but to present sufficient evidence to establish the truth of his mission. Second, the Qurʾānic context itself clearly indicates the obstinacy of those making these demands. For example, when they requested that the Prophet ascend to the heavens, they explicitly declared that even if he were to do so, they still would not believe unless he returned with a written message addressed specifically to them. Such a statement demonstrates that their aim was not genuine verification but persistent denial. Third, it must be recognized that a miracle is ultimately an act of God, not an independent act of the Prophet. The language employed by the opponents, however, reveals that they assumed miracles to be actions performed by the Prophet himself. They repeatedly attributed such actions directly to him: “split the earth,” “make rivers flow,” “cause stones to fall,” or “bring God and the angels.” The proper response, therefore, is to affirm that the Prophet is a human messenger and not divine; miracles occur only by divine command. This is reinforced by the expression “سُبْحَانَ رَبِّي”, which emphasizes the transcendence of God above all such misconceptions. This principle is also illustrated in accounts of earlier prophets. For instance, although extraordinary acts such as healing the blind or raising the dead are attributed to ʿĪsā (ʿalayhi al‑salām), they are consistently qualified by expressions such as “بِإِذْنِ اللّٰهِ”, indicating that these acts occurred only through divine permission (see: al‑Māʾidah 110; Āl ʿImrān 49). Thus, even when miracles appear through a prophet, they remain fundamentally acts of God. Finally, it is difficult to accept that a prophet who claimed the final and universal mission—while also recounting the miracles of earlier prophets—would present no signs at all to confirm his own truthfulness. If that were the case, his opponents would certainly have raised the objection that he lacked even the minimal evidentiary signs possessed by previous prophets. The absence of such a sustained objection indicates that the Prophet did indeed present miracles when appropriate. Therefore, the refusal to comply with the specific demands mentioned in these verses cannot be interpreted as a denial of all miracles. Rather, it reflects the rejection of irrational, insincere, or pretextual demands. The Prophet’s mission was grounded in guidance and truth, not in satisfying arbitrary challenges, and wherever a genuine need for demonstration arose, sufficient signs were granted through divine will.

See ayat 95 for tafseer.

The expression “ما منع الناس” indicates that the primary obstacle preventing people from attaining faith was their tendency toward excuse‑making; however, this formulation does not imply absolute exclusivity, but rather serves to emphasize the central importance of this factor. Regarding the expression “ملائکة یمشون مطمئنین”, exegetes have discussed several possible interpretations. Some have understood it as a reflection of statements attributed to the Arabs of the pre‑Islamic period, who claimed that they lived in a state of security and stability and that the coming of the Prophet had disturbed their condition. According to this interpretation, the Qurʾānic response is that even if angels were living upon the earth in a similar state of tranquility, a messenger from among their own kind would still be sent to them. Others have interpreted the expression as referring to a condition of being satisfied with worldly existence and its pleasures, accompanied by indifference toward religion. Some have taken it to mean simply habitation and settled existence upon the earth. A more plausible interpretation, however, is that even if angels were to inhabit the earth and live without conflict, hostility, or struggle, they would still require a guide from among themselves. The purpose of prophethood is not merely to remove disturbance and establish outward tranquility; rather, such conditions are preparatory stages for higher processes of development and spiritual formation. The essential role of divine guidance lies in directing humanity toward comprehensive moral and spiritual perfection. From the use of the term “ارض” in this verse, certain exegetical reflections have also been offered. In Tafsīr al‑Mīzān, ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī suggests that the nature of material life on earth itself necessitates the existence of a prophet, and that without such guidance, human life cannot properly develop. Furthermore, he interprets this term as containing a subtle indication of the gravitational conditions of the earth, which make stable movement and settled existence possible.

The expression “ما منع الناس” indicates that the principal obstacle to their ایمان was precisely their tendency toward excuse‑making; however, this formulation does not imply exclusivity in the strict sense, but rather serves as an emphatic expression to highlight the importance of this factor. Regarding “ملائكة یمشون مطمئنین”, exegetes have offered several interpretations. Some understand it as an allusion to statements attributed to the Arabs of the pre‑Islamic period, who claimed that they had been living peacefully in the region and that the advent of the Prophet (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam) had disturbed their stability. According to this interpretation, the Qurʾānic response is that if angels themselves had been dwelling upon the earth in such a state of tranquility, a messenger would have been sent to them from among their own kind. Others interpret the phrase as referring to a condition of satisfaction with worldly life and its enjoyments, coupled with indifference toward religion. Still others understand it simply as signifying habitation and settled existence upon the earth. However, the more convincing interpretation is that even if angels had inhabited the earth and lived in complete peace, free from conflict, hostility, and struggle, they would nevertheless require a guide from among themselves. The function of prophethood is not merely to eliminate unrest and produce outward comfort; rather, such conditions are only preliminary stages for higher processes of perfection and spiritual and human development. The essential purpose requires divine guidance for proper تربیت and تکامل. From the use of the term “ارض” in this verse, a further inference has been drawn. ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī, in Tafsīر al‑Mīzān, notes that the very nature of material life on earth necessitates the presence of a prophet, and without such guidance, life cannot properly flourish. Moreover, he understands this term as containing a subtle indication of the earth’s gravitational conditions, since without such forces, stable movement, tranquility, and orderly existence would not be possible.

See ayat 97 for tafseer.

