Al-An'am

See ayat 2 for tafseer.

From the above verse it becomes evident that just as light is a creation of God, so too is darkness, even though it is widely held among philosophers and scholars of physics that darkness is nothing more than the absence of light. We also know that what is non‑existent cannot, in the strict sense, be described as created. On this basis, the question arises as to how darkness is counted among God’s creations in the verse under discussion. In response, the first point is that darkness does not always denote absolute darkness. Rather, in most cases, the term is also used for very weak or minimal light in contrast to intense and abundant light. For example, we all commonly refer to “the darkness of night,” even though it is universally accepted that night is not characterized by absolute darkness, but always contains traces of light—whether through faint starlight or other limited sources of illumination. On this basis, the meaning of the verse would be that God has designated for you the brightness of day and the darkness of night, one of which possesses very strong light, while the other has very weak light. It is self‑evident that darkness of this type is indeed among the creations of God. The second point is that while it is true that absolute darkness is, in philosophical terms, an instance of non‑existence (ʿadam), any such non‑existence that occurs under specific conditions must necessarily have an existential source. In other words, whatever gives rise to absolute darkness in a particular situation and for a defined purpose must do so through the use of existing means. For example, if we wish to darken a room for a certain period in order to project an image, we are obliged to take concrete measures to block the light, thereby producing darkness at that specific time. Such darkness is therefore a created darkness—a creation by consequence (makhlūq bi’l‑tabʿ). Although, in technical terms, non‑existence itself is not directly an object of creation, specific, conditioned non‑existence is dependent upon existent causes, and to that extent it is included within the domain of creation.

Another point to which attention should be paid here is that in the Qur’an the word “نُور” appears in the singular form, whereas “ظُلُمَات” is used in the plural. It is possible that this expression points to the fact that darkness—whether sensory or spiritual—is always a source of fragmentation, separation, and divergence, whereas light is a symbol of unity and cohesion. We have often witnessed with our own eyes that on a warm night, when a lamp is lit in the middle of a courtyard or in an open field, all kinds of creatures gather around it within a short time, and life appears unified around a single center. But once that lamp is extinguished, each of them moves off in a different direction, and they become scattered and dispersed. The same pattern is observed in social and spiritual matters: the light of knowledge, the Qur’an, and faith is a source of unity, whereas the darkness of ignorance, disbelief, and hypocrisy leads to division and disintegration. Earlier it was mentioned that this sūrah seeks to establish the foundations of God‑worship and unity in people’s hearts by first directing attention to the macrocosm, and then, in the following verse, by turning attention to the microcosm, namely, the human being. In this connection, it points to the astonishing reality of human creation from dust and clay, stating that it is He who created you from clay (هُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُمْ مِنْ طِينٍ). It is true that our immediate creation occurs through our parents and not directly from dust; however, since the first human being was created from dust and clay, addressing humanity in this manner is entirely appropriate. It then refers to the stages through which human life reaches completion, saying that He fixed a term during which the human being is nurtured upon the earth and attains perfection (ثُمَّ قَضَىٰ أَجَلًا). The word “أَجَل” originally means a specified period, though it is often used to denote the final moment or deadline. For example, one may say that the ajl of a debt has arrived, meaning that the time for repayment has come. Similarly, death is referred to as ajl because it marks the final moment of a person’s lifespan. The Qur’an then completes the discussion by stating that there is a fixed term with God (وَأَجَلٌ مُسَمًّى عِنْدَهُ). It then declares: you polytheists nevertheless doubt and argue concerning this Creator, who brought the human being into existence from something utterly insignificant and valueless—namely, clay—and guided him through such astonishing stages of development. Do you doubt God’s power, or deny Him, such that you equate trivial idols with Him? Or do you harbor doubts about God’s power to resurrect the dead and establish the Resurrection? (ثُمَّ أَنْتُمْ تَمْتَرُونَ).

There is no doubt that “أَجَل” and “أَجَلٌ مُسَمًّى” in the verse carry two distinct meanings, and the view of those who have treated them as identical is untenable—especially given the repetition of the word “أَجَل”, and particularly the addition of the qualifier “مُسَمًّى” the second time. For this reason, exegetes have engaged in extensive discussion concerning the distinction between the two. What emerges from the totality of Qur’ānic evidence, as well as from the narrations transmitted to us through the Ahl al‑Bayt of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, is that when “أَجَل” appears on its own it refers to a non‑definitive lifespan, duration, or term, whereas “أَجَلٌ مُسَمًّى” signifies a definitive and fixed lifespan. In other words, “أَجَلٌ مُسَمًّى” denotes a natural death, while “أَجَل” refers to a death that occurs prior to its natural term. The explanation of this distinction is as follows: many beings, according to their natural constitution and inherent capacities, are capable of remaining in existence for an extended period. However, during this period it is also possible for certain obstacles to arise that prevent them from reaching their full natural lifespan. For example, an oil lamp—given the amount of oil it contains—may possess the capacity to provide light for twenty hours, yet a gust of wind, a splash of rain, or neglect in its care may cause it to be extinguished prematurely. If the lamp encounters no such obstacles and continues burning until the last drop of oil is consumed, it has reached its definitive term. But if it is extinguished earlier due to intervening factors, its lifespan would be described as having reached a non‑definitive term. The same principle applies to human beings. If all the conditions necessary for survival are present and impediments are absent, the structure and capacity of the human being dictate that he may live for a lengthy period—though even this period has an ultimate limit. Yet it is also possible for a person to die much earlier due to improper diet, harmful habits, suicide, or the commission of certain sins. The first scenario corresponds to “أَجَلٌ مُسَمًّى”, while the second corresponds to a non‑definitive term. In other words, the definitive term is considered when all causes and conditions are taken into account, whereas the non‑definitive term is considered when only inherent predispositions are viewed. When these two types of ajl are understood, many matters become clear. Among them is the fact that in narrations we read that maintaining ties of kinship increases lifespan, whereas severing those ties shortens lifespan—here lifespan and ajl refer to the non‑definitive term. In another verse it is stated: فَإِذَا جَاءَ أَجَلُهُمْ لَا يَسْتَأْخِرُونَ سَاعَةً وَلَا يَسْتَقْدِمُونَ “When their ajl comes, they can neither delay it by an hour nor bring it forward” (al‑Aʿrāf / 34).

On this basis, the verse is related specifically to the situation in which a human being has reached his final term, whereas deaths that occur prior to the natural term do not fall under the scope of this verse. In every case, it must be borne in mind that both kinds of terms are determined by God—one in an absolute manner, and the other in a conditional and contingent manner. This is analogous to the way we say that a lamp will certainly be extinguished after twenty hours, without condition, and we also say that if a storm arises, it will be extinguished after only two hours. The same principle applies to individuals, nations, and communities. We say that a particular person or a particular nation will, with certainty, come to an end after a specific span of time; and we also say that if they adopt injustice, oppression, hypocrisy, division, negligence, and laziness, they will perish within a third of that period. Both terms are from God: one is absolute, and the other is conditional. Concerning the above verse, it is narrated from Imam Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام) that he said: “هما أجلان؛ أجل محتوم وأجل موقوف” —that is, there are two kinds of terms: a definitive term and a conditional term. Other narrations addressing this subject explicitly state that the non‑definitive (conditional) term may be extended or shortened, whereas the definitive term is not subject to change.

In this verse, the earlier discussion concerning tawḥīd and the oneness of God is brought to completion, and a response is given to those who believe in separate gods for every category of existence—such as a god of rain, a god of war, a god of peace, a god of the heavens, and so on. It states that He alone is God, whose divinity governs all the heavens and the earth: (وَهُوَ اللّٰهُ فِي السَّمٰوٰتِ وَفِي الْاَرْضِ). (Exegetes have differed regarding the grammatical construction of this sentence, but what appears most evident is that “هو” is the subject, “اللّٰه” is the predicate, and “في السموات…” is a prepositional phrase connected to an implied verb understood from the word Allah. In essence, the meaning of the sentence is: He alone possesses divinity in the heavens and the earth.) That is, keeping in view that He is the Creator of all things, it necessarily follows that He alone is also their Administrator and Controller. During the Age of Ignorance, the polytheists acknowledged God as the Creator but believed that management and control were delegated to idols. This verse answers them by declaring that the One who creates is also the One in whose hand lies all governance and control. Another possible interpretation of the verse is that God is present everywhere—in the heavens as well as on the earth—and no place is devoid of Him. This does not imply that God is a body or that He occupies a physical location; rather, it means that He encompasses all places and everything lies within His dominion. It necessarily follows that a Being who governs everything, in whose hand lies all administration, and who is present everywhere, must also possess complete knowledge of all secrets and hidden matters. Accordingly, the following clause states that such a God is the One who knows your hidden and manifest affairs and is fully aware of all that you do: (يَعْلَمُ سِرَّكُمْ وَجَهْرَكُمْ وَيَعْلَمُ مَا تَكْسِبُونَ). It may be objected that “سِرّ” and “جَهْر” already encompass human actions and intentions, making the phrase “ما تكسبون” (what you do) appear redundant. However, it must be noted that “كسب” refers to the outcome of actions—good or bad—in terms of intentions and inner spiritual states. That is, He knows not only your actions and intentions, but also the effects those actions produce within your souls. In any case, the mention of this phrase serves to emphasize and reinforce the comprehensive nature of God’s knowledge concerning human conduct.

See ayat 5 for tafseer.

As has already been stated, in Sūrat al‑Anʿām the discourse is directed predominantly toward the polytheists, and the Qur’an employs a variety of methods and approaches in order to awaken them and bring them to awareness. This verse, along with many that follow it, relates to the same theme. This verse points to the arrogance, negligence, and obstinacy of the polytheists in the face of truth and divine signs, stating that they are so stubborn and heedless that whatever sign from among the signs of their Lord comes to them, they immediately turn away from it: (وَمَا تَأْتِيهِمْ مِنْ آيَةٍ مِنْ آيَاتِ رَبِّهِمْ إِلَّا كَانُوا عَنْهَا مُعْرِضِينَ). (It is especially noteworthy that the word “آيَة” appears here as an indefinite noun in a negative construction, which conveys complete generality—meaning that they do not pause before any sign whatsoever, nor are they prepared to reflect upon any sign at all.) This indicates that the very first condition of guidance and finding the right path—namely, investigation and sincere inquiry—is entirely absent in them. Not only do they lack passion, zeal, and love for attaining the truth—like those who rush in search of water—but even if a clear and pure spring were to erupt before their very homes, they would still turn away from it and not even raise their eyes toward it, even though these signs are from their Lord (رَبِّهِمْ) and have descended for their nurture and spiritual development. This condition was not limited to the polytheists of the Age of Ignorance or the Arabs alone. Even today, many such people can be seen who have reached the age of sixty, yet are not prepared to exert even a single moment’s effort to investigate God and religion. If by chance a book or writing related to these matters comes into their hands, they do not even glance at it; and if someone attempts to discuss such topics with them, they are unwilling to listen. These are obstinate, ignorant, and heedless individuals, who sometimes may even be clothed in the garments of learning. The verse then points to the consequence of this behavior, stating that the result was that when the truth came to them, they denied it: (فَقَدْ كَذَّبُوا بِالْحَقِّ لَمَّا جَاءَهُمْ). Had they reflected upon and contemplated the signs of their Lord, they would have seen, recognized, and remembered the truth clearly. However, as a consequence of that denial and rejection, the news of that which they used to ridicule will soon reach them: (فَسَوْفَ يَأْتِيهِمْ أَنْبَاءُ مَا كَانُوا بِهِ يَسْتَهْزِئُونَ). In reality, the preceding verses point to three stages of disbelief, increasing in severity step by step. The first stage is aversion and turning away, followed by the stage of denial and rejection, and finally the stage of mockery, ridicule, and scorn of divine truths and signs. This indicates that a person does not halt at a single stage upon the path of disbelief; rather, the further he advances along it, the more intense become his denial, hostility, enmity toward the truth, and estrangement from God. The warning at the end of the verse refers to the fact that sooner or later, whether in this world or in the Hereafter, the evil consequences of disbelief will ultimately seize them. The verses that follow stand as clear testimony and confirmation of this interpretation.

Following this verse, the Qur’an presents a gradual, step‑by‑step program to awaken idol‑worshippers and polytheists, addressing the various motives and causes of shirk and idol‑worship. It begins by eliminating the factor of pride, which is one of the most significant causes of arrogance and rebellion. By reminding them of the condition of earlier nations and their painful fate, it warns those whose eyes are veiled by pride, saying: Have they not observed how many generations We destroyed before them—communities upon whom We had bestowed powers and stability on the earth that We have not bestowed upon you? (أَلَمْ يَرَوْا كَمْ أَهْلَكْنَا مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ مِنْ قَرْنٍ مَكَّنَّاهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ مَا لَمْ نُمَكِّنْ لَكُمْ) Among those blessings was this: We sent down upon them continuous and abundant rain (وَأَرْسَلْنَا السَّمَاءَ عَلَيْهِمْ مِدْرَارًا). The word “مِدْرَارًا” is derived from the root درّ, meaning milk, and was later applied to other flowing or pouring substances, such as rainfall. It is an intensive form, and the phrase “أَرْسَلْنَا السَّمَاءَ” is itself used for added emphasis. Another blessing was that We caused rivers to flow beneath their settlements and placed them under their control (وَجَعَلْنَا الْأَنْهَارَ تَجْرِي مِنْ تَحْتِهِمْ). Yet when they chose the path of rebellion, none of these resources and facilities could save them from divine punishment, and We destroyed them because of their sins (فَأَهْلَكْنَاهُمْ بِذُنُوبِهِمْ). After them, We brought forth other generations in their place (وَأَنْشَأْنَا مِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ قَرْنًا آخَرِينَ). Should reflection on the condition of the earlier peoples not serve as a lesson for them—should it not awaken them from heedlessness and negligence, and alert them to the dangers of arrogance and pride? Is the God who dealt thus with earlier nations not fully capable of dealing with them in the same manner?

1. Although the term “قَرْن” is commonly used to denote a long span of time—such as a hundred years, seventy years, or thirty years—it is also employed, as explicitly stated by lexicographers, to denote a community or generation that existed contemporaneously. In principle, qarn derives from the root iqtirān, meaning closeness or conjunction; and since people who live in the same era are close to one another in time, both they and their era are referred to as a qarn. 2. In numerous Qur’ānic verses, attention is drawn to the fact that the abundance of material resources often becomes a cause of arrogance and heedlessness among people of limited moral capacity, because when such individuals find these resources at their disposal, they begin to regard themselves as independent of the Lord of the worlds. They remain oblivious to the reality that if divine support and assistance were not to reach them at every moment and every second, they would perish altogether. As stated in the divine declaration: “كَلَّا إِنَّ الْإِنسَانَ لَيَطْغَىٰ أَنْ رَآهُ اسْتَغْنَىٰ”— Truly, human beings transgress when they see themselves as self‑sufficient (al‑ʿAlaq, verses 6–7). 3. This warning is not restricted solely to idol‑worshippers. Even today, the Qur’an warns the capitalist and mechanized world, intoxicated by the wine of pride due to the abundance of its material resources, not to forget the state of past peoples—how they lost everything as a consequence of their sins. It is possible that with a single spark of another global war you too may lose everything and regress to a time preceding your industrial civilization. You must reflect upon the fact that the cause of their misfortune was nothing other than sin, oppression, injustice, and lack of faith—and these very conditions have already manifested within your society as well. Indeed, the history of the pharaohs of Egypt, the kings of Sheba, the rulers of Chaldea and Assyria, and the Caesars of Rome—their boundless luxury and legendary lives, followed by their painful endings, where oppression and disbelief wrapped up the ledger of their existence—constitutes a profound and unmistakable lesson for us all.