Previously, the verses dealt with the oneness of God, prophethood, and discussions with opponents. The verses under discussion here mark, in a way, the conclusion of those earlier topics and present the outcome of the discussion. First, it is stated: If they do not accept your clear arguments regarding the Oneness of God, Prophethood, and resurrection, then inform them, "Say: Allah is sufficient as a Witness between me and you, for He is fully aware of His servants' conditions and observes their deeds" (قُلْ کَفِیٰ بِاللَّهِ شَهِیدًا بَیْنِی وَبَیْنَکُمْ إِنَّهُ کَانَ بِعِبَادِهِ خَبِیرًا بَصِیرًا). (Explanatory note: Grammatically, in the phrase "كَفِیٰ بِاللَّهِ," the letter "باء" is additional, with "اللَّه" as the subject of "كَفِیٰ" and "شَهِیدًا" as the accusative of specification, though some consider it an adverbial.) By saying this, two objectives were actually in view. The first was to warn the biased and obstinate opponents that God is All-Aware and All-Seeing, and is a witness to our and your actions. Do not think that you can escape His all-encompassing power or that any of your deeds will remain hidden from Him. The second was to have the Messenger of Allah express firm faith in God, because a resolute statement by a speaker exerts a profound psychological effect on the listener. It was hoped that this command and firm expression, containing a form of warning, would affect them, awaken their hearts and minds, and invite them to the straight path. After this, it is further stated: Only the person whom Allah guides is truly guided (وَمَن یَهْدِ اللَّهُ فَهُوَ الْمُهْتَدِی), but those whom He causes to stray (due to their deeds) will find no protector or guide besides Him (وَمَن یُضْلِلْ فَلَن تَجِدَ لَهُمْ أَوْلِیَاءَ مِن دُونِهِ). The only way to return is to turn toward Allah and seek from Him the light of guidance. These two statements essentially point out that strong and powerful arguments alone are not sufficient for faith to come forth, but unless divine grace is granted and the person is made capable of guidance, it is impossible for faith to be established. To illustrate this, it may be likened to a group of people intending to perform an important good deed. We present many arguments about its importance; some accept, others reject. We would then say that not all people have the capacity for this task. "A pure drop of semen must be capable of receiving grace; otherwise, not every stone in the street becomes a pearl or coral." Only pure soil yields blessings; otherwise, stones and dirt cannot become pearls and coral. It is a fact that not every heart possesses the ability to receive the light of truth, nor does every heart develop a love for it. Moreover, the manner of the presenter’s speech has an effect on the listener, and sometimes the listener, to prove his own capacity, abandons obstinacy and humbly submits to the truth. We have also stated repeatedly that guidance or misguidance from God is never imposed by force, but is the direct consequence of a person’s own actions. Those who rise for Jihad in His way and sacrifice everything to seek the truth are indeed worthy of receiving guidance. Therefore, the Quran says: وَالَّذِینَ جَاهَدُوا فِینَا لَنَهْدِیَنَّهُمْ سُبُلَنَا “Those who strive hard in Our cause, We surely guide them on Our ways” (Al-Ankabut 69). But those who follow obstinacy, stubbornness, sin, oppression, and corruption have themselves disqualified and deserve deprivation of divine grace and misguidance. It is certain that such persons will be led astray: وَيُضِلُّ اللَّهُ الظَّالِمِینَ “Allah leads the wrongdoers astray” (Ibrahim 27). It is also said: وَمَا یُضِلُّ بِهِ إِلَّا الْفَاسِقِینَ “He only leads astray the defiantly disobedient” (Al-Baqarah 26). And it is also stated: کَذَلِکَ یُضِلُّ اللَّهُ مَن هُوَ مُسْرِفٌ مُرْتَابٌ “Thus does Allah lead astray the one who is extravagant and doubting” (Al-Mu’min 34). Regarding the mention of "awliya" (protectors) in the plural, it may refer to the multiplicity of false gods or the variety of means and causes to which they sought refuge. That is to say, no one among these means and causes—whether human or non-human, imaginary or false gods—can respond to their calls, nor can any of them deliver them from misguidance and misery. Following this, a firm and severe warning is given by depicting a scene from the Day of Judgment as the definite consequence of their deeds. It is stated: “On the Day of Resurrection, We will gather them with their faces down” (وَنَحْشُرُهُمْ یَوْمَ الْقِیَامَةِ عَلَىٰ وُجُوهِهِمْ). They will not be walking upright that day; rather, the angels of punishment will drag them face down upon the earth. Some have also suggested that, since these sinners will not have the strength to walk then, they will be like helpless animals, crawling face down in an extremely painful and disgraceful manner. Yes! They will be like those who walk with their feet...They will be deprived of great blessings because, in this world, they did not benefit from these blessings for the path of salvation but used them for the path of sin. Moreover, in the great justice of Allah, they will be presented in a state of being blind, mute, and deaf (عُمْیًا وَبُکْمًا وَصُمًّا). At this point, the question arises that from other verses of the Quran, it is understood that the sinners and inhabitants of Hell will see, hear, and speak, so how does the present verse say that they will be blind, mute, and deaf? [In Surah Al-Kahf, verse 53, it is stated: وَرَاَی الْمُجْرِمُونَ النَّارِ The criminals will see the fire. In Surah Al-Furqan, verse 13, it is stated: دَعَوْا ھُنَالِکَ ثُبُورًا The inhabitants of Hell will shout in despair. Also, in Surah Al-Furqan, verse 12, it is stated: سَمِعُوا لَھَا تَغَیُّظًا وَزَفِیرًا The criminals will hear the dreadful roar of the fire.] In response to this question, the commentators have provided various explanations. Two of these interpretations are better: 1. There are different stages of the Day of Judgment. In some of these stages, they will be blind, mute, and deaf, and this itself will be a type of punishment and torment for them (because they did not properly benefit from Allah’s great blessings in the world). However, in other stages, their eyes will see, their ears will hear, and their tongues will speak so that they may witness the scenes of torment, hear the voices of those who blame them, and cry out in their helplessness, which itself is also a kind of torment and punishment. 2. The criminals will not be able to see anything that would bring them joy and comfort; they will not hear any sound that would cause them delight or peace, nor will they hear any sound that would cause them distress. At the end of the verse, it is stated that their eternal abode is Hell (مَاْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ). Do not assume that the fire of Hell will eventually extinguish like worldly fire. Rather, "Whenever its heat subsides, We will increase it for them in blazing flame" (كُلَّمَا خَبَتْ زِدْنَاھُمْ سَعِیرًا).

See ayat 100 for tafseer.