The final stage of obstinacy among the causes of deviation is arrogance and stubborn denial, to which this verse alludes. In general, arrogant people are the ones who become obstinate, because arrogance does not allow them to submit before the truth. This very arrogance becomes the cause of their stubbornness, leading them to reject every clear proof and manifest argument—even to the point of denying self‑evident realities, as we have repeatedly observed with our own eyes in self‑centered and arrogant individuals. At this point, the Qur’an refers to certain idol‑worshippers—reported to have been Naḍr ibn al‑Ḥārith, ʿAbdullāh ibn Abī Umayyah, and Nawfal ibn Khuwaylid—who said to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny that they would believe only if a written document descended upon them from God, accompanied by four angels. The Qur’an responds by stating: Even if We were to send down to you a written scroll on parchment, and they were to touch it with their own hands, the disbelievers would still say: this is nothing but manifest magic (وَلَوْ نَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْكَ كِتَابًا فِي قِرْطَاسٍ فَلَمَسُوهُ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ لَقَالَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِنْ هَٰذَا إِلَّا سِحْرٌ مُبِينٌ). That is, their obstinacy has reached such an extreme that they would deny even the clearest sensory evidence—matters that can be known through sight and touch—using the pretext of magic to avoid submission to the truth. This is despite the fact that in their everyday lives they are satisfied with even one‑tenth of such evidence when establishing facts, accepting it as certain and indisputable. This behavior arises solely because self‑interest, arrogance, and intense stubbornness have cast their shadow over their souls. Incidentally, it should also be noted that the word “قِرْطَاس” refers to anything upon which one writes, whether paper, leather, or wooden tablets. Today it is commonly used only for paper, because among writing materials paper has become the most prevalent.

See ayat 10 for tafseer.

See ayat 10 for tafseer.

Another cause among the factors of disbelief and denial is pretext‑making. Although pretext‑making itself is a symptom of other elements such as arrogance and self‑centeredness, it gradually takes the form of a negative mindset and becomes, in itself, a reason for refusing to submit to the truth. Among the pretexts that the polytheists raised against the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny—many of which are mentioned in various Qur’ānic verses and are also reflected in the present verse—is their claim that the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny had taken upon himself such a great mission alone. They argued that someone else should accompany him in this mission—someone not from humankind but rather from the angelic realm. How, they asked, could a human being of their own kind carry the burden of prophethood alone? (وَقَالُوا لَوْلَا أُنْزِلَ عَلَيْهِ مَلَكٌ ۖ وَلَوْ أَنْزَلْنَا مَلَكًا) Despite the clear signs and manifest proofs establishing his prophethood, there is no room for such pretexts. Moreover, neither does an angel possess greater capacity than a human being, nor is it more suitable for the mission of prophethood; rather, a human is far more qualified for it. The Qur’an responds to them with two statements, each containing an argument. The first response is that if an angel were to descend and they still failed to believe, their life would be terminated: (وَلَوْ أَنْزَلْنَا مَلَكًا لَقُضِيَ الْأَمْرُ ثُمَّ لَا يُنْظَرُونَ). The reason for this is the same as that indicated in earlier verses: if prophethood were to be witnessed in a fully tangible manner—through the descent of an angel, thereby transforming the unseen into the seen—then the final stage of conclusive proof would be completed, for no evidence beyond this could be imagined. Under such circumstances, continued opposition would necessarily warrant immediate punishment. However, out of divine grace and mercy, and in order to leave room for reflection and reconsideration, God does not act in this way—except in particular situations where He knows that the opposing party is fully prepared to accept the truth, or, conversely, where that party has become deserving of destruction due to their deeds. In such cases, consequences are imposed accordingly. The second response is that the leadership role of the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny, his responsibility for guiding people, and his function as a practical model require that he must be human, sharing the same nature and attributes as those he leads, possessing all human instincts and capacities. An angel, apart from being invisible to humans, is incapable of serving as a role model for them, because it neither experiences human needs and hardships nor understands human impulses and desires. For this reason, its leadership over beings fundamentally different from it would be ineffective. Accordingly, the Qur’an states: (وَلَوْ جَعَلْنَاهُ مَلَكًا لَجَعَلْنَاهُ رَجُلًا). The pronoun in “جعلناه” may refer either to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny himself or to the angel who would be sent to reinforce his prophethood. In the latter case, their demand would be fulfilled; in the former, their demand would be exceeded. In either case, it becomes clear that “لَجَعَلْنَاهُ رَجُلًا” does not mean merely giving an angel a human appearance, as some exegetes have supposed, but rather endowing it with fully human attributes, both outward and inward. The Qur’an then presents the outcome of such a scenario, stating that in this case they would once again repeat their former objections—complaining that a human had been appointed as a guide—and claiming that the truth had been obscured from them: (وَلَلَبَسْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ مَا يَلْبِسُونَ). The root “لبس” (pattern daras) conveys the meaning of concealment and confusion, whereas “لبس” (pattern qفل) means to wear clothing. The former form is used here. It is evident that attributing labas (confusion) to God in this verse reflects the perspective of the deniers themselves: had an angel been sent in human form, they would have claimed they were misled—just as they themselves mislead the ignorant and conceal the face of truth. Finally, God consoles the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny by saying that he should not be distressed by their opposition, obstinacy, and harshness, for many messengers before him were also mocked. Ultimately, that which the mockers ridiculed overcame them, and divine punishment descended upon them: (وَلَقَدِ اسْتُهْزِئَ بِرُسُلٍ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ فَحَاقَ بِالَّذِينَ سَخِرُوا مِنْهُمْ مَا كَانُوا بِهِ يَسْتَهْزِئُونَ). In essence, this verse both consoles the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, ensuring that no hesitation or weakness enters his resolve, and warns the obstinate opponents to reflect upon the painful and evil consequences of their actions. (It should be noted that the word “حاق” means “descended” or “befell,” and “مَا كَانُوا بِهِ يَسْتَهْزِئُونَ” refers to the divine punishments about which the prophets had warned—punishments that the obstinate deniers used to mock. For example, the repeated warnings of Prophet Noah (عليه السلام) regarding the Flood had become a subject of ridicule for the idolatrous people. Hence, there is no need to assume an omitted word such as “جزاؤهم” in the verse, as some have suggested; rather, the meaning is that the very punishments they mocked descended upon them.)

At this point, the Qur’an adopts another method to awaken those obstinate and self‑centered individuals. It commands the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny to tell them to travel through the earth, observe the fate of those who denied the truths, and witness the consequences with their own eyes—perhaps they may awaken: (قُلْ سِيرُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ ثُمَّ انْظُرُوا كَيْفَ كَانَ عَاقِبَةُ الْمُكَذِّبِينَ). There is no doubt that seeing the remains and آثار of past peoples and civilizations that were destroyed for rejecting the truth is far more effective than merely reading about their conditions in history books, because such remains make reality tangible and perceptible. This is likely why the word “انْظُرُوا” (look, observe) is used rather than “تَفَكَّرُوا” (reflect). Moreover, the use of the word “ثُمَّ”, which typically indicates sequence with an interval, may be intended to emphasize that one should not rush in judgment during observation, but rather travel with patience, reflect carefully while observing the remains of earlier peoples, and then derive conclusions by seeing the final outcome of their deeds with one’s own eyes. We have already discussed in detail the remarkable impact of travel upon awakening thought and understanding, under Āl ʿImrān, verse 137, in volume three of this commentary. Interpretation As before, this verse continues the discussion with the polytheists. In the preceding verses, the subject of tawḥīd was predominantly examined; in this verse, the focus turns to the issue of resurrection and the Hereafter (maʿād). Alongside allusions to divine unity, the Qur’an presents the reality of the Resurrection in an elegant and persuasive manner. The verse adopts a question‑and‑answer structure, in which both the questioner and the respondent are the same—this being one of the refined rhetorical techniques of the Qur’an.

See ayat 13 for tafseer.

As in the preceding verses, this verse continues the discussion with the polytheists. While the earlier verses focused primarily on the concept of tawḥīd, this verse addresses the issue of resurrection and the Hereafter (maʿād). Alongside the indication toward divine unity, the Qur’an proceeds to present the reality of the Day of Resurrection in a highly refined and effective manner. The verse is structured in the form of question and answer, in which both the questioner and the respondent are the same—this being one of the eloquent rhetorical devices employed by the Qur’an.

For the proof of resurrection (maʿād), two preliminary points are stated: 1. First it says: Say: To whom belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth? (قُلْ لِمَنْ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ). Then, immediately and without pause, it adds that you yourselves should answer on behalf of the language of innate nature and the depths of your souls: It belongs to God (قُلْ لِلَّهِ). According to this premise, the entire universe is God’s possession, and its administration and governance rest in His hands. 2. The Lord of the worlds is the source of all mercy. He is the One who has prescribed mercy upon Himself and has made countless blessings universally accessible (كَتَبَ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ الرَّحْمَةَ). Is it possible that such a God would allow the bond of human life to be completely severed by death, bringing the journey toward perfection to an absolute end? Is this compatible with His intrinsic generosity and His all‑embracing mercy? Can He show such indifference toward His servants—over whom He is the Owner and the Sustainer—that after a period they should be annihilated entirely, leaving no trace of existence? Such a notion is certainly untenable. Rather, His vast mercy demands that He continue the progression of beings—especially human beings—toward higher levels of perfection. Just as, under the shade of His mercy, He transforms a valueless and insignificant seed into a towering, fruit‑bearing tree or a beautiful flowering branch, and just as through His grace He transforms a seemingly insignificant drop of fluid into a complete human being, the same mercy requires that He bring the human being—who possesses the capacity for permanence and eternal life—into a new form of existence after death, within a broader realm, with His merciful hand continuing to guide that eternal journey of perfection. Therefore, after establishing these two premises, the verse declares with certainty: He will surely gather you all on the Day of Resurrection, in which there is no doubt (لَيَجْمَعَنَّكُمْ إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ). It is especially noteworthy that the verse begins with a question—what is termed in rhetoric an affirmative interrogative (استفهام تقريري)—whose sole purpose is to elicit acknowledgment from the listener. Since this truth was already self‑evident from the perspective of innate human nature, and since even the polytheists themselves admitted that ownership of existence belonged not to idols but to God, the Qur’an immediately provides the answer itself. This constitutes an effective and elegant method of resolving complex issues. Another significant point is that elsewhere the Qur’an employs various approaches in arguing for resurrection—such as appeal to divine justice, the law of perfection, and divine wisdom—but argumentation based on divine mercy represents a distinct and novel mode of reasoning, which is introduced in this verse. At the end of the verse, attention is drawn to the fate of the obstinate polytheists, stating that those who have squandered the capital of their own existence in the marketplace of life will never believe in these truths: (الَّذِينَ خَسِرُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ فَهُمْ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ). This is an extraordinarily striking expression. At times, a person may lose wealth, status, or other forms of capital; although such losses are significant, these are external possessions, not integral parts of one’s being. The greatest loss—what may truly be called absolute loss—occurs when a person forfeits his very self and wagers his own existence. The enemies of truth and obstinate deniers have squandered the capital of their lives—their intellect, thought, innate nature, and all their spiritual and physical endowments, which should have been employed on the path of truth to reach perfection. In such a case, neither capital nor investor remains. This powerful formulation appears in numerous Qur’ānic verses and vividly depicts the painful destiny of the deniers of truth and habitual sinners. A possible question and its answer: It may be argued that eternal life is clearly a manifestation of mercy for believers, but for disbelievers it brings nothing but hardship and misery. Undoubtedly, God’s role is to provide the means of mercy. He created the human being, endowed him with intellect, sent messengers for guidance, placed diverse blessings at his disposal, and opened pathways toward eternal life for all. All of these are, without exception, manifestations of mercy. If, before reaching the fruits of these mercies, a person deliberately distorts the path and converts all these means into instruments of suffering for himself, this does not negate their being merciful in nature; rather, the blame returns entirely to the person who transformed mercy into torment. The following verse completes the preceding one. Whereas the first verse indicated God’s ownership of all beings within the spatial horizon, stating that He owns everything in the heavens and the earth, this verse refers to His ownership within the temporal horizon, saying: And to Him belongs whatever dwells in the night and the day (وَلَهُ مَا سَكَنَ فِي اللَّيْلِ وَالنَّهَارِ). In reality, the material world is never devoid of time and space, and all beings that exist within these dimensions—the entirety of the material cosmos—belong to Him. One should not imagine that night and day are restricted only to this solar system. All beings of the heavens and the earth experience cycles analogous to night and day: some exist in perpetual light with no darkness, such as the sun, while others exist in constant darkness without light, as in distant, extinguished celestial realms. The verse applies to all such situations. Incidentally, it should be noted that “سَكَنَ” denotes dwelling, settling, or remaining within something—whether the being in question is in motion or at rest. For example, when we say that we dwell in a particular city, we mean that we reside and remain there, even though we may be moving through its streets or sitting still at various times. Another possible interpretation is that “سكون” here is mentioned in contrast to movement, and since both concepts are relative, mentioning one suffices to include the other. Accordingly, the verse would mean that everything existing in the cycles of night and day, whether in motion or at rest, belongs to God. On this reading, the verse may allude to a philosophical argument for divine unity: movement and rest are both contingent and originated states; they cannot be eternal. Movement denotes a thing existing in two different locations at two different times, while rest denotes a thing remaining in the same location across two time intervals. In either case, reference to a prior state is implicit, and anything possessing a prior state cannot be eternal. From this reasoning it follows that bodies are never devoid of motion or rest, and whatever is not devoid of them cannot be eternal. Hence, all bodies are originated, and because they are originated, they require a creator. God, by contrast, is not a body; He possesses neither motion nor rest, neither time nor space. For this reason, He is eternal and everlasting. Finally, after emphasizing divine unity, the verse concludes by highlighting two prominent attributes of God: And He is the All‑Hearing, the All‑Knowing (وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ). This indicates that the vastness of existence and the multitude of beings situated within the dimensions of time and space in no way prevent God from knowing their secrets. Rather, He hears their speech—indeed, He even knows the movement of a small ant traversing a black stone on a dark night in the depth of a silent and remote valley—and He is aware of the needs of all beings, as well as of all their deeds and actions.

See ayat 16 for tafseer.

See ayat 16 for tafseer.