See ayat 100 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, the discussion described the severe outcome awaiting the guilty in the Hereafter—an outcome that compels every rational individual to reflect. In the present verses, the underlying cause of that fate is explained from another perspective. It is stated: ذٰلِكَ جَزَاؤُھُمْ بِاَنَّھُمْ كَفَرُوا بِآیَاتِنَا وَقَالُوا اَئِذَا كُنَّا عِظَامًا وَرُفَاتًا اَئِنَّا لَمَبْعُوثُونَ خَلْقًا جَدِیدًا — this is their recompense because they denied Our signs and said: when we have become bones and scattered dust, shall we indeed be raised again as a new creation? As noted by Rāghib in Mufradāt, the term “رُفَات” refers to particles that become fragmented and scattered. It is thus evident that the human body, after death, first decays into bones, then into dust, and finally disperses entirely. Those who consider the physical resurrection (maʿād jismānī) improbable are immediately answered by the Qurʾān: اَوَلَمْ یَرَوْا اَنَّ اللهَ الَّذِی خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْاَرْضَ قَادِرٌ عَلیٰ اَنْ یَخْلُقَ مِثْلَھُمْ — have they not seen that God, who created the heavens and the earth, is capable of creating their like? They are further reminded not to hasten the matter, for even if the Day of Resurrection appears distant, it will inevitably occur. God has appointed a fixed term for it: وَجَعَلَ لَھُمْ اَجَلًا لَارَیْبَ فِیہ — He has set for them an appointed time in which there is no doubt. However, despite such clear reasoning, the unjust persist in their deviation: فَاَبَی الظَّالِمُونَ إِلاَّ كُفُورًا — the wrongdoers refuse all except disbelief. Another factor contributing to their rejection was their resistance to accepting that prophethood could be granted to a human being. This aversion was rooted in resentment and narrow‑mindedness. Accordingly, the final verse states: قُلْ لَوْ اَنتُمْ تَمْلِكُونَ خَزَائِنَ رَحْمَةِ رَبِّی إِذًا لَاَمْسَكْتُمْ خَشْیَةَ الْإِنفَاقِ وَكَانَ الْإِنسَانُ قَتُورًا — say: if you possessed the خزائن of your Lord’s mercy, you would withhold them out of fear of spending, for the human being is extremely miserly. The term “قَتُور”, derived from the root قتر, denotes an exaggerated degree of stinginess and narrow‑heartedness. This characterization reflects their unwillingness to accept the گستردگی of divine grace, including the granting of prophethood to whomsoever God wills.

1. The meaning of “ما منع الناس”: This expression indicates that the primary obstacle to people’s ایمان was their tendency toward excuse‑making. However, it does not imply exclusivity; rather, it serves as an emphatic formulation highlighting the central importance of this factor. 2. The meaning of “ملائكة یمشون مطمئنین”: Exegetes have discussed this phrase extensively and have proposed multiple interpretations. Some understand it as referring to statements attributed to the Arabs of the pre‑Islamic period, who claimed that they were living in a state of peace and security in their land until the coming of Muḥammad (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa ālihi wa sallam), whom they alleged disturbed their tranquility. According to this interpretation, the Qurʾānic response is that even if angels were living upon the earth in such peaceful conditions, messengers would still be sent to them from among their own kind. Others have interpreted the phrase as referring to contentment in worldly life and its pleasures, coupled with indifference toward religion and spiritual responsibility. A further interpretation suggests that it denotes residence and settled living upon the earth. However, the stronger interpretation is that even if angels were to inhabit the earth and live in a state free from conflict, hostility, and struggle, they would still require a guide from among themselves. The mission of prophets is not limited to the removal of unrest or the establishment of outward tranquility. Rather, these conditions serve only as a preliminary stage for higher processes of development and spiritual and human perfection. The essential purpose of prophethood is the comprehensive guidance and تربیت necessary for true human advancement. 3. An inference from the term “ارض”: From the use of the word “ارض” in this verse, ʿAllāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī, in Tafsīر al‑Mīزān, derives a further insight. He notes that the very nature of material life on earth necessitates the presence of a prophet, and that without such guidance, life cannot properly develop or reach its intended purpose. Additionally, he considers this term to contain a subtle indication of the earth’s gravitational conditions, since without such a property, stable movement and a state of security and tranquility would not be possible.

See ayat 104 for tafseer.

See ayat 104 for tafseer.

See ayat 104 for tafseer.

In the previous few verses, we read about how the polytheists made strange demands from the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family). Their own words indicated that their intent was not to seek the truth, but rather to show stubbornness and make excuses before the Messenger of Allah. The verses under discussion actually present a similar example from the history of previous nations. From these verses, it becomes clear how those people witnessed various miracles yet continued to make excuses and did not abandon the path of denial. In the first verse, it is stated: We gave Moses nine clear signs (وَلَقَدْ آتَیْنَا مُوسَىٰ تِسْعَ آیَاتٍ بَیِّنَاتٍ). What these nine signs were will be discussed at the end of this discourse. As further emphasis, it was said: If your opponents deny even this, then ask the Children of Israel about when the signs came to them (فَاسْأَلْ بَنِی إِسْرَائِیلَ إِذْ جَاؤُهُمْ). But the proud, rebellious, and tyrannical Pharaoh neither bowed down before them nor accepted the truth; rather, he accused Moses (peace be upon him) of being a magician or madman and said: O Moses! Indeed, I think that you are bewitched (فَقَالَ لَهُ فِرْعَوْنُ إِنِّی لَأَظُنُّكَ یَا مُوسَىٰ مَسْحُورًا). Regarding the meaning of "مَسْحُورًا" (bewitched or bewitched one), the exegetes have given two interpretations: Some have taken it to mean magician or sorcerer and have cited those verses of the Holy Quran where it is mentioned that Pharaoh and his followers everywhere accused Moses of being a sorcerer. Also, the passive participle form, which conveys an agentive sense in Arabic lexicon, has many examples such as "مشئوم" and "شائم" (meaning one who causes misfortune) and "میمون" and "یامن" (meaning one who brings good fortune). Other exegetes have taken "مَسْحُور" in the literal passive participle sense, meaning a person upon whom magic has been effected. This is evident, for example, from verse 39 of Surah Adh-Dhariyat, where they accused Moses both of magic and being possessed by jinn. In any case, the arrogant have always followed this method: they undermined the struggle of men of truth attempting to reform the order by spreading such propaganda. When men of truth rose against corrupt societies and presented miracles, these people either called them magicians or madmen to mislead simple-minded people and keep them away from the prophets. On this unjust accusation, Moses (peace be upon him) did not remain silent but said with full confidence and certainty: O Pharaoh! You well know that these enlightening signs were revealed by no one other than the Lord of the heavens and the earth (قَالَ لَقَدْ عَلِمْتَ مَا أَنزَلَ هَؤُلَاءِ إِلَّا رَبُّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ بَصَائِرَ). Therefore, despite your knowledge and awareness, you deny the facts. You know well that these miracles and signs are from God, and I also know that you know. These are clear and manifest evidences ("بَصَائِر"), through which people find the path of truth and obtain insight to traverse the way of truth. So, since you deny the recognition of truth despite being aware of it, O Pharaoh, I think that eventually you will be destroyed (وَإِنِّی لَأَظُنُّكَ یَافِرْعَوْنُ مَثْبُورًا). "مَثْبُور" comes from the root "ث ب ر," meaning destruction. Since Pharaoh could not bear the decisive arguments of Moses (peace be upon him), he took recourse to what every unreasonable tyrant has resorted to throughout history: "He intended to drive them out of the land, but We drowned him and all who were with him" (فَأَرَادَ أَنْ یَسْتَفِزَّھُمْ مِنَ الْأَرْضِ فَأَغْرَقْنَاہُ وَمَن مَّعَهُ جَمِیعًا). The word "یَسْتَفِزَّ" is derived from the root "استفزاز," meaning to forcibly and harshly expel. After this great success, We said to the Children of Israel: Live in this land (مصر و شام) comfortably (وَقُلْنَا مِن بَعْدِہِ لِبَنِی إِسْرَائِیلَ اسْکُنُوا الْأَرْضَ). But when the time of the Hereafter’s appointment comes, We shall gather you all together at the place of account (فَإِذَا جَاءَ وَعْدُ الْآخِرَةِ جِئْنَا بِكُمْ لَفِیفًا). "Lَفِیف" comes from the root "لَفَّ," meaning to wind or entwine intricately, and here it refers to the people so closely gathered that their individuality and tribes cannot be distinguished.