Some have transmitted a specific occasion of revelation (shaʾn al‑nuzūl) for these verses, stating that a number of people from Mecca came to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and said: O Muḥammad! You have abandoned the religion of your people, and we know that the only consequence of this course is poverty. We are prepared to share our wealth with you and make you very wealthy, so that you may abandon opposition to our gods and return to our original religion. Thereupon, the above verses were revealed and served as a response to them (as reported in Tafsīr Abū al‑Futūḥ al‑Rāzī and Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān under these verses). However, as previously noted, according to transmitted reports, the verses of this sūrah were revealed together as a single unit in Mecca, and therefore it is not necessary to assume a separate and specific occasion of revelation for each individual verse. Nevertheless, prior to the revelation of this sūrah, ongoing discussions and debates between the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the polytheists were taking place; accordingly, some of the verses of this sūrah take those exchanges into account. Thus, there is no contradiction in assuming that such statements were made by the polytheists and that God responds to them within these verses. In any case, the central purpose of these verses remains the establishment of monotheism (tawḥīd) and the struggle against shirk and idol‑worship. Although the polytheists restricted the act of creation to God alone, they regarded idols as their protectors and refuges. At times, they resorted to a different idol for every need, believing in multiple gods—such as a god of rain, a god of light, a god of darkness, a god of war and peace, and a god of livelihood. This corresponds to the doctrine of “lords of species” (arbāb al‑anwāʿ), which was also present in ancient Greece. To eliminate this erroneous belief, the Qur’an instructs the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny to say: Shall I take as my guardian, protector, and refuge someone other than God—He who originated the heavens and the earth, who gives sustenance but Himself is not sustained? (قُلْ أَغَيْرَ اللّٰهِ أَتَّخِذُ وَلِيًّا فَاطِرِ السَّمٰوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَهُوَ يُطْعِمُ وَلَا يُطْعَمُ). Since He alone is the creator of all things, having brought the universe into existence without reliance on any other power, and since the sustenance of all beings lies solely in His hand, what justification remains for a person to take anyone else as a guardian or refuge? All others are creatures who, at every moment of their existence, depend upon Him; how then could they fulfill the needs of others? It is especially noteworthy that when the verse speaks of the creation of the heavens and the earth, God is described by the attribute “فَاطِر”. The word fāṭir derives from the root fuṭūr, meaning to split or cleave. Ibn ʿAbbās is reported to have said that he came to understand the meaning of “فَاطِرِ السَّمٰوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ” when he saw two Arabs disputing ownership of a well, one claiming: “أنا فطرتها”—“I split and created this well.” However, with the aid of modern scientific understanding, we can comprehend this meaning even more clearly than Ibn ʿAbbās. According to precise contemporary scientific theories, the macrocosm (the universe as a whole) and the microcosm (such as solar systems) originated from a single unified mass that subsequently fragmented under successive forces, giving rise to galaxies, solar systems, and diverse celestial structures. This meaning is stated more explicitly in Sūrat al‑Anbiyāʾ, verse 30: “أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَنَّ السَّمٰوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقًا فَفَتَقْنَاهُمَا” — Have the disbelievers not seen that the heavens and the earth were once joined together, and We then split them apart? Another point that should not be overlooked is that among God’s attributes mentioned here, providing sustenance to His servants is singled out. This may be because human dependence in material life is largely tied to material needs; the simple phrase “a morsel of bread” often compels people to submit before the powerful and wealthy, sometimes even reaching the level of worshipful submission. The Qur’an declares here: your sustenance lies in His hand—not in the hands of the wealthy, the powerful, or the idols. Those who possess wealth and authority are themselves in need and require sustenance. It is God alone who sustains others while Himself having no need of sustenance. Similarly, in other Qur’ānic verses, God’s ownership, provision of sustenance, sending of rain, and nurturing of vegetation are emphasized in order to remove altogether from people’s minds any sense of attachment to created beings. In response to those who proposed that the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny align himself with the polytheists, the Qur’an further commands him to say: Not only does reason direct me to rely exclusively upon the One who created the heavens and the earth, but divine revelation also commands me to be the first of those who submit, and never to be among the polytheists (قُلْ إِنِّي أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أَكُونَ أَوَّلَ مَنْ أَسْلَمَ وَلَا تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ). Here, “إِنِّي أُمرتُ” is phrased as indirect address, while “ولا تكوننّ” is a direct address; this difference may be because distancing oneself from shirk is of even greater importance than being the first to submit, hence it is conveyed through direct address with a strong emphatic form (نُونِ التَّوكيد الثقيلة). There is no doubt that before the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny, other prophets and their communities were also Muslims, submitting to God’s command. Therefore, when he states that he has been commanded to be the first to submit, the meaning is the first to submit within this community. This also carries an important educational message: every leader must take precedence over others in practicing the teachings of his mission. He must be the foremost believer in his religion, the most committed to acting upon it, and the most willing to sacrifice for its cause. The following verse emphasizes further that the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny himself is not exempt from accountability under divine law. He declares that even he fears punishment on the Great Day if he were to disobey his Lord: (قُلْ إِنِّي أَخَافُ إِنْ عَصَيْتُ رَبِّي عَذَابَ يَوْمٍ عَظِيمٍ). Grammatically, one would expect “أخاف” to follow the conditional clause “إن عصيت ربّي”, but the Prophet’s deep sense of responsibility and accountability before God necessitates placing “أخاف” first for emphasis. From this verse it becomes clear that the sense of accountability in prophets is more intense than in others. In the final verse, in order to affirm that even the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny cannot act without reliance upon divine mercy and that all authority lies solely within God’s power, it is proclaimed that the Messenger himself places his hope entirely in God’s boundless mercy and seeks salvation and success only through it. It is stated that whoever is spared from punishment on that Day has indeed received God’s mercy, and this alone is the manifest triumph: (مَنْ يُصْرَفْ عَنْهُ يَوْمَئِذٍ فَقَدْ رَحِمَهُ وَذٰلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْمُبِينُ). These verses represent the final and highest degree of monotheism, explicitly responding even to those who regarded prophets as independent refuges alongside God—such as certain Christians who viewed Jesus (ʿalayhi al‑salām) as a savior—by asserting clearly that even prophets themselves are in need of God’s mercy.

See ayat 18 for tafseer.

As we have already explained, the primary objective of this sūrah is the eradication of shirk and idol‑worship. The two verses under discussion also articulate this same reality. First, it is stated: Why do you turn your attention toward beings other than God? Why do you seek refuge in self‑made gods for deliverance from calamities, removal of harm, and attainment of benefit—when even the slightest and most insignificant harm, if it afflicts you, can be removed by none but God, and if any good, blessing, or success reaches you, it is likewise a manifestation of His power alone? For He is the One who has power over all things: (وَاِنْ يَّمْسَسْكَ اللّٰهُ بِضُرٍّ فَلَا كَاشِفَ لَهُ إِلَّا هُوَ ۖ وَاِنْ يَّمْسَسْكَ بِخَيْرٍ فَهُوَ عَلٰى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ) The term “ضُرّ” is used for harms that befall human beings, whether physical—such as loss of bodily organs or illness—spiritual, such as ignorance, foolishness, or madness, or external, such as the loss of wealth, children, or honor. In reality, people turn to beings other than God because they regard them either as sources of benefit or as forces capable of removing difficulties and afflictions. It is precisely for these two reasons that people sometimes humble themselves—even to the point of worship—before those who possess power and authority. The above verse declares that the divine will governs all things. If God withdraws a blessing from someone, or bestows one upon another, there exists no source of power in the entire world capable of reversing His decree. Given this reality, why should people bow in reverence before anyone other than God? The use of the expression “يَمَسَّسْكَ” (touch) with respect to both good and harm indicates that even the smallest instance of benefit or affliction does not lie beyond the scope of His will and power. It should also be noted that this verse constitutes an explicit refutation of the doctrine of the dualists (ثنويين), who believed in two independent sources for good and evil. The verse attributes both to God. However, as previously emphasized, absolute evil does not exist in the world. Thus, when evil is attributed to God, what is meant are matters that appear externally as deprivation but are, in reality, good in their proper context—serving purposes such as awakening, moral training, removal of arrogance and rebellion, or other hidden wisdoms. In the following verse, this discussion is completed by stating: He is the One who is absolutely dominant over all His servants (وَهُوَ الْقَاهِرُ فَوْقَ عِبَادِهِ). Although “قَهْر” and “غَلَبَة” are often translated similarly, there is a subtle lexical distinction between them. Qahr refers to a form of dominance in which the opposing party is entirely incapable of offering any resistance, whereas ghalabah does not necessarily entail such absolute subjugation—it is conceivable that the dominated party might later overcome the victor. In other words, a “قَاهِر” is one who exercises such complete superiority over the opponent that no possibility of counteraction exists, much like a small flame instantly extinguished by a container of water. Some exegetes maintain that قاهريّة is typically used when the opposing entity is rational, while ghalabah has a broader usage that also applies to non‑rational beings (as noted in al‑Mīzān). Accordingly, when the previous verse pointed to the universality of God’s power in contrast to self‑made gods and tyrants, it did not mean that God is compelled to struggle against other powers over time before overcoming them. Rather, His power is power that is inherently dominant and irresistible, and the phrase “فَوْقَ عِبَادِهِ” further reinforces this meaning. Under such circumstances, how can an intelligent person abandon God and follow beings who possess no independent power whatsoever—beings whose slightest capacity is itself granted by God? However, lest it be imagined that God might misuse His unlimited power as some earthly rulers do, the verse concludes by affirming: He is Wise and All‑Aware (وَهُوَ الْحَكِيمُ الْخَبِيرُ). Despite possessing absolute dominance, God is utterly free from even the slightest injustice or error, and He never exercises His power without wisdom, precision, and full awareness. It is reported regarding Pharaoh that, while threatening the Children of Israel with the killing of their sons, he proclaimed: “وَإِنَّا فَوْقَهُمْ قَاهِرُونَ” (al‑Aʿrāf / 127), meaning that he claimed absolute power over them. Yet Pharaoh employed this claimed dominance— which in truth was no more than a petty and transient power—as a justification for oppression and disregard for human rights. God, by contrast, though possessing true divine dominance, is far removed from committing even the slightest injustice against the weakest of His servants. It is self‑evident that the phrase “فَوْقَ عِبَادِهِ” refers to superiority of rank and authority, not spatial position, since God is not confined to any place. It is astonishing that some misguided individuals have attempted to use this phrase as proof that God has a physical body, whereas there is no doubt that “above” here expresses metaphysical supremacy, just as the same expression was used for Pharaoh to denote authority, not physical elevation—despite Pharaoh himself being a corporeal being. (Reflect carefully.)

See ayat 20 for tafseer.

“The Greatest Witness” — as a group of exegetes have explained — relates to an incident in which a group of the polytheists of Mecca came to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and said: What kind of prophet are you, when you have not a single supporter or corroborator? We have even investigated your case among the Jews and Christians, and they too do not testify to your truthfulness on the basis of the Torah and the Gospel. At the very least, show us someone who bears witness to your prophethood. The above verse points precisely to this episode. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is commanded to respond to all these obstinate opponents — who have closed their eyes, ignored every sign of his truthfulness, and yet continue to demand testimony — by asking: According to your own belief and outlook, who is the greatest witness? (قُلْ أَيُّ شَيْءٍ أَكْبَرُ شَهَادَةً) Is there any testimony greater than the testimony of the Lord? Therefore say: God is a witness between me and you (قُلِ اللَّهُ شَهِيدٌ بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَكُمْ) And the clearest proof of this is that He has revealed this Qur’an to me (وَأُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ هَذَا الْقُرْآنُ) — a Qur’an that cannot possibly be the product of human thought, especially in that era, milieu, and setting; a Qur’an replete with diverse evidences of inimitability, whose words are miraculous and whose meanings are even more so. Is not this alone the greatest testimony from the Lord of the worlds to the truthfulness of my mission? Implicitly, this statement makes it clear that the Qur’an itself is the greatest miracle and the most decisive witness to the truth of the claim of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. The verse then clarifies the purpose of the revelation of the Qur’an, stating that it was revealed so that the Prophet may warn you and all those to whom it reaches — across the span of human history, the breadth of time, and all regions of the world — against disobedience to God, and alert them to the painful consequences of such opposition: (لِأُنْذِرَكُمْ بِهِ وَمَنْ بَلَغَ) If the discourse here focuses exclusively on warning (إنذار) rather than glad tidings, it is because the address is directed to stubborn individuals who persist in opposition. Furthermore, the phrase “وَمَنْ بَلَغَ” (“and whoever it reaches”) explicitly indicates the universal scope of the Qur’anic message, the global nature of its mission, and the universality of its call. No more concise and comprehensive formulation could possibly express this meaning. Reflecting on its scope removes all doubt that the Qur’an’s message is not restricted to the Arab people, to a specific era, or to a particular region. A number of scholars have also inferred from this expression the doctrine of the finality of prophethood, since the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is described as being sent to all those to whom his message reaches — that is, to all people until the end of the world. Narrations transmitted through the Ahl al‑Bayt (ʿalayhim al‑salām) clarify that the communication of the Qur’an does not merely mean its literal conveyance, but also includes the transmission of its meanings and interpretations in other languages. In one narration, Imam Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām) was asked about this verse, and he replied: “بكل لسان” — “in every language.” Additionally, this verse also alludes to a principle well‑known in the science of jurisprudence: “قبح العقاب بلا بيان” (the reprehensibility of punishment without prior clarification). Jurisprudence establishes that a person cannot be held accountable for a command that has not reached him, unless he himself was negligent in seeking it. The verse conveys the same meaning: accountability applies only to those to whom the message has reached, while those who were not informed, despite making no negligence, bear no responsibility. In Tafsīr al‑Manār, it is reported from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny that a group of captives were brought before him. He asked them whether Islam had been presented to them. When they replied that it had not, he ordered that they be released. He then recited the above verse and said that since the truth of Islam had not been conveyed to them, they were not to be held accountable. From this verse it is also understood that the word “شَيء” — which corresponds to the Persian word chīz (“thing”) — may legitimately be applied to God, though He is not like other things, which are created and limited; rather, He is the uncreated and infinite Creator. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is then commanded to ask them explicitly: Do you truly testify that there are other gods alongside God? (أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَشْهَدُونَ أَنَّ مَعَ اللَّهِ آلِهَةً أُخْرَى) He is then instructed to state unambiguously: I never bear such testimony. Say: He is but One God, and I am wholly free and innocent of whatever you associate with Him (قُلْ لَا أَشْهَدُ ۚ قُلْ إِنَّمَا هُوَ إِلٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ وَإِنَّنِي بَرِيءٌ مِمَّا تُشْرِكُونَ) These emphatic concluding statements serve a psychological purpose: the polytheists might otherwise imagine that their arguments had introduced some hesitation into the Prophet’s resolve, and might leave the gathering hopeful that Muḥammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny would reconsider his call. Instead, these decisive and categorical words extinguish that hope entirely, making it clear that not the slightest wavering will ever enter his mission. Experience repeatedly shows that such firm conclusions at the end of a debate leave a powerful and lasting impact. In the following verse, a direct response is given to those who claimed that the People of the Book offered no testimony regarding the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. It declares that those to whom the Scripture was given recognize him as clearly as they recognize their own sons: (الَّذِينَ آتَيْنَاهُمُ الْكِتَابَ يَعْرِفُونَهُ كَمَا يَعْرِفُونَ أَبْنَاءَهُمْ) That is, they not only knew of the Prophet’s advent and message, but were also familiar with his precise characteristics and detailed signs. Consequently, when some Meccans claimed to have consulted the People of the Book only to find no knowledge of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny among them, either they were lying and had never truly consulted them, or the People of the Book deliberately concealed the truth — as suggested by other Qur’anic verses. This discussion has been further elaborated in Tafsīr‑e Namūnah, volume 1, under Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 146. The verse finally concludes with an ultimate result: only those who have utterly lost themselves in the marketplace of life, squandering the entire capital of their existence, refuse to believe in this Messenger despite all these clear signs: (الَّذِينَ خَسِرُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ فَهُمْ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ)

See ayat 24 for tafseer.

See ayat 24 for tafseer.

See ayat 24 for tafseer.