Mention has been made in the Qurʾān of numerous miracles of Mūsā (peace be upon him), including the following: (1) His staff transformed into a عظیم serpent and swallowed the implements of the magicians, as indicated in فَاِذَا هِیَ حَیَّةٌ تَسْعٰی. (2) Another major miracle was that of “ید بیضاء”, whereby his hand shone brilliantly as a luminous source: “وَاضْمُمْ یَدَكَ اِلٰی جَنَاحِكَ تَخْرُجْ بَیْضَاءَ مِنْ غَیْرِ سُوءٍ آیَةً اُخْرٰی” (Ṭāhā 22). (3) The destructive flood: “فَاَرْسَلْنَا عَلَیْهِمُ الطُّوفَانَ” (al‑Aʿrāf 133). (4) The plague of locusts that devastated their crops: “وَالْجَرَاد” (al‑Aʿrāf 133). (5) The infestation of “الْقُمَّل”, which consumed vegetation and destroyed provisions (al‑Aʿrāf 133). (6) The multiplication of frogs emerging from the Nile, disrupting the lives of the followers of Firʿawn: “وَالضَّفَادِع” (al‑Aʿrāf 133). (7) The affliction of blood, whether in the form of bleeding or the transformation of the Nile’s water into blood, rendering it unusable: “وَالدَّمَ آیَاتٍ مُفَصَّلَات” (al‑Aʿrāf 133). (8) The parting of the sea, enabling Banī Isrāʾīl to pass through: “وَاِذْ فَرَقْنَا بِكُمُ الْبَحْرَ” (al‑Baqarah 50). (9) The descent of “الْمَنَّ وَالسَّلْوَی” (al‑Baqarah 57). (10) The emergence of twelve springs from a rock: “فَانفَجَرَتْ مِنْهُ اثْنَتَا عَشْرَةَ عَیْنًا” (al‑Baqarah 60). (11) The raising of a portion of the mountain above them like a canopy: “وَاِذْ نَتَقْنَا الْجَبَلَ فَوْقَهُمْ كَاَنَّهُ ظُلَّة” (al‑Aʿrāf 171). (12) The affliction of آلِ فرعون with drought and scarcity of produce: “وَلَقَدْ اَخَذْنَا آلَ فِرْعَوْنَ بِالسِّنِینَ وَنَقْصٍ مِنَ الثَّمَرَاتِ” (al‑Aʿrāf 130). (13) The revival of a murdered person as a sign: “كَذٰلِكَ یُحْیِ اللهُ الْمَوْتٰی” (al‑Baqarah 73). (14) The provision of clouds as shade for Banī Isrāʾīl in the wilderness: “وَظَلَّلْنَا عَلَیْكُمُ الْغَمَامَ” (al‑Baqarah 57). However, the verse under discussion refers specifically to nine signs (تسع آیات). The wording of the relevant verses indicates that these are miracles manifested before Firʿawn and his people, intended for their guidance, rather than those exclusively related to Banī Isrāʾīl. Upon consideration, the following may be included among these nine: the five afflictions mentioned in Sūrah al‑Aʿrāf (storm, locusts, قمل, frogs, and blood), together with the two well‑known miracles of the staff (عصا) and ید بیضاء, explicitly referenced elsewhere in connection with the expression تسع آیات. This makes a total of seven. The remaining two are identified as the afflictions of prolonged drought and the scarcity of fruits, mentioned prior to the other punishments: “وَلَقَدْ اَخَذْنَا آلَ فِرْعَوْنَ بِالسِّنِینَ وَنَقْصٍ مِنَ الثَّمَرَاتِ لَعَلَّهُمْ یَذَّكَّرُونَ” (al‑Aʿrāf 130). Although some may consider drought and scarcity of fruit as a single affliction, it is possible that they represent distinct phenomena, since prolonged drought may lead to broader destruction beyond mere reduction of crops. Accordingly, the nine signs referred to are: (1) عصا (2) ید بیضاء (3) الطوفان (4) الجراد (5) القمل (6) الضفادع (7) الدم (8) dryness (السّنین) (9) scarcity of fruits (نقص من الثمرات) After mentioning these signs, the Qurʾān states that despite witnessing them, Firʿawn’s people did not believe, and consequently, they were submerged in the sea due to their denial and heedlessness. Various narrations appear in Islamic sources concerning the interpretation of this verse; however, due to differences among them, they cannot be relied upon as decisive evidence or a basis for certainty.

The apparent meaning of the verses under discussion is that the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was commanded to ask the Prophet of Israel, Moses (عليه السلام), about his nine miracles and how the people of Pharaoh, despite witnessing these miracles, made excuses and did not accept the truth of Prophet Moses (عليه السلام). There was no need for a knowledgeable and wise personality like the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to ask such a question. It is understood that the command to ask was meant for other addressees. However, if we pay attention to the fact that the question was not to be asked by the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) for himself but so that the polytheists would accept the matter, then there is no objection to the question being posed by the Prophet himself so that the polytheists would know that if the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) did not accept their various demands, the reason was that these demands were not based on seeking truth but were founded on stubbornness, prejudice, and enmity. An example of this is found in the incident of Prophet Moses (عليه السلام) and Pharaoh.