After presenting a comprehensive program for the eradication of shirk and idol‑worship, the first of the above verses states, in the form of an explicit rhetorical negation, that there is no one more unjust than those polytheists who fabricate falsehood against God, associate partners with Him, and deny His signs: (وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَىٰ عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا أَوْ كَذَّبَ بِآيَاتِهِ). In reality, the first clause points to the denial of tawḥīd, while the second clause points to the denial of prophethood. Indeed, no greater injustice can exist than equating lifeless objects or powerless human beings with an infinite Being who governs the entire universe. This act constitutes injustice in three respects: first, injustice toward God, by assigning partners to Him; second, injustice toward oneself, by debasing one’s own dignity to the level of worshipping stone and wood; and third, injustice toward society, by subjecting it to fragmentation and disunity under the influence of shirk, thereby severing it from the spirit of unity and oneness. It is self‑evident that injustice—especially injustice that is manifest in every dimension—can never lead to success, salvation, or deliverance: (إِنَّهُ لَا يُفْلِحُ الظَّالِمُونَ). Although the word shirk is not explicitly mentioned in this verse, when the surrounding verses—each of which addresses shirk—are taken into account, it becomes clear that the term “افترى” here refers specifically to imputing partners to God. It is noteworthy that in the Qur’an, on fifteen occasions, certain groups are described as the most unjust, each instance beginning with the interrogative construction “وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ” or “فَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ” (“Who is more unjust…”). While the majority of these verses concern shirk, idol‑worship, and the denial of divine signs—thus revolving around the core issue of tawḥīd—some address other matters as well. For example: “وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنْ مَنَعَ مَسَاجِدَ اللَّهِ أَنْ يُذْكَرَ فِيهَا اسْمُهُ” — “Who is more unjust than one who prevents the remembrance of God in the mosques?” (al‑Baqarah / 114). And elsewhere: “وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنْ كَتَمَ شَهَادَةً عِنْدَهُ مِنَ اللَّهِ” — “Who is more unjust than one who conceals testimony he has from God?” (al‑Baqarah / 140). This raises the question: how can multiple groups each be described as “the most unjust,” when such a designation would appear to apply to only one group? The answer is that all these injustices share a single root, namely shirk, disbelief, and obstinate opposition. Preventing the remembrance of God in mosques and striving to ruin them is itself a manifestation of disbelief and shirk; similarly, concealing truthful testimony—meaning the suppression of revealed truths that results in misguidance—is another form of denial of the One God. Thus, these acts represent diverse expressions of the same fundamental deviation from tawḥīd. The following verse turns to the ultimate fate of the polytheists, making it clear that their reliance on powerless idols brought them neither peace nor security in this world, nor will it benefit them in the Hereafter. God says: On the Day when We gather them all together, We shall say to those who associated partners with God: Where are your alleged associates whom you claimed? (وَيَوْمَ نَحْشُرُهُمْ جَمِيعًا ثُمَّ نَقُولُ لِلَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُوا أَيْنَ شُرَكَاؤُكُمُ الَّذِينَ كُنْتُمْ تَزْعُمُونَ). Was it not on the assumption that these beings would aid you in distress that you sought refuge in them? Why, then, is not the slightest trace of their power visible in the terrifying arena of the Resurrection? They will stand bewildered, engulfed in fear and astonishment, possessing no answer except to swear: By God, our Lord, we were not polytheists (ثُمَّ لَمْ تَكُنْ فِتْنَتُهُمْ إِلَّا أَنْ قَالُوا وَاللَّهِ رَبِّنَا مَا كُنَّا مُشْرِكِينَ), imagining, as they did in the world, that even there facts might be denied. Exegetes differ regarding the meaning of “فتنة” in this verse: some interpret it as excuse, others as response, and still others as shirk. If taken in the sense of excuse or response, the verse requires no ellipsis; but if taken in the sense of shirk, it must be read as implying a result—namely, the outcome of their shirk is that they swear they were never polytheists. Another plausible interpretation is that “فتنة” refers to their inner inclination—the attachment to shirk and idol‑worship that had veiled their intellect and understanding. On the Day of Resurrection, when all veils are lifted, they will become fully aware of their grave error and repudiate their past deeds, disowning them entirely. Lexically, as Rāghib explains in al‑Mufradāt, fitnah originally means placing gold in fire to expose its inner quality—whether pure or impure. This meaning suits the context of the verse: amid the intense terror and ordeals of the Resurrection, they will awaken to the truth and attempt, in desperation, to deny their past actions in hope of salvation. The next verse calls upon observers to take heed of their disgraceful end: Look how they lied against their own selves (اُنْظُرْ كَيْفَ كَذَبُوا عَلٰى أَنْفُسِهِمْ), and how all the supports they had fabricated and considered partners of God have completely vanished, leaving them utterly forsaken: (وَضَلَّ عَنْهُمْ مَا كَانُوا يَفْتَرُونَ). Several important points: 1. “اُنْظُرْ” here clearly means seeing with the eye of reason, not physical sight, since the scene of the Resurrection is not observable in the present world. 2. The statement that they lied against themselves may mean either that in the world they deceived themselves and strayed from the path of truth, or that on the Day of Resurrection they lie by swearing they were never polytheists, despite having been so. 3. A question arises: how can this denial coexist with the manifest witnessing of reality on the Day of Resurrection, when no one would dare to utter falsehood—just as even the most habitual liar would not stand before the sun at midday and claim the world is dark? Moreover, other verses indicate that they will openly confess their shirk, such as: “وَلَا يَكْتُمُونَ اللَّهَ حَدِيثًا” (al‑Nisāʾ / 42). Two answers are given: First, the Resurrection comprises multiple stages. In the initial phases, the polytheists may imagine that lying can still save them from divine punishment, and thus fall back on their habitual falsehood. Later, when they realize there is no escape, they will confess their deeds. It appears that the veils before human perception are lifted gradually; at first, before fully examining their records, they resort to denial, but once everything becomes unmistakably clear, admission becomes unavoidable. This is akin to criminals who deny all accusations during preliminary interrogation, yet confess once incontrovertible evidence is presented. This explanation is reported in a narration from Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (عليه السلام). Second, the verse may refer to those who did not consider themselves polytheists—such as certain Christians who profess belief in three gods yet regard themselves as monotheists, or individuals who proclaimed tawḥīd while their actions betrayed implicit shirk: disregarding prophetic commands, relying on other than God, and denying God’s chosen ones. These people will swear on the Day of Resurrection that they were monotheists, but will quickly be shown that inwardly they were among the polytheists. This explanation is also transmitted from ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (عليه السلام) and Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام). Both interpretations are acceptable.

See ayat 26 for tafseer.

The conduct of those who refuse to accept the truth is highlighted in this verse through reference to the psychological state of certain polytheists. They do not show even the slightest willingness, of their own accord, to listen to the truths being presented. This alone would be a minor matter; rather, they go further and display hostility, distancing both themselves and others from the truth through false accusations. Concerning them it is stated: Among them are those who listen to you, yet We have placed coverings over their hearts so that they cannot understand it, and in their ears We have placed heaviness so that they do not hear (وَمِنْهُمْ مَّنْ يَسْتَمِعُ إِلَيْكَ ۚ وَجَعَلْنَا عَلٰى قُلُوبِهِمْ أَكِنَّةً أَنْ يَفْقَهُوهُ وَفِي آذَانِهِمْ وَقْرًا) The term “أَكِنَّة” is the plural of كنان (patterned like كتاب), meaning a covering or anything that conceals, while “وَقْر” denotes heaviness in hearing. In reality, the blind fanaticism of the Age of Ignorance, immersion in material interests, and submission to caprice and desire so thoroughly overcame their reason and awareness that their inner faculties became veiled. As a result, they could neither properly hear the truth nor correctly comprehend realities. As has been stated repeatedly, when matters of this kind are attributed to God, they actually refer to the law of causation and the inherent effects of human actions. Persistence in deviation, obstinacy, and insistence upon disbelief shape the human soul in a corresponding mold. Such actions turn a person into a distorted mirror, in which everything appears warped. Experience confirms this reality: sinful individuals initially feel unease and distress over their wrongdoing, but gradually grow accustomed to it, and may even come to regard their immoral actions as necessary or justified. In other words, this condition is one of the punishments resulting from persistent opposition to the truth and obstinate persistence in sin, clinging invariably to such defiant wrongdoers. Hence it is said that their condition has reached the point that: Even if they were to see every sign, they would not believe in it (وَإِنْ يَرَوْا كُلَّ آيَةٍ لَا يُؤْمِنُوا بِهَا) More serious still, when they come to you, instead of opening the ears of their hearts to your words and reflecting upon them—at least with the possibility of discovering some truth—they approach you with a negative disposition and hostile mindset, seeking nothing but dispute, contention, and objection (حَتّٰى إِذَا جَاءُوكَ يُجَادِلُونَكَ) Having heard your words, which issue from the spring of revelation and flow from a truthful tongue, they level accusations against you, claiming that these are nothing but fabricated tales and myths of earlier peoples (يَقُولُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِنْ هٰذَا إِلَّا أَسَاطِيرُ الْأَوَّلِينَ) The following verse states that they do not stop at this. Despite being misguided themselves, they constantly seek to prevent truth‑seekers from following this path through their poisonous insinuations. Thus they forbid others from approaching the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny (وَهُمْ يَنْهَوْنَ عَنْهُ) while they themselves remain far removed from him (وَيَنْأَوْنَ عَنْهُ) The verb “يَنْأَوْنَ” derives from the root نأى (pattern سعى), meaning to withdraw or keep at a distance. They are unaware that whoever entangles himself in hostility toward the truth and distances himself from it has in fact struck an axe upon his own feet. Ultimately, according to the established laws of creation, the face of truth emerges from behind the clouds of falsehood; the intrinsic attraction and power inherent in the truth ensure its ultimate victory, while falsehood—like worthless foam that rises briefly upon water—inevitably perishes. Therefore, their efforts and activities will culminate in their own defeat, destroying none but themselves: They destroy none but themselves, yet they do not perceive it (وَإِنْ يُهْلِكُونَ إِلَّا أَنْفُسَهُمْ وَمَا يَشْعُرُونَ)

What has been explained in the interpretation of the previous verse makes it abundantly clear that this verse pertains to the debates and confrontations between the obstinate polytheists and the most determined enemies of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. According to the rules of Arabic grammar and rhetoric, the pronoun “هم” clearly refers back to those individuals discussed in the verse itself—namely, the fanatical disbelievers who left no effort unmade in obstructing the path of the Prophet’s mission and in inflicting harm upon it. It is therefore deeply regrettable that some Sunni exegetes, disregarding the established principles of Arabic language and context, have detached this verse from its preceding one and attempted to apply it to Abū Ṭālib (عليه السلام)—the father of Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (عليه السلام). They interpret the verse as referring to certain people who defended the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny yet remained distant from him, based on the expression: (وَهُمْ يَنْهَوْنَ عَنْهُ وَيَنْأَوْنَ عَنْهُ), and further attempt to support their claim by citing other verses—such as Sūrat al‑Tawbah, verse 114, and Sūrat al‑Qaṣaṣ, verse 56—which will be addressed in their proper context. In contrast, all Shiʿi scholars, as well as eminent Sunni authorities such as Ibn Abī al‑Ḥadīd, the commentator of Nahj al‑Balāghah, al‑Qasṭallānī in Irshād al‑Sārī, and Zaynī Daḥlān in the marginal notes of al‑Sīrah al‑Ḥalabiyyah, have clearly regarded Abū Ṭālib as a believing Muslim. Moreover, within the principal sources of Islamic history and tradition, there exists a wealth of evidence affirming this reality—evidence so compelling that one is left genuinely astonished as to why Abū Ṭālib became the target of such accusations and ingratitude. How could a man who dedicated his entire being to the defense of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, repeatedly placing himself and his own children as shields in moments of danger to protect the sacred existence of Islam, be subjected to such allegations? For this reason, careful and impartial researchers have concluded that the wave of opposition against Abū Ṭālib arose from a political motive, rooted in the hostility of the Banū Umayyah—the accursed tree—toward the lofty rank and position of Imām ʿAlī (عليه السلام). It was not Abū Ṭālib alone who suffered from this animosity due to his closeness to ʿAlī (عليه السلام); rather, history shows that any individual associated in any way with Amīr al‑Muʾminīn was not spared such unjust attacks. In truth, Abū Ṭālib’s only “crime” was being the father of an unparalleled leader of Islam—ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (عليه السلام). Here, we shall briefly enumerate some of the many compelling proofs that clearly attest to the faith of Abū Ṭālib, leaving deeper investigation to the numerous works authored on this subject: 1. Even before the Prophet’s mission, Abū Ṭālib was well aware that his nephew would attain the rank of prophethood. Historians narrate that during a trade journey to Syria with a Quraysh caravan, Abū Ṭālib took his twelve‑year‑old nephew Muḥammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny along. During this journey, Abū Ṭālib witnessed extraordinary signs. Among them was the encounter with a Christian monk named Baḥīrā, a learned scholar of the earlier scriptures, who, upon seeing the young Muḥammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny, recognized the marks of prophethood in him and declared that he was the very prophet foretold in the sacred books. Long before this incident, Abū Ṭālib had already inferred the spiritual stature of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny through other signs. Scholars such as al‑Shahrastānī relate that during a severe famine in Mecca, Abū Ṭālib sought rain by holding the infant Muḥammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny before the Kaʿbah and invoking God by his right. Rain fell shortly thereafter, saving the city. Abū Ṭālib commemorated this event in poetry, extolling Muḥammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny as a source of divine blessing, protector of orphans and widows, and embodiment of justice. 2. Numerous poems attributed to Abū Ṭālib, preserved in well‑known Islamic works, explicitly support the Prophet’s mission and affirm the truth of Islam. Scholars such as Ibn Abī al‑Ḥadīd have testified that an extensive study of these poems leaves no doubt regarding Abū Ṭālib’s faith. 3. Several narrations from the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny attest to Abū Ṭālib’s belief. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny openly mourned his death, expressing profound grief and gratitude for his support, and declared that Quraysh dared not harm him openly until Abū Ṭālib passed away. 4. It is established that the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny had been commanded not to maintain affectionate ties with polytheists. His deep love and unwavering closeness to Abū Ṭālib, therefore, undeniably indicate that he regarded him as a believer in tawḥīd. 5. Numerous traditions transmitted through the Ahl al‑Bayt (ʿalayhim al‑salām) affirm Abū Ṭālib’s faith. In one narration, Imām Zayn al‑ʿĀbidīn (عليه السلام) expressed astonishment at those who dared accuse Abū Ṭālib of disbelief, explicitly invoking the Qur’anic prohibition against a believing woman remaining married to a disbeliever—while Fāṭimah bint Asad, an early believer, remained Abū Ṭālib’s wife until his death. 6. Even setting doctrinal discussions aside, history unanimously confirms that Abū Ṭālib was the foremost protector and supporter of Islam and the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. His sacrifices during the three‑year boycott in Shiʿb Abī Ṭālib, where he endured extreme hardship, personally guarded the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny at night, and placed his beloved son ʿAlī (عليه السلام) in the Prophet’s bed to shield him from harm, cannot possibly be explained by mere tribal loyalty. Our conviction is that anyone who studies the luminous chapters of history concerning Abū Ṭālib with fairness and without sectarian bias will echo the words of Ibn Abī al‑Ḥadīd, who wrote: Had it not been for Abū Ṭālib and his son, the religion of Islam would never have stood firm. Abū Ṭālib protected the Prophet in Mecca, and ʿAlī (عليه السلام) gave his life in Yathrib to safeguard Islam.

See ayat 28 for tafseer.

Temporary and Ineffective Awakening In the previous two verses, certain acts of obstinacy on the part of the polytheists were mentioned, and in these two verses the consequences of those acts are vividly portrayed, so that they may see the gravity of the outcome awaiting them and be awakened—or at least so that their condition may serve as a lesson for others. First, it states: If you were to see their state when they are made to stand before the Fire of Hell, you would confirm the painful end and fate into which they have fallen (وَلَوْ تَرَىٰ إِذْ وُقِفُوا عَلَى النَّارِ …) (Here “لَوْ” is conditional, and its apodosis is omitted due to contextual clarity.) They will be so overcome by terror that they will cry out: Would that we could be returned (to the world), so that we would not deny the signs of our Lord and would be among the believers! (فَقَالُوا يَا لَيْتَنَا نُرَدُّ وَلَا نُكَذِّبَ بِآيَاتِ رَبِّنَا وَنَكُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ) An important point to note is that—according to the widely accepted canonical recitation—“نُرَدُّ” is read in the nominative, while “نُكَذِّبَ” and “نَكُونَ” are read in the accusative, although they appear conjunctively linked. The most convincing explanation is that “نُرَدُّ” functions as the clause of wish (تمنّي), while “لَا نُكَذِّبَ” is in fact its syntactic response, with the conjunction “و” functioning in the sense of “فـ”. It is well‑known that when the response to a wish is preceded by “فـ”, it appears in the accusative. This construction parallels Sūrat al‑Zumar, verse 58: لَوْ أَنَّ لِي كَرَّةً فَأَكُونَ مِنَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ. Other explanations have also been proposed by exegetes such as Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī, al‑Ṭabarsī, and Abū al‑Futūḥ al‑Rāzī, but the analysis given here is the clearest. The following verse clarifies that this wish is illusory, for the reason they utter it is that everything they had concealed in the world—beliefs, intentions, and deeds—has now been exposed before them, producing a momentary awakening: (بَلْ بَدَا لَهُمْ مَّا كَانُوا يُخْفُونَ مِنْ قَبْلُ) However, this awakening is neither deep nor enduring; it arises under extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, even if—hypothetically—they were returned to the world, they would inevitably revert to the very actions from which they had been forbidden: (وَلَوْ رُدُّوا لَعَادُوا لِمَا نُهُوا عَنْهُ) Thus, they are not truthful in their claim; rather, they are liars (وَإِنَّهُمْ لَكَاذِبُونَ).