In the verses under discussion, God commands the Children of Israel that after attaining victory over their enemy, they should now settle and remain in the land regarding which they had been given a covenant. The question arises: does “the land” here refer to Egypt, since in the preceding verse this term was used for the land of Egypt, and the Qurʾān also indicates that the Children of Israel became the inheritors of the lands of Pharaoh? Or does “arḍ” here refer to the sacred land of Palestine, since after this event the Children of Israel moved toward Palestine and were instructed to enter that land? It does not seem unlikely that both regions are intended here, because according to the Qurʾān, the Children of Israel became inheritors both of the lands of Āl Firʿawn and also of the land of Palestine.

The question arises whether “وعد الاٰخرة” in the verses under discussion refers to the Hereafter. The apparent answer is affirmative, since the phrase “جئنا بكم لفيفاً”—indicating that all will be gathered together in a mixed and collective manner—serves as a contextual indicator of this meaning. However, some prominent exegetes have proposed an alternative interpretation, suggesting that “وعد الاٰخرة” refers to the earlier statement in this sūrah in which God promised the Children of Israel two victories and two defeats. In that context, one is termed “وعد الأولى” and the other “وعد الاٰخرة”. Yet, when attention is given to the expression “جئنا بكم لفيفاً”, this interpretation appears highly unlikely.

See ayat 109 for tafseer.

See ayat 109 for tafseer.

See ayat 109 for tafseer.

See ayat 109 for tafseer.

These verses once again clarify the greatness and importance of the Quran and respond to certain objections and excuses made by the opponents. It is stated: We have revealed the Quran with the truth (وَبِالْحَقِّ أَنزَلْنَاهُ). Alongside this, it is further said: And it has been revealed with the truth (وَبِالْحَقِّ نَزَلْ). And We have sent you only as a bearer of good news and a warner (وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلّا مُبَشِّرًا وَنَذِيرًا). What is the difference between these two statements: “وَبِالْحَقِّ أَنزَلْنَاهُ” and “وَبِالْحَقِّ نَزَلْ” which were mentioned earlier? Regarding this, commentators have offered various explanations, such as: 1. The first statement means that We have decreed that the Quran be revealed with truth, and the second statement means that this decision has been implemented. Hence, one phrase indicates the decree, and the other indicates its execution. (Reference: Tafsir Qurtubi, Vol. 6, p. 3955, 2.) 2. The first statement implies that the content and subject matter of the Quran is truth, and the second statement means that its outcome and fruit are also truth. (Reference: Tafsir Fi Zilal al-Quran, under the relevant verse.) 3. The first statement means that We revealed the Quran with truth, and the second statement emphasizes that the Messenger of Allah had no authority to alter it; therefore, it was revealed with truth. However, another possibility arises here which is clearer than the above explanations. Sometimes, when a person begins a task, due to limited capacity, they cannot carry it out correctly till the end. But the One who is aware of everything and has power over all things starts it correctly from the beginning and also brings it to complete and perfect conclusion. For example, a person may start flowing clean and pure water from a source, but cannot protect it from pollution along the way, so the users do not receive pure water. But the One who has full control over His work initiates pure and clean water and delivers it to the vessels of the thirsty in a pure and clean state. The Quran is exactly such a book: it was revealed with truth from Allah and remained correct and secure throughout the entire process of transmission. This applies to the stage when Gabriel was the intermediary, the stage when the beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) received it, and even after the passage of time, it has remained free from any form of alteration and completely protected, as the verse requires: إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ Indeed, We have revealed the Reminder, and indeed, We are its Guardian. (Al-Hijr, 15:9) This book is protected in every respect because Allah has taken its preservation upon Himself. Therefore, this divine revelation’s pure and clear water is preserved from the Prophetic period until the end of time, quenching the thirst of sincere hearts, free from all tampering. The next verse answers one of the excuses of the opponents, who said: Why was the Quran not revealed all at once upon the Prophet (peace be upon him) in one place, and why is its revelation gradual? (As is alluded to in Surah Al-Furqan, verse 32). It is stated: “And We have sent down to you the Quran in stages, so that you may recite it to the people at intervals, and We have revealed it gradually.” (وَقُرْآنًا فَرَقْنَاهُ لِتَقْرَأَهُ عَلَى النَّاسِ عَلَىٰ مُكْثٍ). (Note: According to many commentators, the word "قُرْآنًا" in this verse, which appears in the accusative case, is implied through an omitted verb. “فَرَقْنَاهُ” explains it, and the intended construction is: "فَرَقْنَاهُ قُرْآنًا".) Emphatically, it is said: “Indeed, We have revealed it a revelation of gradual character.” (وَنَزَّلْنَاهُ تَنزِيلًا). Those who have a superficial view, especially those making excuses, may find this manner of Quranic revelation objectionable. They might say that this book, which is the foundation of Islam, the guide of all humanity, and the source of all social, political, and worship laws for Muslims, why was it not revealed all at once, so that people could always read it from beginning to end and be well-informed about these matters? However, if a little reflection is made, this objection can be answered sufficiently. Because: Firstly: Although the Quran is a book, it is not like human compositions where an author writes on a particular subject, organizes chapters with a plan in mind, and then writes it down. It is a book that has an unbreakable connection with the events of the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) twenty-three years of prophethood. How is it possible that a book related to twenty-three years of events be revealed all at once on one day? Can twenty-three years of events be compiled in a single day? Many portions of the Quran are connected to the Islamic battles. Some parts address the intrigues of the hypocrites. Other sections deal with delegations that came from various nations...People came to the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, and according to the divine command, he took practical steps to respond to them. Is it possible that all these matters were written on the very first day? Secondly: The Quran is not merely an educational book; rather, it is necessary that after the revelation of each verse, it should be implemented and acted upon. Therefore, if the entire Quran had been revealed at once, its implementation should also have occurred all at once, whereas we know that its collective and simultaneous implementation was impossible because a society that was completely corrupt could not be reformed in a single day. An illiterate child cannot be taken from the first class to a doctorate level in one day. This is precisely why the Quran was revealed gradually so that its parts could be properly imparted, and it could fully establish its place within society, without any instability, allowing society to accept and preserve it. Thirdly: The Messenger of Allah himself, who was the leader of this great revolution, if he intended to implement the entire Quran, dividing it into parts was a stronger method for him and better for preparing readiness. It is true that he was sent by Allah and possessed unparalleled intellect and ability; however, a more perfect and better approach was the gradual acceptance and gradual implementation. Fourthly: The meaning of gradual revelation is that the Prophet’s connection with the source of revelation is continual, whereas a single, one-time revelation does not guarantee repeated connection with the source of revelation. In Surah Al-Furqan, verse 32, it says: كَذٰلِكَ لِنُثَبِّتَ بِہِ فُؤَادَکَ وَرَتَّلْنَاہُ تَرْتِیلًا "Thus We have revealed it as a clear Arabic Quran that your heart may be assured thereby. And We have certainly made it easy for remembrance, so is there any who will remember?" (This is an approximate understanding, but note the original text given is the latter part: كَذٰلِكَ لِنُثَبِّتَ بِہِ فُؤَادَکَ وَرَتَّلْنَاہُ تَرْتِیلًا "We have revealed the Quran to you in this manner so that your heart may be firm, and We have recited it to you gradually and distinctly.") This verse points to the third philosophy of gradual revelation, while the verse under discussion mostly points toward the second philosophy. In any case, all these factors are clear proofs of the wisdom and philosophy behind the gradual revelation of the Quran. The next verse says, in order to humble the arrogant disbelievers: “Say, ‘Believe in it or do not believe. Those who were given knowledge before it, when it is recited to them, fall down upon their faces