1. From the expression “بَدَا لَهُمْ” (“it became manifest to them”), it outwardly appears that they were concealing a series of realities not only from other people but even from their own selves, which will be disclosed to them on the Day of Resurrection. This is by no means surprising, for a human being is capable of hiding truths even from himself and placing a veil over his conscience and innate nature in order to attain a false sense of reassurance. The phenomenon of self‑deception and concealing realities from oneself is among the important issues that have been given special attention in discussions related to the functioning of the conscience. For example, we observe many people driven by base desires who are fully aware of the severe harm caused by their immoral actions, yet in order to continue those actions for the sake of fleeting pleasure, they strive to suppress that awareness within themselves. However, many exegetes, without paying attention to the wording “لَهُمْ”, have interpreted the verse as referring only to actions that they concealed from other people (reflect carefully). 2. It may be argued that wishing is not something that can be described as true or false, since it belongs to the category of inshāʾ (performative statements), and inshāʾ does not admit truth or falsehood. Yet this is not entirely correct, because many performative statements contain within them an implied informative content that can indeed be true or false. For instance, a person may say: My wish is that God grants me great wealth so that I may help you. This is a wish, but its underlying meaning is: If God grants me such wealth, I will help you—which is an informative claim and may well be false. Thus, when the listener, aware of the speaker’s stinginess and narrow‑mindedness, responds that he is lying—because even if God were to grant him wealth, he would not help—this judgment is justified. Such cases are frequent in many performative expressions. 3. The statement in the verse that if they were returned to the world they would again revert to the same deeds is based on the fact that many people, when they directly witness with their own eyes the consequences of their actions—reaching the stage of shuhūd (direct witnessing)—become temporarily distressed and remorseful, expressing a wish to somehow compensate for their deeds. However, this remorse, which arises solely from direct confrontation with consequences, is unstable and transient. It is a condition commonly experienced by people at the time of facing tangible punishment; but once those immediate perceptions fade, the remorse likewise disappears and the former state returns. This is similar to idol‑worshippers who, when caught in violent sea storms and seeing themselves at the brink of death and annihilation, forget all but God; yet as soon as the storm subsides and they reach safety and security, everything returns to its former state (یونس، ۲۲). 4. It should also be noted that the conditions described above are specific to a particular group of idol‑worshippers to whom the preceding verses refer; this does not mean that all idol‑worshippers were of this nature. Accordingly, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny was entrusted with the mission of admonishing, awakening, and guiding all others who remained receptive to the truth.

See ayat 32 for tafseer.

See ayat 32 for tafseer.

See ayat 32 for tafseer.

Temporary and Ineffective Awakening (Continuation) There are two possible interpretations regarding the first verse. One possibility is that it describes the state that follows the discourse of those obstinate and hardened polytheists: when they witness the scene of the Resurrection, they will wish to be returned to the world in order to compensate for their deeds. However, the Qur’an declares that even if they were returned, not only would they fail to seek compensation or reform their conduct, but they would actually revert to denying resurrection and the Hereafter altogether, astonishingly proclaiming: Life is nothing but this worldly life, and we will never be resurrected (وَقَالُوا إِنْ هِيَ إِلَّا حَيَاتُنَا الدُّنْيَا وَمَا نَحْنُ بِمَبْعُوثِينَ). According to this interpretation, “وقالوا” is syntactically connected to “عادوا” as a conjunctive clause; this reading has been adopted by the author of Tafsīr al‑Manār. The second possibility is that this verse addresses a particular group of polytheists who categorically denied resurrection, forming a distinct discussion, since among the Arab polytheists there existed a faction that rejected resurrection entirely, while others affirmed it in some form. In the following verse, the Qur’an points to their fate on the Day of Resurrection, stating: if you were to see them when they are made to stand before their Lord, and they are asked, Is this not the truth? (وَلَوْ تَرَىٰ إِذْ وُقِفُوا عَلٰى رَبِّهِمْ ۚ قَالَ أَلَيْسَ هٰذَا بِالْحَقِّ) they will reply: Yes, by our Lord, it is the truth (قَالُوا بَلٰى وَرَبِّنَا). Then it will be said to them: Taste the punishment, because of the disbelief you used to commit (قَالَ فَذُوقُوا الْعَذَابَ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَكْفُرُونَ). It is universally acknowledged that standing before the Lord does not imply that God occupies a physical location; rather, it refers to standing before His judgment or being present in the divine court of justice—just as a person in prayer says that he stands before God. In the next verse, the Qur’an highlights the loss and ruin of those who denied resurrection and the meeting with their Lord: Those who denied the meeting with God have indeed suffered loss (قَدْ خَسِرَ الَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِلِقَاءِ اللّٰهِ). As indicated earlier, meeting with God refers either to spiritual encounter through direct inner witnessing, or to encountering the scenes of the Resurrection and its reward and punishment. The Qur’an then adds that this denial will not persist indefinitely; it will last only until the Resurrection suddenly occurs, confronting them with its terrifying scenes and making them behold with their own eyes the consequences of their deeds. At that moment their cry will rise: Alas for us! How negligent we were regarding it! (حَتَّىٰ إِذَا جَاءَتْهُمُ السَّاعَةُ بَغْتَةً قَالُوا يَا حَسْرَتَنَا عَلٰى مَا فَرَّطْنَا فِيهَا). The term “السَّاعَةُ” denotes the Day of Resurrection, and “بَغْتَةً” means suddenly and unexpectedly, at a time known only to God. The designation al‑Sāʿah may either indicate the swiftness with which judgment will be executed, or the suddenness with which humanity will be transferred from the intermediate realm to the realm of the Resurrection. “حَسْرَة” means intense regret; when the Arabs experience deep sorrow, they vocatively address regret itself—“يا حسرتنا”—as though regret has become a concrete entity standing before them due to the severity of anguish. The Qur’an then states that they will be carrying their burdens upon their backs (وَهُمْ يَحْمِلُونَ أَوْزَارَهُمْ عَلٰى ظُهُورِهِمْ). “أوزار” is the plural of وزر, meaning a heavy load; here it refers to sins. This verse may be taken as evidence for the embodiment of deeds, since it depicts them carrying their sins upon their shoulders. It may also indicate the crushing weight of responsibility and accountability, for obligations are commonly likened to heavy burdens. The verse concludes: How evil is the burden they carry! (أَلَا سَاءَ مَا يَزِرُونَ). In these verses, several aspects of the loss endured by deniers of resurrection are set forth. This serves as clear proof that belief in the Hereafter not only prepares the human being for eternal felicity and invites him toward intellectual and moral perfection, but also plays a profound role in restraining the soul from corruption and sin. In the forthcoming discussions on resurrection, God willing, the individual and social reformative effects of this belief will be examined in detail. The Qur’an then contrasts the Hereafter with worldly life by declaring: The life of this world is nothing but play and diversion (وَمَا الْحَيَاةُ الدُّنْيَا إِلَّا لَعِبٌ وَلَهْوٌ). Accordingly, those who have attached their hearts solely to the world, desiring and seeking nothing beyond it, are in reality like pleasure‑seeking children who have spent a portion of their lives engrossed in games, heedless of everything else. Worldly life is likened to play and amusement because such activities are typically hollow and devoid of lasting substance, detached from true life: neither is the real loser one who loses in a game, nor is the real winner the one who wins, for once the game ends everything returns to its place. It is often observed that children sit together to play, assigning roles such as “king,” “minister,” “thief,” or “caravan,” but within moments none of these titles remains. Similarly, theatrical performances may depict war, love, or enmity, but after a brief interval nothing remains of them. The world resembles a drama whose actors are its inhabitants; even the wise and intelligent may sometimes be absorbed by its spectacle, until suddenly the announcement is made that the play has ended. The word “لَعِب” (patterned like لزج) is derived from لعاب (saliva), something that falls from the mouth without purpose; play is called لَعِب because, like droplets of saliva, it is performed without ultimate aim. The Qur’an then contrasts this with the life of the Hereafter, stating: The abode of the Hereafter is better for those who are mindful of God; will you not then use reason? (وَلَلدَّارُ الْآخِرَةُ خَيْرٌ لِلَّذِينَ يَتَّقُونَ ۗ أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ). This is because it is an everlasting, imperishable life, expansive in scope and exalted in rank—a realm grounded in reality rather than illusion, a world of pure blessings unmarred by suffering or pain. Since a correct understanding of these truths—amid the deceptive outward forms of the world—is possible only for those who reflect and ponder, the verse addresses the intellects of such people directly. In a narration transmitted from Imām Mūsā al‑Kāẓim (عليه السلام) through Hishām ibn al‑Ḥakam, the Imām said: “O Hishām! God has admonished people of intellect and directed them toward the Hereafter, saying that the life of this world is nothing but play and diversion, and that the abode of the Hereafter is better for the God‑fearing. Will you not then use your intellect?” Finally, it should be clarified that the aim and essential purpose of these verses is not to negate engagement with the material world altogether, but rather to wage a struggle against becoming inwardly attached to its outward attractions and forgetting the ultimate goal. Those who make the world a means for attaining felicity are, in truth, seekers of the Hereafter—not devotees of the world itself.

See ayat 34 for tafseer.

There is no doubt that in his logical discourse and intellectual struggle with the obstinate and hardened polytheists, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny would at times become deeply saddened—sometimes because of their stubbornness and the lack of effect of his words upon their hearts, and sometimes because of the inappropriate accusations they leveled against him. On many occasions throughout the Qur’an, God Almighty consoles and reassures His Prophet in such situations, so that he may continue his mission with greater zeal, patience, and perseverance. The verses under discussion are among those instances. In the first verse, God says: We certainly know that what they say grieves you (قَدْ نَعْلَمُ إِنَّهُ لَيَحْزُنُكَ الَّذِي يَقُولُونَ). But you should know that it is not you whom they are denying; rather, it is in reality Our signs that the wrongdoers obstinately reject (فَإِنَّهُمْ لَا يُكَذِّبُونَكَ وَلَٰكِنَّ الظَّالِمِينَ بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ يَجْحَدُونَ). A parallel can be observed in ordinary human interaction: sometimes a respected authority reassures his representative when he is distressed, saying, “Do not grieve; in truth, it is me they are opposing, not you.” In this way, the senior figure provides comfort and emotional relief. Although exegetes have suggested various interpretations of this verse, its apparent meaning is precisely what has been stated above. Another interpretation—also plausible from one perspective—is that the verse indicates that the Prophet’s opponents inwardly believed in his truthfulness and harbored no real doubt regarding the validity of his message. However, fear for their vested interests, tribal rivalries, and deep‑rooted stubbornness prevented them from outwardly accepting the truth. Islamic historical sources confirm that even some of the Prophet’s most vehement enemies secretly acknowledged his honesty and integrity. For example, it is reported that one day Abū Jahl encountered the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and shook hands with him. When someone objected to this gesture, Abū Jahl replied: By God, I know that he is a prophet—but must we forever follow the clan of ʿAbd Manāf? He meant that accepting the Prophet’s call would require submission to his clan’s leadership. It is also reported that one night Abū Jahl, Abū Sufyān, and al‑Akhnas ibn Shurayq—three leaders of Quraysh—secretly and independently left their homes, without knowing of one another’s intentions, and concealed themselves near the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny in order to listen to his recitation of the Qur’an. They remained there until dawn. On their return, they unexpectedly encountered one another and were embarrassed. Each gave excuses, and they mutually pledged not to repeat this act, fearing that if Quraysh’s youth learned of it, they might incline toward Muḥammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Yet, thinking the others would not come again, each repeated the act the following night—and astonishingly, the same occurred a third night. On the third morning, al‑Akhnas ibn Shurayq sought out Abū Sufyān and asked him candidly about his view of what he had heard from Muḥammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Abū Sufyān replied: By God, some things I heard were clear and meaningful to me, while others I did not fully grasp. Al‑Akhnas replied that he felt the same. Al‑Akhnas then went to Abū Jahl and asked him the same question. Abū Jahl replied: What should I say? We and the clan of ʿAbd Manāf have always competed for leadership. They fed the pilgrims—so did we. They provided mounts—so did we. They offered generosity—so did we—until we were equal. Now they claim a prophet has arisen among them who receives revelation from heaven. How can we possibly rival that? By God, we will never believe in him nor affirm his claim. In another report, al‑Akhnas once met Abū Jahl alone and asked him to speak honestly: Is Muḥammad truthful or a liar? Abū Jahl replied: By God, he is truthful and has never lied. But if his clan gains prophethood in addition to custodianship of the Kaʿbah, banner of pilgrimage, and providing water to pilgrims, what will remain for the rest of Quraysh? These and similar reports—recorded in works such as Tafsīr al‑Manār and Majmaʿ al‑Bayān under this verse—make it clear that many of the Prophet’s most determined adversaries inwardly recognized his truth, but tribal rivalry and worldly considerations prevented them from open belief. However, such inward acknowledgment, when not coupled with submission and acceptance, has no salvific value and does not place a person among the true believers. To complete this consolation, the following verse reminds the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny of previous messengers: Messengers before you were also denied (وَلَقَدْ كُذِّبَتْ رُسُلٌ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ). They demonstrated patience and endurance in the face of denial and persecution, until Our help reached them (فَصَبَرُوا عَلَىٰ مَا كُذِّبُوا وَأُوذُوا حَتَّىٰ أَتَاهُمْ نَصْرُنَا). This is a divine pattern that never changes (وَلَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللَّهِ). Therefore, you too must endure patiently in the face of rejection and hardship, knowing that according to this established divine practice, God’s assistance will reach you as well. Ultimately, you too will prevail. The accounts of earlier messengers—how they endured opposition and emerged victorious—stand as clear testimony for you (وَلَقَدْ جَاءَكَ مِنْ نَبَإِ الْمُرْسَلِينَ). In essence, this verse points to a universal principle: throughout history, whenever righteous leaders arose to reform society, challenge corrupt traditions, and guide people to the right path, they encountered fierce resistance from self‑interested and deceitful figures whose worldly gains were threatened by the advancement of the new message. Such people spared no tactic—denial, slander, social boycott, affliction, persecution, even violence and plunder. Yet, by virtue of the intrinsic power, depth, and attraction of truth—and in accordance with divine law—truth eventually prevails, and all obstacles are removed one by one. There is no doubt, however, that the essential condition for this ultimate success is patience, resilience, steadfastness, and perseverance. It is noteworthy that in this verse, divine laws and patterns are referred to as “كَلِمَاتِ اللَّهِ”. Originally, kalima and kalām denote an effect perceptible through sight or hearing (kalam through hearing, kalm through tangible impact). Over time, the term expanded beyond spoken words to include meanings, beliefs, doctrines, and established practices or traditions.

See ayat 36 for tafseer.