1. The continuity of “اٰمنوا بہ او لا تؤمنوا”: Exegetes generally maintain that the expression “اٰمنوا بہ او لا تؤمنوا” contains an implied continuation (maḥdhūf) that is understood from the context. They have explained this in several ways. Some state that the meaning is: whether you believe in it or not, the miraculous nature of the Qurʾān and its being “منزل من الله” remains evident. Others interpret it as meaning: whether you believe or not, the benefit or harm of that belief pertains only to yourselves. It is also possible that the subsequent clause completes the meaning of the earlier one, comparable to expressions in ordinary discourse—for example: you may accept my statement or reject it, but those who possess knowledge and insight do accept it. This formulation implies that rejection arises from ignorance, whereas those endowed with understanding recognize the truth and believe in it. 2. The meaning of “الذین اوتوا العلم من قبلہ”: This phrase refers to learned individuals among the Jews and Christians who, upon hearing the Qurʾānic verses, recognized within them signs consistent with the Torah and the Gospel and consequently embraced faith. They thus entered into the ranks of true believers and came to be counted among the scholars of Islam. Similar references are found elsewhere in the Qurʾān, such as: “لَیْسُوا سَوَاءً مِنْ اَھْلِ الْکِتَابِ اُمَّةٌ قَائِمَةٌ یَتْلُونَ آیَاتِ اللهِ آنَاءَ اللَّیْلِ وَھُمْ یَسْجُدُونَ” (Āl ʿImrān 113). 3. The meaning of “یخرّون”: This term signifies falling down involuntarily or collapsing in submission. Instead of the usual expression “یسجدون”, this form indicates a subtle nuance: those whose hearts are awakened and perceptive, upon hearing the divine verses, are overcome with such devotion that they fall spontaneously in prostration, as though offering their entire being. According to Mufradāt of al‑Rāghib, the root of “یخرّون” relates to a sound produced by something descending from a height, and its usage here suggests both intensity and audible devotion. 4. The meaning of “اذقان”: The word “اذقان” is the plural of “ذقن”, meaning “chin.” Although in normal prostration one does not place the chin on the ground, this expression indicates that they press their entire face to the earth, including the chin, signifying the utmost degree of humility and reverence. Some exegetes also propose that in a state of overwhelming emotion, one may fall such that the chin touches the ground first; thus, the expression further reinforces the meaning conveyed by “یخرّون” (cf. Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī, vol. 15, p. 175). The subsequent verse presents the statement uttered by them during prostration: “وَیَقُولُونَ سُبْحَانَ رَبِّنَا إِنْ کَانَ وَعْدُ رَبِّنَا لَمَفْعُولًا”. Here, they express belief in divine lordship, divine attributes, and the certainty of God’s promises. Within this single expression are contained the principles of tawḥīd, divine justice, belief in prophethood, and the reality of the Hereafter. The effect of divine verses continues to be described: “وَیَخِرُّونَ لِلْاَذْقَانِ یَبْکُونَ وَیَزِیدُھُمْ خُشُوعًا”. The repetition of “وَیَخِرُّونَ” emphasizes both intensity and continuity, while the use of the present tense “یَبْکُونَ” indicates ongoing weeping born of spiritual ecstasy. Similarly, “یَزِیدُھُمْ خُشُوعًا” signifies that their humility is not static but continually increases as they advance toward higher spiritual perfection. Khushūʿ denotes a state of both physical and inner humility, marked by reverence, modesty, and submission before a higher reality.

From the verses under discussion, an important lesson that emerges is the necessity of a structured تربیتی program for any form of cultural, intellectual, or social transformation. If such a program is not carefully organized and systematically implemented at every stage, failure becomes inevitable. Even the Qurʾān was not revealed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) all at once, although it existed in its entirety within divine knowledge and was presented in a comprehensive form on Laylat al‑Qadr. Nevertheless, its gradual revelation occurred over a period of twenty‑three years according to a precise and deliberate plan. If, despite His infinite knowledge and power, God adopts such a gradual and systematic method, then the responsibility of human beings in this regard becomes evident. In principle, this represents a divine law and pattern that operates not only in the realm of legislation (tashrīʿ) but also in the realm of creation (takwīn). One does not observe that a child is born in a single night or that a fruit ripens within a few hours upon a tree. Accordingly, it is unrealistic to expect that the intellectual, cultural, social, economic, or political transformation of a society can be achieved overnight. This understanding also implies that when immediate results are not observed within a short period, one should not fall into despair. Instead, effort must be sustained with patience, and it should be recognized that genuine and complete success is typically attained only over an extended period of time.

A second clear lesson that may be derived from the verses under discussion is the fundamental relationship between knowledge and faith. The Qurʾān states that when those who possess knowledge encounter these verses, they not only affirm them but are so profoundly moved by divine devotion that they fall in prostration before God. Tears flow from their eyes, their humility continually increases, and their reverence for these verses grows ever deeper. In contrast, those who lack knowledge may, at times, incline toward belief upon encountering such truths, yet their faith remains weak, unstable, and devoid of passion, depth, and spiritual vitality. Furthermore, this directly refutes the erroneous claim that religion arises solely from human ignorance. The Qurʾān repeatedly emphasizes, in various contexts, that knowledge and faith are inseparably linked. Profound and enduring faith cannot exist without the foundation of knowledge, and knowledge itself, at its higher levels, is strengthened and supported by faith.