There is no doubt that during his rational dialogue and intellectual struggle with the obstinate and hardened polytheists, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny would at times become deeply saddened—sometimes due to their stubbornness and the lack of impact his words had upon their hearts, and at other times because of the inappropriate accusations they directed against him. For this reason, God Almighty repeatedly consoles and reassures His Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny in the Qur’an at such moments, so that he may continue his mission with greater warmth, patience, and steadfastness. The verses under discussion are among these consoling passages. In the first verse, God declares: We certainly know that what they say grieves you (قَدْ نَعْلَمُ إِنَّهُ لَيَحْزُنُكَ الَّذِي يَقُولُونَ). Then He adds: you should know that they are not truly denying you; rather, in reality, they are denying Our signs—thus their opposition is directed against Us, not against you (فَإِنَّهُمْ لَا يُكَذِّبُونَكَ وَلَٰكِنَّ الظَّالِمِينَ بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ يَجْحَدُونَ). A parallel expression can be found in ordinary speech, where a respected authority reassures his representative when he is distressed by saying: “Do not grieve; it is not you whom they are opposing, but me.” In this way, the superior figure provides reassurance and emotional relief. Although exegetes have proposed several interpretations of this verse, its apparent meaning is precisely what has been outlined above. Another plausible interpretation is that the verse intends to convey that the Prophet’s opponents inwardly believed in his truthfulness and did not doubt the validity of his message, even though fear for their interests, tribal rivalries, or obstinacy prevented them from outwardly accepting the truth. Islamic historical sources support this view, indicating that even some of the Prophet’s harshest enemies acknowledged his honesty deep within their hearts. One such report recounts that Abū Jahl once encountered the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and shook hands with him. When someone objected to this, Abū Jahl replied: By God, I know that he is a prophet—but have we ever been followers of Banū ʿAbd Manāf? That is, he feared that accepting the Prophet’s call would entail submission to the leadership of that clan. It is also narrated that one night Abū Jahl, Abū Sufyān, and al‑Akhnas ibn Shurayq—leaders and nobles of the Meccan polytheists—each secretly left their homes, unknown to one another, and concealed themselves near the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny in order to listen to the recitation of the Qur’an. They remained there until dawn. While returning, they unexpectedly encountered one another and began offering excuses. They then pledged not to repeat this act, fearing that if the youth of Quraysh became aware of it, they might incline toward Muḥammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Yet, each assuming that the others would not come again, they repeated the act on the second night, and remarkably, this occurred a third night as well. On the third morning, al‑Akhnas ibn Shurayq sought out Abū Sufyān and asked him candidly what he thought of what he had heard from Muḥammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Abū Sufyān replied: By God, some things I heard I understood clearly and grasped their intent, while other passages I did not fully comprehend. Al‑Akhnas replied that he felt the same. Al‑Akhnas then went to Abū Jahl and asked him the same question. Abū Jahl answered: What can I say? We and the descendants of ʿAbd Manāf have always competed for leadership. They fed the people, so we fed the people; they provided mounts, so did we; they bestowed favors, and we did likewise—until we became equal. Now they claim that a prophet has arisen among them who receives revelation from heaven. How can we compete with that? By God, we will never believe in him nor acknowledge his truth. In another narration, al‑Akhnas once encountered Abū Jahl alone and asked him to speak honestly: Is Muḥammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny truthful or a liar? No one from Quraysh but you and I are present to hear our words. Abū Jahl replied: Woe to you! By God, he is truthful in my view and has never lied. But if this leads to Muḥammad’s clan possessing everything—leadership of pilgrimage, providing water to pilgrims, guardianship of the Kaʿbah, and prophethood—what will remain for the rest of Quraysh? These narrations, and others like them, clearly show that many of the Prophet’s most determined enemies inwardly recognized his truthfulness, but tribal competition and similar motives prevented them from openly accepting faith. However, it is equally clear that such inward acknowledgment, when not accompanied by submission and sincere acceptance, has no salvific effect and does not place a person among the true believers. In the following verses, to further console and reassure the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, reference is made to the circumstances of earlier messengers: Messengers before you were also denied (وَلَقَدْ كُذِّبَتْ رُسُلٌ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ). Those messengers demonstrated patience and perseverance in the face of denial and hardship until Our help reached them (فَصَبَرُوا عَلَىٰ مَا كُذِّبُوا وَأُوذُوا حَتَّىٰ أَتَاهُمْ نَصْرُنَا). This is a divine practice that cannot be changed (وَلَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللَّهِ). Accordingly, you too must respond to denial, persecution, and attacks by obstinate enemies with patience and steadfastness, knowing that under this same divine practice, God’s assistance and boundless grace will also reach you. Ultimately, you too will prevail, and the accounts that have come to you regarding the former messengers—how they endured opposition and hardship and were ultimately victorious—stand as clear and illuminating testimony for you (وَلَقَدْ جَاءَكَ مِنْ نَبَإِ الْمُرْسَلِينَ). In essence, this verse points to a fundamental and universal principle: throughout history, whenever righteous leaders have risen to reform society, combat corrupt ideas, and replace entrenched false customs and superstitions with a program of guidance and truth, they have invariably encountered fierce opposition from self‑serving and deceitful individuals whose interests were threatened by the progress of the new message. Such opponents spared no tactic—denial, slander, social isolation, persecution, harassment, even killing and plunder. Yet, by virtue of the inherent power, depth, and attraction embedded within the truth itself—and in accordance with divine law—truth ultimately fulfills its role, removing every obstacle one by one. There is, however, no doubt that the essential condition for this ultimate victory is endurance, resistance, steadfastness, and perseverance. It is particularly noteworthy that in this verse, divine laws and practices are expressed by the term “كَلِمَاتِ اللَّهِ”. Originally, kalim and kalām denote an effect that can be perceived by sight or hearing—kalim referring to tangible impact, and kalām to auditory impact. Over time, the term expanded to encompass not only words, but also meanings, beliefs, doctrines, and established ways and practices.

In this verse, one of the pretexts employed by the polytheists is presented. As reported in some narrations, when a number of the Quraysh leaders found themselves incapable of countering the Qur’an, they said to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny: These words achieve nothing. If you speak the truth, then bring for us miracles like the staff of Moses (عليه السلام) and the she‑camel of Ṣāliḥ (عليه السلام). Regarding this, the Qur’an states that they said: Why has no sign or miracle been sent down to him from his Lord? (وَقَالُوا لَوْلَا نُزِّلَ عَلَيْهِ آيَةٌ مِّنْ رَبِّهِ) It is evident that they did not make this demand in sincere pursuit of truth, because the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny had already presented them with numerous miracles. Even if—setting aside the lofty contents of the Qur’an—he had possessed no other miracle, that very Qur’an, which repeatedly challenged them publicly and invited them to produce the like of it, would have been more than sufficient to establish his prophethood. Rather, this obstinate pretext served a dual purpose: on the one hand, they sought to belittle the Qur’an, and on the other, to evade accepting the Prophet’s call. Thus, they persistently demanded new and different miracles. Undoubtedly, even if the Prophet were to accede to their demands, they would still reject them by declaring “هَٰذَا سِحْرٌ مُبِينٌ”, as is indicated in other Qur’ānic verses. Therefore, the Qur’an responds to them by stating: God is fully capable of sending down a sign or miracle of the kind you demand (قُلْ إِنَّ اللّٰهَ قَادِرٌ عَلَىٰ أَنْ يُنَزِّلَ آيَةً) But there is a critical reality of which you are unaware: if God were to comply with such obstinate demands and you still failed to believe, you would all be seized by divine punishment and utterly destroyed. This is because such behavior constitutes extreme insolence toward the Majesty of the Lord of the Worlds and toward His Messenger and the divine signs and miracles He sends. Hence, the verse concludes by stating: But most of them do not know (وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ).

As is evident from Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, centuries ago some opponents of Islam sought to use this verse as evidence to argue that the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny possessed no miracles. They claimed that whenever the disbelievers demanded a miracle from him, he merely replied that God is capable of such things, but that most of them do not know. Coincidentally, some later writers have repeated this old legend and revived the same objection in their writings. In response, it should be said: First, those who advance this objection appear not to have carefully studied the verses preceding and following this passage, nor have they reflected upon the fact that the discourse here concerns obstinate individuals who were in no way prepared to submit to the truth. In such a case, if the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny did not accede to their demands, the reason is clear. Where in the Qur’an is it stated that sincere seekers of truth demanded a miracle from the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and that he rejected their request? Rather, in the very same Sūrat al‑Anʿām, verse 111, it is stated regarding such stubborn people: “وَلَوْ أَنَّنَا نَزَّلْنَا إِلَيْهِمُ الْمَلَائِكَةَ وَكَلَّمَهُمُ الْمَوْتَىٰ وَحَشَرْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ قُبُلًا مَّا كَانُوا لِيُؤْمِنُوا إِلَّا أَنْ يَشَاءَ اللَّهُ وَلَـٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ يَجْهَلُونَ” That is, even if angels were sent down to them, the dead spoke to them, and everything were brought before them in groups, they still would not believe. Second, as Islamic narrations indicate, this demand came from a group of Quraysh leaders who treated the Qur’an with contempt and indifference. It is self‑evident that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny could not bow before demands rooted in such motives. Third, those who raise this objection seem to have disregarded the rest of the Qur’an entirely—how it presents itself as an eternal miracle, repeatedly challenges its opponents, and exposes their incapacity. They have also overlooked the opening verse of Sūrat al‑Isrāʾ, which explicitly states that God took His Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque. Fourth, it is inconceivable that the Qur’an should be filled with accounts of the extraordinary miracles of previous prophets, while the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny—who declared himself the seal and most eminent of all prophets, whose religion he presented as the most perfect—would offer no miracle at all to sincere seekers of truth. Would this not create ambiguity for impartial truth‑seekers? Had he possessed no miracles, it would have been necessary for him to refrain altogether from mentioning the miracles of earlier prophets, lest objections arise against his own mission. Yet the fact that he openly and repeatedly recounts the miracles of Moses (عليه السلام), Jesus (عليه السلام), Abraham (عليه السلام), Ṣāliḥ (عليه السلام), and Noah (عليه السلام)—one after another—demonstrates his complete confidence regarding his own miracles. For this reason, Islamic history, reliable traditions, and Nahj al‑Balāghah record numerous miracles attributed to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, whose collective testimony has reached the level of mass transmission (tawātur).

Since this verse is preceded by extensive discussions, it is necessary first to clarify the meanings of its key terms, then to provide a concise interpretation, and thereafter to address the remaining related issues. The term “دابة” is derived from the root دَبَبَ, meaning to move slowly or to walk with small steps. It is generally applied to all animals that move upon the earth. We also observe that a tale‑bearer or slanderer is sometimes called “دَبُوب”, and a tradition states: “لا يدخل الجنة ديبوب” — “A tale‑bearer will not enter Paradise.” This usage reflects the idea that such a person moves surreptitiously between individuals, sowing distrust and ill feelings among them. The word “طائر” denotes every kind of bird. However, since this term is occasionally used metaphorically for certain spiritual or immaterial matters that advance or “fly,” the verse specifies “يَطِيرُ بِجَنَاحَيْهِ”, meaning “that flies with its two wings,” so that attention remains confined to actual birds. The word “أُمَم” is the plural of “أُمَّة”, which signifies a group united by some common characteristic—such as a shared religion, language, or similar traits and behaviors. The term “يُحْشَرُونَ” derives from “حَشْر”, meaning to gather or assemble. In the Qur’an, this term is most often used for the gathering of the Resurrection, particularly when accompanied by the phrase “إِلَىٰ رَبِّهِمْ”. The preceding verses were addressing the polytheists, warning them of the fate awaiting them in the Hereafter. This verse now expands the discussion to declare the general resurrection of all living beings, including all kinds of animals. It begins by stating: There is no creature that walks upon the earth, nor any bird that flies with its wings, except that they are communities like you (وَمَا مِنْ دَابَّةٍ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَلَا طَائِرٍ يَطِيرُ بِجَنَاحَيْهِ إِلَّا أُمَمٌ أَمْثَالُكُمْ) Thus, all varieties of animals and birds, like human beings, constitute distinct communities. However, exegetes have differed regarding the nature of this similarity. Some understand the resemblance to lie in the wondrous aspects of creation, since both humans and animals embody signs of the greatness of the Creator. Others interpret it in terms of shared life‑needs and the means through which those needs are fulfilled. Yet others hold that the similarity refers to perception, awareness, and consciousness—that animals too possess a degree of knowledge and understanding within their own realm, recognize God in a manner suited to their capacity, and glorify and sanctify Him accordingly, though their intellectual level is vastly inferior to that of human beings. As will be shown, the closing part of the verse lends support to this latter view. The next clause states: We have omitted nothing in the Book (مَا فَرَّطْنَا فِي الْكِتَابِ مِنْ شَيْءٍ). One interpretation is that “الكتاب” refers to the Noble Qur’an, meaning that everything essential to human guidance, moral cultivation, growth, and perfection has been included within it—sometimes in general principles, such as the call to knowledge and wisdom, and at other times in detailed form, such as specific legal rulings and ethical injunctions. Another interpretation is that “الكتاب” refers to the Book of Creation, meaning the universe itself, which resembles a vast book containing all things, with nothing neglected or omitted. There is no rational obstacle to understanding the verse as encompassing both meanings, since neither guidance in the Qur’an nor the order of creation suffers from deficiency or omission. The verse concludes by stating: Then they will be gathered to their Lord (ثُمَّ إِلَىٰ رَبِّهِمْ يُحْشَرُونَ). It appears that the pronoun “هم” here refers to all categories and species of animals and birds mentioned earlier. In this way, the Qur’an affirms resurrection and gathering for them as well. The majority of exegetes have accepted this interpretation, holding that all living beings are subject to resurrection and recompense, though a small minority have denied this and proposed alternative explanations—for example, interpreting “يُحْشَرُونَ إِلَى اللَّهِ” as referring merely to death and the end of life (an interpretation attributed by the author of al‑Manār to Ibn ʿAbbās). However, as previously indicated, the prevailing usage of this expression in the Qur’an clearly denotes resurrection, gathering, and revival on the Day of Judgment. Accordingly, the verse serves as a warning to the polytheists: the same God who created all forms of animals, provided for their needs, oversees all their actions, and has decreed resurrection for them—how could He possibly refrain from decreeing resurrection for human beings, as some polytheists claimed, asserting that there is nothing beyond worldly life and death?

1. Do animals also have resurrection and gathering (ḥashr wa‑nashr)? There is no doubt that the primary condition for reckoning, reward, and punishment is the presence of intellect and awareness, followed by obligation and responsibility. Those who uphold this view argue that there is evidence indicating that animals also possess understanding and perception commensurate with their level. Among such evidence is the fact that the lives of many animals exhibit astonishing and highly organized systems that clearly point to an elevated level of perception and awareness. Who is unaware of the remarkable societies of ants and bees, their wondrous hives and burrows, or the admiration their astonishing order evokes for their perceptive capacities? Although some incline to interpret all such phenomena as mere instinctive or natural inspiration, there is no definitive proof that these actions occur devoid of awareness and cognition. What prevents us from accepting that these activities, as their outward appearance suggests, are products of intellect and perception? Frequently, animals discover new ways to respond to unforeseen events without prior experience or prediction. For example, a sheep that has never previously encountered a wolf nevertheless immediately recognizes its danger upon first sight and endeavors—by whatever means possible—to defend itself and escape. Many animals gradually develop affection and attachment to their owners; this is further evidenced by the behavior of wild beasts and guard dogs that act gently and faithfully toward their owners, even toward their young children. Numerous accounts of animal loyalty and their manner of repaying human kindness are recorded in books and widely known among people; they cannot simply be dismissed as folklore. It is difficult to attribute all such behavior merely to instinct, for instinct typically produces uniform, repetitive acts, whereas responses to specific and unpredictable conditions more closely resemble perceptive intelligence than blind instinct. In the modern age, many animals are trained for significant tasks: police dogs are trained to apprehend criminals, pigeons to recognize routes, certain animals to purchase goods from shops, and hunting animals to track prey. They perform these complex and important duties with remarkable proficiency. Indeed, specialized training institutions for animals now exist. Beyond this, numerous Qur’ānic verses present material that serves as compelling evidence of awareness among certain animals—for example, the ant’s warning upon seeing the army of Solomon (عليه السلام), and the hoopoe’s journey to the region of Sheba and Yemen and its bringing of striking news back to Solomon. Islamic traditions also contain numerous narrations regarding the gathering of animals on the Day of Resurrection. Among them is a narration from Abū Dharr, who reports: We were sitting in the presence of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny when two goats butted one another with their horns. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny asked whether we knew why this had occurred. When the companions replied that they did not, he said: God knows why they did so and will soon judge between them (reported in Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān and Nūr al‑Thaqalayn under this verse). In another narration, transmitted through Sunni sources, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is reported to have said in explanation of this verse: “إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَحْشُرُ هَذِهِ الْأُمَمَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَيَقْتَصُّ بَعْضَهَا مِنْ بَعْضٍ حَتَّى يَقْتَصَّ لِلْجَمَّاءِ مِنَ الْقَرْنَاءِ” — God will gather all these creatures on the Day of Resurrection and exact retribution among them, to the extent that He will take retribution for the hornless animal against the horned one that wronged it. In Sūrat al‑Takwīr, verse 5, it is stated: “وَإِذَا الْوُحُوشُ حُشِرَتْ” — And when the wild beasts are gathered. If this is understood as referring to resurrection on the Day of Judgment—and not merely the gathering at the end of worldly life—it constitutes yet another supporting proof for this doctrine. 2. If there is resurrection, are there also obligations? An important question arises here: can we accept that animals have duties and obligations, given that one of the undisputed conditions for legal responsibility (taklīf) is intellect, which excludes children and the insane from obligation? Do animals possess an intellect sufficient for legal responsibility? Can it be believed that an animal has greater understanding than an immature child or even an insane person? The answer lies in recognizing that duties and obligations exist at different levels, each corresponding to a particular degree of awareness and understanding. Many obligations in Islamic law require a high level of intellect and awareness and therefore cannot be attributed to animals, since they lack the capacity to fulfill them. However, it is conceivable that there exist simpler levels of obligation, for which a limited degree of awareness is sufficient. We cannot categorically deny that animals possess such awareness or that they may bear corresponding responsibilities. Even with respect to children who have not reached full maturity but possess clear understanding of certain acts, complete denial of responsibility is problematic. For instance, if a fourteen‑year‑old who fully comprehends the consequences of murder were to commit it intentionally, can it be said he bears no wrongdoing? Even worldly legal systems impose penalties upon minors for serious crimes, albeit with reduced severity. Thus, full maturity and complete intellect are required for higher levels of obligation, but not necessarily for all forms of accountability. Considering the gradation of intellect and responsibility resolves the objection with regard to animals as well. 3. Does this verse prove reincarnation (tanāsukh)? It is astonishing that some proponents of the irrational doctrine of reincarnation have attempted to use this verse as evidence for their view, claiming that since animals are described as communities like humans—and since animals are not intrinsically identical to humans—human souls must transmigrate into animal bodies as punishment for misdeeds. Aside from the fact that the doctrine of reincarnation contradicts rationality, the law of development, and necessarily entails denial of resurrection and the Hereafter, the verse itself provides no support whatsoever for such a claim. As explained earlier, animal communities resemble human communities in several concrete respects: they possess some degree of awareness, a certain level of responsibility, and are subject to gathering and resurrection. This similarity is actual, not merely potential. However, this should not lead to misunderstanding: having a degree of responsibility does not entail that animals possess prophets, imams, or religious laws, as some mystically inclined individuals have claimed. Rather, in such contexts, their guide is their innate perception and inner awareness; they understand certain matters and are accountable in accordance with the limited scope of their understanding.