See ayat 111 for tafseer.

Exegetes have reported, with reference to Ibn ʿAbbās, the occasion of revelation (shaʾn al‑nuzūl) of the first of the verses under discussion as follows: one night in Mecca, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was in prostration, invoking God by the names “یا رحمٰن” and “یا رحیم”. At that moment, the pretext‑seeking polytheists seized the opportunity and remarked: behold this person—he reproaches us for believing in multiple gods, yet he himself calls upon two deities, even though he claims to be a monotheist and to recognize only one object of worship. In response to this, the verse was revealed, clarifying their misunderstanding and indicating that these multiple names refer to a single divine essence (Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, under the verse in question).

In the previous verses, the weak and baseless excuses of the polytheists were mentioned and answered. In the verses under consideration, their last excuses are discussed. They used to say: Why does the Prophet call God by different names when he claims monotheism? In response, the Qur'an says: Say: Call Him “Allah” or call Him “Ar-Rahman” (the Most Merciful), whichever you call, to Him belong the best names (قُلْ ادْعُوا اللهَ اَوْ ادْعُوا الرَّحْمَانَ اَیًّا مَا تَدْعُوا فَلَہُ الْاَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَی). These blind hearts did not even reflect on their everyday life. Even among themselves, a person, a place, or a thing had several names, given in regard to different aspects. So is it surprising that the One Who holds in His hand the source of all perfections, blessings, and goodness—Who controls the every movement of this world—should have special names corresponding to His every perfection and attribute? Fundamentally, God cannot be called or comprehended by only one name; rather, it is necessary that His names be as infinite as His attributes so that they serve as His representatives. However, since our words, like everything else related to us, are limited, the names we have for Him are also limited. Therefore, our knowledge of God is inherently limited. Even the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, despite the vastness of his soul, said: ما عرفناك حق معرفتك We have not recognized You as You deserve to be recognized. But this is not a proof that we should not recognize Him as much as our intellect and awareness allow, especially since He Himself greatly assists in our recognition of His Being, mentioning Himself in His Book by different names. Through the statements of His saints, nearly one thousand of His names have reached us. It is clear that all these are “Names,” and one meaning of “Name” is a symbol or sign. Therefore, all these are signs of His Pure Being, and all these letters converge to one point and do not affect the Unity and Oneness of His Being and Attributes. Among these names, some carry greater importance and dignity because through them we attain greater recognition and awareness. These names are referred to in the Holy Qur'an and Islamic traditions as "Asma’ al-Husna" (the Most Beautiful Names). The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said in a famous narration: Allah has ninety-nine names; whoever enumerates them will enter Paradise. We have discussed the meaning of Asma’ al-Husna and these ninety-nine names in detail in the commentary of Surah Al-A'raf, verse 180, in Volume Seven. The verse is: وَلِلّٰہِ الْاَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنٰى فَادْعُوْبِہَا And to Allah belong the best names, so call on Him by them. But the important point is that we understand that enumerating these names does not mean merely uttering them by tongue and calling God by these names in order to become inhabitants of Paradise or have prayers answered. The purpose is that these names be practically adopted: the reflection of names like ‘Alim (All-Knowing), Rahman (Most Merciful), Rahim (Most Compassionate), Jawad (Generous), Karim (Noble)... be cast upon one's own existence and adopted in practical life so that no matter who we become, our prayers are accepted in every state. The late Saduq in his book Tawhid narrates from Hisham ibn Hakam a hadith in which Hisham asked the Imam about the names of Allah and also inquired about their foundation. He asked what “Allah” is derived from. The Imam replied: O Hisham! This word is taken from “Ilah” which means “being bewildered,” and the meaning of “Ilah” is that He is one who is worshipped (a Being whose reality and essence cause a person to be astonished and perplexed). But know this: the “Ism Musamma” (named name) is different; that is, whoever worships merely the name alone without its meaning and purpose is a disbeliever; in reality, he has worshipped nothing. And whoever worships both the name and the designated (Musamma) is also a disbeliever because he worships two things, not the name itself (rather, the name is understood as a symbol leading to the meaning). This is the true reality of Tawhid. O Hisham! Understand. Hisham said: I understand something; please clarify further. He (peace be upon him) said: The Great and Supreme God has ninety-nine names. If every name had a designated being, then there would be ninety-nine gods. But “Allah” is a single name that points to those attributes, and all His names are other than His essence. O Hisham: Bread is the name of something which is eaten; water is the name of something which is drunk; clothing is the name of something which is worn; and fire is the name of something which burns (but these are all names, while those things that we eat, drink, wear, and fear to be burned by are not names but external realities). (Tafsir Al-Mizan, under the verse in discussion, citing Tawhid Saduq) The polytheists of Mecca had another objection against the Prophet. They said that he prays aloud and disturbs us. What kind of worship is this and what kind of behavior? The Qur’an commands the Prophet: Do not raise your voice in your prayer...Recite neither aloud nor in a low voice, but seek a middle course (وَلَاتَجْھَرْ بِصَلَاتِکَ وَلَاتُخَافِتْ بِھَا وَابْتَغِ بَیْنَ ذٰلِکَ سَبِیلًا). Therefore, the above verse is not related to the jurisprudential terms of loud (jahrī) and silent (akhfā’) prayers, but rather its concern is the excess and deficiency in reciting loudly or softly. It is stated that do not recite so loudly that it causes noise, nor so softly that only the movement of the lips remains and the voice does not reach the ear. Most commentators have cited the context of revelation from Ibn Abbas, which confirms this meaning. Also, narrations from Imam Baqir (peace be upon him) and Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him), which have reached us through the traditions of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them), also indicate this interpretation. (Tafseer Nur al-Thaqalayn, vol. 3, p. 233) In light of the above discussion, other commentaries on this verse seem far from its original meaning. However, regarding what is meant by the moderate limit here, and what kind of loudness and softness are prohibited, it is clarified as follows: "Jahr" means making noise, and "Ikhfat" means reciting so softly that even the person himself cannot hear it. In Tafseer Ali ibn Ibrahim, it is reported from Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him) that in his explanation of this verse he said: "Al-jahr means raising the voice, and al-takhafut means reciting so softly that you yourself cannot hear, so recite between these two." Do not perform either of these extremes, but take the middle way between them. (Tafseer Nur al-Thaqalayn, vol. 3, p. 234) As for the issue of jahr and ikhfat in prayers of day and night, as we have indicated above, it is a separate ruling with a different meaning and evidences. Our jurists (may Allah be pleased with them) have explained its proofs in their work Kitab al-Salah.