The Deaf and the Mute The Qur’an resumes its discussion of the obstinate deniers and states that those who reject the divine signs are deaf and mute, dwelling in layers of darkness: (وَالَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِنَا صُمٌّ وَبُكْمٌ فِي الظُّلُمَاتِ). They are neither such listeners as would hear the truth, nor do they possess truthful tongues with which, if they understood a reality, they might convey it to others. Because the darkness of self‑interest, self‑worship, obstinacy, and ignorance has surrounded them from all sides, they cannot perceive the face of truth. In this manner, they are deprived of three great blessings—hearing, sight, and speech—which connect human beings to the external world. Some exegetes hold that the “deaf” refers to blind followers who unquestioningly obey their misguided leaders, closing their ears to the call of divine guidance, while the “mute” refers to those misguided leaders themselves—individuals who understand the truth well but, in order to protect their status and material interests, place a seal of silence upon their tongues. Both groups are thus immersed in the darkness of ignorance and self‑centeredness. The verse then states: God leads whom He wills astray, and whom He wills He sets upon the straight path (مَنْ يَشَإِ اللَّهُ يُضْلِلْهُ وَمَنْ يَشَأْ يَجْعَلْهُ عَلَىٰ صِرَاطٍ مُّسْتَقِيمٍ). As explained earlier, attributing guidance and misguidance to God’s will is clarified by other Qur’ānic verses. In one place it is said: “يُضِلُّ اللَّهُ الظَّالِمِينَ”—God leads the wrongdoers astray. Elsewhere it states: “وَمَا يُضِلُّ بِهِ إِلَّا الْفَاسِقِينَ”—He misguides none but the defiantly disobedient. In yet another verse we read: “وَالَّذِينَ جَاهَدُوا فِينَا لَنَهْدِيَنَّهُمْ سُبُلَنَا”—Those who strive in Our way, We shall surely guide them to Our paths. From these verses and others in the Qur’an, it becomes evident that the guidance and misguidance attributed to God are, in reality, recompense and consequence—rewards and punishments God grants to His servants in response to their good or evil deeds. More explicitly, it may be said that at times a person commits such destructive actions that an overwhelming darkness envelops his soul, effectively depriving him of vision: his eyes no longer perceive the truth, his ears no longer hear it, and his tongue becomes incapable of speaking it. Conversely, a person may perform such virtuous deeds that a world of light is cast upon his soul, expanding his perception, deepening his understanding, and enabling his tongue to speak the truth with clarity. This, then, is the true meaning of guidance and misguidance as attributed to the will of God.

See ayat 41 for tafseer.

Once again, the address turns toward the polytheists, and through a different method an argument is presented before them for tawḥīd and exclusive devotion to God. This method consists in reminding them of the most severe and painful moments of their own lives and appealing to their conscience, asking it for testimony: in such moments, when all else is forgotten, no refuge except God presents itself to them. O Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, say to them: if the painful punishment of God were to come upon you, or if the Hour were to overtake you with its terrifying, tumultuous, and dreadful events, then tell the truth—would you call upon anyone other than God to remove your distress? (قُلْ أَرَأَيْتَكُمْ إِنْ أَتَاكُمْ عَذَابُ اللَّهِ أَوْ أَتَتْكُمُ السَّاعَةُ أَغَيْرَ اللَّهِ تَدْعُونَ ۚ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ صَادِقِينَ) (As scholars of Arabic rhetoric have explained, the “ك” in أَرَأَيْتَكَ and the “كم” in أَرَأَيْتَكُمْ are neither nouns nor pronouns; they function solely as particles of address used for emphasis. In such constructions, the verb commonly appears in the singular form, while singular, dual, or plural address is indicated through the particle of address itself. Hence, in أَرَأَيْتَكُمْ, although the addressee is plural, the verb appears in the singular, with plurality understood from “كم”. Some have held that this expression is semantically equivalent to اخبرني or اخبروني, but the correct view is that it fully retains its interrogative sense, while اخبروني is merely an implied consequence of its meaning, not its definition.) This verse is not confined to the polytheists alone, but in meaning applies inwardly to all people at times of severe hardship and calamity. In ordinary circumstances or minor trials, a person may turn to others besides God, but when calamity becomes overwhelming, one forgets everything else. At such moments, deep within the heart, a sense of hope for deliverance arises, originating from an unseen and unknown power. That orientation is toward God, and that reality itself is tawḥīd. Even the polytheists and idol‑worshippers, in moments of intense hardship, do not invoke their idols; they forget them entirely. The following verse states: rather, it is only Him whom you call upon, and if He wills, He removes the distress for which you call upon Him, and you forget all the partners you associate with Him (بَلْ إِيَّاهُ تَدْعُونَ فَيَكْشِفُ مَا تَدْعُونَ إِلَيْهِ إِنْ شَاءَ وَتَنْسَوْنَ مَا تُشْرِكُونَ).

1. The reasoning that is seen in the two verses above is the same reasoning of natural monotheism (Tawhid Fitri) which can be utilized in two discussions: one, in proving the actual existence of God, and second, in proving His oneness and monotheism. For this reason, in Islamic traditions and similarly in the speech of the scholars, this reasoning has been used against both the deniers of God and the polytheists. 2. It is noteworthy that in the above reasoning, the matter of the establishment of the Day of Resurrection has been brought up, although it is possible to say that they did not accept such a day at all. On this basis, how is it possible that this kind of reasoning is presented before them? However, attention should be paid to the fact that, firstly, not all of them were deniers of the Resurrection; rather, a group among them believed in the Resurrection in a way. Secondly, it is possible that by "sā‘ah" (the Hour), what is meant is the hour of death or the hour of terrifying events that bring a person to the threshold of death. Thirdly, it is possible that this expression is an allusion to terrifying events, because the Quranic verses repeatedly state that the beginning of the Resurrection will commence with a series of very terrifying events, and earthquakes, storms, lightning, and other such sudden calamities will occur at that time. 3. We know that the Day of Resurrection and the events preceding it are among the definitive and certain matters and are in no way subject to change. Then why has it been said in the verse above: if God wills, He will remove it? Is the intention merely to express the power of the Lord of the worlds, or is some other meaning intended? The answer to this question is that it does not mean that God, by their supplication, will eliminate the actual establishment of the Hour and the Day of Resurrection itself. Rather, what is meant is that the polytheists, and even non-polytheists, when they are confronted with the Resurrection, will be in terror and distress due to its events, difficulties, and the most severe torment that they will face. They will request God to ease this condition and state for them and to grant them deliverance from the dangers. So, in reality, this supplication is for their own salvation from the painful events, not a supplication for the elimination of the Resurrection.

See ayat 45 for tafseer.

See ayat 45 for tafseer.

See ayat 45 for tafseer.

In these verses too, the discussion about the misguided and the polytheists continues, and the Quran pursues this topic from another angle to awaken them, that is, it takes them by the hand and leads them towards past eras and centuries and describes to them the condition of the misguided, oppressive, and polytheistic nations: how the factors of training and awakening were employed for them, but a group among them still paid no heed to anyone, and ultimately, such misfortune befell them that they became a lesson for those who came after. First, it says that We sent messengers to the nations of the past, and since they paid no heed, We, for the sake of their awakening and training, afflicted them with difficulties and severe calamities such as poverty, drought, illness, pain and suffering, and *bā'sā'* and *ḍarrā'* (*bā'sā'* originally means severity and suffering, and it is also used to mean war, as well as for famine, drought, poverty, etc., but *ḍarrā'* means spiritual affliction, such as grief and sorrow, ignorance, or the anxieties that arise from illness or the loss of position, status, and wealth. Perhaps the difference between the two is because *bā'sā'* generally has an external aspect, while *ḍarrā'* has a spiritual and internal aspect, meaning spiritual afflictions are called *ḍarrā'*. So based on this, *bā'sā'* is one of the factors that cause *ḍarrā'* (pay attention)), so that they might pay attention and return to God (وَ لَقَدۡ اَرۡسَلۡنَاۤ اِلٰۤی اُمَمٍ مِّنۡ قَبۡلِکَ فَاَخَذۡنٰہُمۡ بِالۡبَاۡسَآءِ وَ الضَّرَّآءِ لَعَلَّہُمۡ یَتَضَرَّعُوۡنَ.). In the next verse, it says: why did they not take a lesson from these painful and awakening factors, why did they not awaken, and why did they not return to God (فَلَوۡلَاۤ اِذۡ جَآءَہُمۡ بَاۡسُنَا تَضَرَّعُوۡا). In reality, there were two reasons for their not awakening. The first of these was that due to the excess of sin and stubbornness in polytheism, their hearts became dark and hard, and their souls would not accept any impression (وَ لٰکِنۡ قَسَتۡ قُلُوۡبُہُمۡ). The second reason was that Satan (taking advantage of their idol worship) had made their deeds seem beautiful in their eyes, and whatever evil deed they performed, they considered it beautiful and attractive, and every wrong act as correct and right (وَ زَیَّنَ لَہُمُ الشَّیۡطٰنُ مَا کَانُوۡا یَعۡمَلُوۡنَ). In the following verse, it further says that when hardships and admonishments did not prove effective for them, We adopted the path of love and kindness with them, and when they forgot the first lesson, We began a second lesson for them and opened the gates of all kinds of blessings for them, so that they might awaken, turn their attention to their Creator and the Bestower of these blessings, and find the straight path (فَلَمَّا نَسُوۡا مَا ذُکِّرُوۡا بِہٖ فَتَحۡنَا عَلَیۡہِمۡ اَبۡوَابَ کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ). But all these blessings had a dual characteristic: they were an expression of love for their awakening, and if they did not awaken, they were also a prelude to a painful punishment, because we know that when a person is immersed in luxury and blessings, and suddenly all those blessings are snatched away from him, it is extremely painful for him. In contrast, if they are taken back from him gradually, in that case, it will have no effect on him. That is why it says that We gave them so many blessings that they became completely overjoyed, but they did not awaken; therefore, We snatched them away from them suddenly and We punished them, and all doors of hope were closed upon them (حَتّٰۤی اِذَا فَرِحُوۡا بِمَاۤ اُوۡتُوۡۤا اَخَذۡنٰہُمۡ بَغۡتَۃً فَاِذَا ہُمۡ مُّبۡلِسُوۡنَ.). (*Mublisūn* is originally from the root *iblās* and means the grief and sorrow that afflicts a person due to the severity of unpleasant events, and the name of Iblis is also taken from this. The above expression indicates the intensity of grief and sorrow that envelops the sinners.) And in this way, the lineage of the oppressors was cut off, and their next generation could not continue (فَقُطِعَ دَابِرُ الۡقَوۡمِ الَّذِیۡنَ ظَلَمُوۡا). *Dābir* originally refers to the back or last part of something. And since God Almighty had spared no effort in employing all means for their training, therefore, at the end of the verse, it says: Praise be to God, the Lord of the worlds (وَالْحَمْدُ لِلَّہِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِینَ).

1. It is sometimes thought that there is a contradiction between these verses and the preceding ones, because the earlier verses stated explicitly that the polytheists, when struck by overwhelming hardships, turn toward God and forget all others, whereas these verses indicate that even at the time of severe calamities they are not awakened. Attention to a single point resolves this apparent contradiction: momentary and transient awakenings that quickly pass do not constitute true awakening, because the individuals soon return to their former state. In the earlier verses, the purpose was to demonstrate innate monotheism, and for its establishment, such temporary awakenings, fleeting attentiveness, and the forgetting of all besides God—even if occurring only in moments of calamity—were sufficient. In these verses, however, the discussion concerns guidance and misguidance in an absolute sense, namely, returning from deviation to the straight path, and it is clear that fleeting and temporary awakenings have no lasting effect in this regard. It has sometimes been suggested that the difference lies in the fact that the earlier verses pertain to the polytheists contemporary with the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, whereas these verses refer to previous nations, and thus there is no contradiction between them. Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī alluded to this distinction in his commentary. However, it seems far‑fetched to assume that the obstinate polytheists contemporary with the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny were better than the misguided peoples of earlier times. Therefore, the correct resolution is the one stated above. 2. These verses indicate that when severe hardships fail to produce a reformative effect, God opens the gates of blessings for such sinners. The question arises: is this done as encouragement after warning, or is it a prelude to intensified punishment—what is called istidrāj, that is, gradual enticement, whereby rebellious servants are slowly immersed in luxury, prosperity, pleasure, and heedlessness, until suddenly all blessings are withdrawn and punishment descends? There are indications in the verses that strengthen the second interpretation. Nevertheless, there is no obstacle to accepting both interpretations together: first, encouragement intended to awaken them, and if this proves ineffective, then a prelude to the withdrawal of blessings and the infliction of painful punishment. In a narration, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny is reported to have said: “When you see that God grants a servant what he loves of worldly things while he persists in sins, then know that this is a gradual enticement.” Then the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny recited: “فَلَمَّا نَسُوا”. In another narration, Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (عليه السلام) said: “O son of Adam, when you see that your Lord continues to bestow blessings upon you while you persist in disobedience, beware of Him.” (Nahj al‑Balāghah, saying 25) Similarly, it is reported from Imām al‑Ḥasan al‑ʿAskarī (عليه السلام) that when Qanbar, the servant of Amīr al‑Muʾminīn, was brought before al‑Ḥajjāj and questioned about the practices of ʿAlī (عليه السلام), Qanbar replied that whenever ʿAlī completed his ablution he recited the verse “فَلَمَّا نَسُوا مَا ذُكِّرُوا بِهِ فَتَحْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ أَبْوَابَ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ” to the end. Al‑Ḥajjāj remarked that it seemed ʿAlī was applying this verse to them, and Qanbar replied affirmatively. 3. These verses also show that trials and calamities aim to produce attentiveness and awakening, and this constitutes one of the philosophies behind afflictions—an issue discussed elsewhere. Notably, this aim is expressed using the word “لَعَلَّ”, indicating that calamities alone are not sufficient for awakening, but rather prepare the ground for hearts that are receptive. The use of “لَعَلَّ” in divine speech usually indicates the presence of additional conditions. Likewise, the word “تَضَرُّع” is employed, which originally denotes submissiveness, like the yielding of an animal’s udder before milking, and later came to mean obedience accompanied by humility and submission. Thus, these painful events were meant to pull people down from the mounts of arrogance, rebellion, and self‑conceit, so that they might humbly submit before the truth. 4. It is also noteworthy that at the end of the passage God declares: “الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ”, indicating that cutting off the roots of oppression and corruption, and annihilating a lineage capable of perpetuating injustice, is itself a matter worthy of gratitude. In a narration from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام), transmitted by Faḍīl ibn ʿIyāḍ, the Imām said: “Whoever loves the survival of oppressors loves that God should be disobeyed. God, exalted is He, praised Himself for the destruction of the oppressors when He said: ‘فَقُطِعَ دَابِرُ الْقَوْمِ الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا وَالْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ’.”