The principle of moderation in jahr and ikhfāt (audibility and quietness) in worship, as prescribed in Islam, invites attention from two perspectives. First, from the standpoint that acts of worship should not be performed in such a manner as to provide opponents with grounds for ridicule or objection. It is preferable that worship be carried out with dignity, composure, and decorum, such that it not only remains free from criticism but also stands as a model in terms of its grace and propriety. Some individuals, however, attempt to publicize their gatherings by employing excessively loud amplification, disturbing others in the process. They assume that, through such actions, they are conveying the message of Islam, whereas in reality, this approach not only fails to represent Islam but may also alienate people from it, thereby undermining efforts of religious propagation. The second aspect of this directive is that moderation in worship should serve as a model for all other human activities. Social, political, and economic affairs should likewise be conducted in accordance with this principle. In all such matters, one must avoid excess and deficiency, extremism and negligence, and adhere to the rule encapsulated in “وابتغ بین ذٰلک سبیلاً”—adopt a middle course. With this, the concluding verse of Sūrah Banī Isrāʾīl is reached. The sūrah ends with praise (ḥamd), just as it began with glorification (tasbīḥ) of the Divine. In essence, this final verse represents the culmination of all the themes of tawḥīd discussed throughout the sūrah. Addressing the Prophet (peace be upon him), it is stated: “وَقُلِ الْحَمْدُ لِلّٰہِ الَّذِی لَمْ یَتَّخِذْ وَلَدًا وَلَمْ یَکُن لَّہُ شَرِیکٌ فِی الْمُلْکِ وَلَمْ یَکُن لَّہُ وَلِیٌّ مِّنَ الذُّلِّ”—say: all praise belongs to God, who has not taken a child, who has no partner in sovereignty, and who has no protector arising from weakness. He is a being whose attributes transcend all human conception; therefore, one must seek to understand His greatness and become acquainted with His infinite majesty: “وَکَبِّرْہُ تَکْبِیرًا”.

The verse under consideration points to three types of attributes of God. Moreover, if attention is paid to the context of the verse, the total number of attributes becomes four: First attribute: He has no offspring, because having offspring is a sign of need and dependency. It is evidence of corporeality and having a likeness or counterpart; whereas He neither has a body nor does He have any need or likeness. Second attribute: He has no partner, as the existence of a partner implies limitation or weakness in power and authority, or likeness and counterpart, and He has no likeness or counterpart. Third attribute: He has no guardian or helper in difficulties and weaknesses, for this attribute is also negated for this Almighty and Infinite God. In other words, this verse negates from Allah every kind of helper and likeness, whether inferior to Him, such as offspring, or similar to Him, such as a partner, or superior to Him, such as a guardian. The late Tabarsi has reported from some commentators, whose names he did not mention, that this verse negates the beliefs of three deviant groups: first, the Christians and Jews, who believed in the son of God; second, the Arab polytheists who considered Him to have partners, which is why in their morning prayers they would say: لبیک لا شریک لک الا شریکا ھو لک; third, the star-worshippers and Magians, who believed in a guardian and helper for God.

It should be observed that the strong emphasis in the Qurʾān upon the Prophet (peace be upon him) to proclaim the greatness of God signifies not merely a verbal utterance of “الله اکبر”, but rather the cultivation of a genuine inward conviction regarding the grandeur and majesty of the Lord. It is also important to note that affirming the greatness of God does not mean considering Him superior in comparison to other beings, for such comparison is fundamentally flawed. Rather, He must be regarded as beyond all comparison altogether. As Imām al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) explains in a concise and meaningful tradition: when someone declared “الله اکبر” in his presence, the Imām asked, “God is greater than what?” The man replied, “Greater than everything.” The Imām responded, “By saying this, you have limited God,” since you have compared Him with other existences and regarded Him as greater in relation to them. The man then asked what he should say. The Imām instructed: “اللّٰہ اکبر من ان یوصف”—God is greater than that He can be described (Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, j 3, p. 239). Another narration reported from Imām al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) reiterates this concept. The Imām asked: is there, in reality, any existence in relation to which God may be considered greater? When the questioner sought clarification, he again directed him to say: “اکبر من ان یوصف”—He is beyond all description (Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, j 3, p. 239). These expressions emphasize that the greatness of God transcends all forms of conceptualization, comparison, and descriptive limitation.

A question arises here: why, in the verses under discussion, is praise (ḥamd) attributed to God through attributes of negation (ṣifāt salbiyyah), whereas it is generally understood that praise is more appropriately associated with affirmative attributes such as knowledge and power? Negation—such as the denial of offspring, partners, or supporting allies—would appear more suited to expressions of glorification (tasbīḥ) rather than praise. In response, it may be said that although affirmative and negative attributes occupy distinct conceptual domains—with the former corresponding to praise and the latter to glorification—in their external reality they are inseparably intertwined. The negation of ignorance from God necessarily entails the affirmation of knowledge, just as the affirmation of knowledge inherently implies the negation of ignorance. There is thus no contradiction in expressing one aspect while implying the other; at times, the necessary implication is stated, and at other times, its corollary. An illustration of this interaction may be found at the opening of this sūrah, where a statement of glorification accompanies a positive affirmation: “سُبْحَانَ الَّذِی اَسْرٰی بِعَبْدِہِ لَیْلًا مِنَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ اِلٰی الْمَسْجِدِ الْاَقْصٰی”—glory be to the One who caused His servant to travel by night from al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām to al‑Masjid al‑Aqṣā. O Lord, fill our hearts with the light of knowledge and faith so that we may remain humble before Your greatness, firm in belief in Your promises, and submissive to Your commands. Enable us to worship none but You and to rely upon none besides You. Grant us the ability to adhere to moderation in all aspects of life, avoiding every form of excess and deficiency. O God, we praise You and recognize You as One, exalted beyond all description. Forgive us, make our steps firm upon Your path, grant us victory over both inner and outer adversaries, and join our successes to the ultimate triumph associated with the awaited Mahdī. Bestow upon us the ability to complete this exegesis in a manner that earns Your pleasure and approval.