See ayat 49 for tafseer.

See ayat 49 for tafseer.

See ayat 49 for tafseer.

The discourse continues to address the polytheists, and through another line of argument seeks to awaken them by appealing to the notion of warding off harm. It states: if God were to take away from you His precious blessings such as hearing and sight, and were to seal your hearts so that you could no longer distinguish between good and evil, or between truth and falsehood, then who besides God could restore these blessings to you? (قُلْ أَرَأَيْتُمْ إِنْ أَخَذَ اللَّهُ سَمْعَكُمْ وَأَبْصَارَكُمْ وَخَتَمَ عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِكُمْ مَنْ إِلٰهٌ غَيْرُ اللَّهِ يَأْتِيكُمْ بِهِ) In reality, the polytheists themselves acknowledged that the Creator and Provider is God alone, and they worshipped idols merely as intercessors in the presence of God. The Qur’an declares that instead of worshipping these worthless idols—which possess nothing—you should go directly to the door of God, the source of all goodness and blessings. In addition to the belief that all idol‑worshippers held about God, this verse also calls upon their reason to judge: how can idols that neither see nor hear, and lack intellect and awareness, bestow such faculties upon others? The verse then states: Observe how We present the signs in various ways, yet they still turn away (اُنْظُرْ كَيْفَ نُصَرِّفُ الْآيَاتِ ثُمَّ هُمْ يَصْدِفُونَ). The meaning of “خَتْم” (sealing), and the reason why “سَمْع” appears in the singular while “أَبْصَار” appears in the plural in Qur’ānic usage, have been discussed earlier in this commentary. The word “نُصَرِّفُ” comes from taṣrīf, meaning variation or diversification, and here refers to presenting proofs in different forms. “يَصْدِفُونَ” derives from ṣadaf (pattern hadaf), meaning direction or side; since a person who turns away directs himself elsewhere, the term is used to denote rejection and strong aversion. As noted by Rāghib in al‑Mufradāt, the root conveys a sense of intense and deliberate turning away. In the following verse, after mentioning these three great divine blessings—hearing, sight, and understanding—which are sources of all worldly and otherworldly blessings, the Qur’an points to the possibility of the complete removal of blessings and states: say to them, if the punishment of God were to come upon you suddenly without warning, or openly and manifestly, would anyone be destroyed except the wrongdoing people? (قُلْ أَرَأَيْتَكُمْ إِنْ أَتَاكُمْ عَذَابُ اللَّهِ بَغْتَةً أَوْ جَهْرَةً هَلْ يُهْلَكُ إِلَّا الْقَوْمُ الظَّالِمُونَ) The word “بَغْتَةً” means suddenly and unexpectedly, while “جَهْرَةً” means openly and publicly. Ordinarily, the opposite of “open” would be “hidden,” not “sudden,” but since sudden events usually have concealed precursors—otherwise they would not be sudden—the notion of concealment is implicit within “بَغْتَةً”. The intent is that the One who has the power to inflict various punishments and to withdraw blessings is God alone, and idols have no role whatsoever in this matter. Hence, there is no justification for seeking refuge in them. Yet because God is Wise and Merciful, He punishes only the wrongdoers. Implicitly, this expression also indicates that “ظلم” has a broad meaning, encompassing various forms of shirk and sin; indeed, the Qur’an describes shirk as great injustice, as Luqmān said to his son: “لَا تُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ إِنَّ الشِّرْكَ لَظُلْمٌ عَظِيمٌ”. In the subsequent verse, pointing to the duties of the divine messengers, it is stated that not only do lifeless idols avail nothing, but even the great prophets and divine guides do nothing beyond conveying the message, giving glad tidings, and issuing warnings and encouragements. Whatever blessing exists comes by God’s command and from Him, and even the prophets seek their needs from Him alone: (وَمَا نُرْسِلُ الْمُرْسَلِينَ إِلَّا مُبَشِّرِينَ وَمُنْذِرِينَ). One connection between this verse and the preceding ones is that numerous forms of encouragement and warning have already been mentioned; here it is clarified that this very function—glad tidings and warning—is precisely the purpose for which the messengers were sent. The verse then declares that the path to salvation is confined to two things: 1. Those who believe, and 2. Those who reform themselves and perform righteous deeds. Such people shall have no fear of divine punishment and no grief over their past actions: (فَمَنْ آمَنَ وَأَصْلَحَ فَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ). In contrast, those who deny the divine signs will be seized by punishment on account of their disobedience: (وَالَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِنَا يَمَسُّهُمُ الْعَذَابُ بِمَا كَانُوا يَفْسُقُونَ). It is particularly noteworthy that in describing the punishment of those who deny God’s signs, the expression “يَمَسُّهُمُ الْعَذَابُ” is used—meaning “the punishment touches them.” This suggests that the punishment relentlessly follows them and then ultimately seizes them in the most severe manner. It should also be emphasized that “فسق” is a broad term, encompassing all forms of disobedience, rebellion against divine obedience, and even disbelief itself. This is the intended meaning in the present verse. Accordingly, the discussions by Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī and some other exegetes, who sought to restrict the meaning here to ordinary sins and mounted elaborate defenses on that basis, are rendered unnecessary.

In the above verse, the final portion of the responses given to the various objections raised by the disbelievers and polytheists is presented, and their objections are answered concisely in three parts. The first point is that the disbelievers and polytheists used to demand extraordinary and unusual miracles from the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and each individual’s demand was shaped by his own desire. They were not even satisfied with witnessing miracles shown at the request of others. At times they demanded houses of gold, at times the descent of angels, at times that the barren and waterless land of Mecca be transformed into lush gardens, and at other times they advanced various other demands, as will be detailed under Sūrah Banī Isrāʾīl, verse 90. It was as though, by making such strange demands, they expected the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny to possess a kind of divine authority or ownership over the heavens and the earth. Therefore, in response to such people, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is commanded to say that he does not claim that the treasures of God are in his possession: (قُلْ لَا أَقُولُ لَكُمْ عِنْدِي خَزَائِنُ اللَّهِ). The word “خزائن” is the plural of khizānah, meaning a treasury or repository—the place where the source of a thing is gathered and preserved, and from which others may access it. As stated in Sūrah al‑Ḥijr, verse 21: “وَإِنْ مِنْ شَيْءٍ إِلَّا عِنْدَنَا خَزَائِنُهُ وَمَا نُنَزِّلُهُ إِلَّا بِقَدَرٍ مَعْلُومٍ”. Reflection upon this verse makes it clear that “خزائن الله” encompasses the sources and origins of all things, which in reality lie within the dominion of that infinite Being who is the fountainhead of all perfections and powers. The second statement addresses those who expected the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny to inform them of all past and future secrets, including events related to their own lives, so that they might avoid harm and attract benefit. In response, he is instructed to say: (وَلَا أَعْلَمُ الْغَيْبَ) — “I do not claim that I possess knowledge of the unseen.” As previously explained, comprehensive knowledge of all things is possible only for a Being who is present at every time and place—and that is exclusively God. Any being whose existence is confined to a particular time and place cannot, by nature, know everything. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent God from granting a portion of knowledge of the unseen—according to His wisdom and according to what is required to complete the mission of divine guidance—to His messengers and chosen servants. Such knowledge is not intrinsic knowledge of the unseen (ʿilm al‑ghayb bi‑dhātih), but rather derivative knowledge (ʿilm al‑ghayb bi‑l‑ʿarḍ), bestowed by the Knower of the unseen. Numerous Qur’ānic verses testify that God grants this kind of knowledge not only to prophets and divine leaders, but at times even to others. Among them are Sūrah al‑Jinn, verses 26–27, which state that God is aware of the unseen and does not disclose His unseen knowledge to anyone except those messengers with whom He is pleased. In principle, the completion of the role of guidance—especially universal guidance—necessitates awareness of many matters hidden from ordinary people. Without such divine disclosure, the role of guidance would remain incomplete. It is an established fact that even living beings sometimes require awareness of certain unseen matters to sustain their lives, and God grants this to them accordingly. For instance, it is well known that certain insects foresee winter conditions while still in summer; God has placed this specific form of unseen knowledge within them because without it their survival would often be jeopardized. Further discussion of this matter will be presented, God willing, under Sūrah al‑Aʿrāf, verse 188. In the third statement, responding to those who expected the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny himself to be an angel, or to be accompanied by angels, and to display no human characteristics such as eating or walking in marketplaces, he is commanded to declare: (وَلَا أَقُولُ لَكُمْ إِنِّي مَلَكٌ) — “I do not claim that I am an angel.” Rather, he states that he merely follows the commands and teachings conveyed to him by divine revelation: (إِنْ أَتَّبِعُ إِلَّا مَا يُوحَىٰ إِلَيَّ). From this sentence it becomes clear that everything the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny possessed, and every action he performed, originated solely from divine revelation. Contrary to what some have claimed, he did not act on personal conjecture, independent reasoning, or analogy; in religious matters, his entire program consisted solely in following revelation. All of the Prophet’s affairs were religious in nature—there was no division between worldly and religious matters in his mission. At the conclusion of these verses, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is commanded to say: are the blind and the seeing equal? Are those who have closed their eyes, intellect, and understanding comparable to those who see and comprehend the truths clearly? Will you not reflect? (قُلْ هَلْ يَسْتَوِي الْأَعْمَىٰ وَالْبَصِيرُ ۗ أَفَلَا تَتَفَكَّرُونَ). After the preceding three statements, the inclusion of this sentence may indicate that although the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny has declared that he does not possess divine treasures, nor comprehensive knowledge of the unseen, nor angelic status, he is nevertheless not like the obstinate idol‑worshippers. Rather, he is a discerning and perceiving individual, whereas they resemble the blind—and the two are not equal. Another possible connection is that the proofs of tawḥīd and the truthfulness of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny are entirely clear and manifest; however, perceiving them requires insight. If they do not accept them, it is not because the message is ambiguous or obscure, but because they are blind to the truth. Are the seeing and the blind equal?

At the end of the previous verse, it was stated that the blind and the seeing are not equal, and following that, in this verse, the Prophet (PBUH) is being commanded: Warn and awaken with the Quran those who fear the Day of Resurrection. That is, at the very least, their eyes are open enough that they consider the possibility that there will be a reckoning, and under the shadow of this possibility and the fear of accountability, they prepare to accept. (وَ اَنۡذِرۡ بِہِ الَّذِیۡنَ یَخَافُوۡنَ اَنۡ یُّحۡشَرُوۡۤا اِلٰی رَبِّہِمۡ). Perhaps we have stated many times that for the guidance of individuals, merely a worthy guide and a comprehensive educational program are not sufficient. Rather, a kind of readiness is also necessary within the individuals themselves. Just as the light of the sun is not enough to find the path from a well, but a seeing eye is also needed, and a ready and prepared seed cannot bear fruit unless the soil is prepared and ready. From what we have stated, it has become clear that the pronoun in "bihi" refers to the Quran, even though the Quran is not explicitly mentioned in the preceding verses, but this matter is clear from the context. Similarly, "yakhafuna" (they fear) refers to that same possibility of harm and loss which arises in the mind of every intelligent person when they ponder upon the invitation of the prophets and divine guides—that perhaps their invitation is true, and opposing it may cause harm and loss. Therefore, is it not better that I study their invitation and reflect upon their arguments? This is one of the primary conditions for guidance, and it is just as the scholars of theology, under the heading of "the necessity of repelling potential harm," present it as a proof for the obligation to study the invitation of a claimant to prophethood and the necessity of studying about the recognition of God. After this, it is stated that such awakened-hearted individuals fear that day when there will be no protector or intercessor besides God (لَیۡسَ لَہُمۡ مِّنۡ دُوۡنِہٖ وَلِیٌّ وَّ لَا شَفِیۡعٌ). Yes, warn such individuals and invite them towards God, because there is hope of piety and God-consciousness in them (لَّعَلَّہُمۡ یَتَّقُوۡنَ). Of course, this verse does not in any way contradict the guardianship (wilayah) and intercession (shafa'ah) of others besides God, because as we have stated before, what is meant here is the negation of intercession and guardianship *in essence* (bil-dhat). That is, these two positions are intrinsically exclusive to God. Now, if someone other than Him holds the position of guardianship and intercession, it is with His permission, leave, and command, as the Quran explicitly states: `من ذاالذی یشفع عندہ اِلَّا باذنہ` Who is it that can intercede in His presence except by His permission? (Surah Baqarah, 255). For further explanation of this and a complete discussion on intercession, please refer to Tafsir-e-Namuna, Volume 1, page 198 (Urdu translation) and Volume 2, page 155 (Urdu translation).

See ayat 53 for tafseer.

Regarding the occasion of revelation of the above verses, many narrations have been transmitted, all of which are very similar to one another. Among them is one that is narrated in the tafsir "Durr al-Manthur" as follows: A group from the Quraysh passed by the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) while Suhayb, Ammar, Bilal, Khabbab, and other poor and laborer-class Muslims like them were present in the service of the Prophet (PBUH). Seeing this scene, they were astonished (and since they considered personality to be confined to wealth, riches, and status, they could not comprehend the greatness of the spiritual station of these great men and the imprints of their achievements in the formation of the future great Islamic and human society) and said, "O Muhammad (PBUH)! Have you contented yourself with only these individuals from the entire population? Are these the ones whom God has chosen from among us? Should we become their followers? Drive them away from you as soon as possible, then perhaps we will come near you and follow you." Upon this, the aforementioned verses were revealed, and their demand and request were severely rejected. Some Sunni commentators have narrated a similar hadith. For example, the author of "Al-Manar," while narrating a similar account, adds that 'Umar ibn...Those who were being addressed were present there, and they asked the Noble Prophet (PBUH) what harm there would be in accepting their [the disbelievers'] demand to see what they would do. In response, the aforementioned verses were revealed, and this request of theirs was also rejected. There should be no misunderstanding in this regard that mentioning the occasion of revelation for some verses of this Surah does not contradict the fact that this entire Surah was revealed in one instance. This is because, as we have stated before, it is possible that various incidents had occurred at different intervals before the revelation of this Surah, and this Surah encompasses all those incidents. At this juncture, it also seems necessary to mention the point that it has been narrated in some traditions that when the Prophet (PBUH) did not accept their offer, they requested that turns be set between the nobles of Quraysh and the poor companions. That is, one day be appointed for the former and one day for the latter, so that they would not have to sit together in the same gathering. The Noble Prophet (initially) accepted their proposal, hoping it might become a means for them to accept faith. They then said that this matter should be put in writing in the form of an agreement. The Prophet had just commissioned Hazrat Ali (alayhis salam) to write the said agreement when the above verse was revealed and he was stopped from this act. However, this narration, besides not being in conformity with the spirit of Islamic teachings—and the Prophet (PBUH) never showed any inclination towards such discriminatory treatment, but rather always spoke of the unity of the Islamic society—is also not in conformity with the preceding verse, which states, "ان اتبع الا مایوحی الی" (I only follow what is revealed to me). How can it be believed that the Prophet (PBUH) would have yielded to this proposal without waiting for revelation? Furthermore, the phrase "لا تطرد" at the beginning of the verse under discussion indicates that their demand was to completely and permanently distance this group of the Prophet's companions from himself, not a demand for taking turns or setting a schedule. This is because there is a great difference between "تناوب" and "طرد", and this indicates that the occasion of revelation is the one we stated at the beginning.

This verse alludes to another excuse of the polytheists, which was that they expected the Prophet (PBUH) to grant a distinction to the wealthy over the poor class. They thought that sitting with these companions of the Prophet was a flaw and a great defect for them, whereas they were oblivious to the fact that Islam came precisely to eliminate such absurd and baseless distinctions. For this reason, they were very insistent on the proposal that the Prophet should distance this group from his presence. However, the Quran negates their proposal with clarity and by presenting weighty arguments. First, it says: Do not at all drive away those individuals who call upon their Lord morning and evening, and whose sight is on no one except His pure essence (وَ لَا تَطۡرُدِ الَّذِیۡنَ یَدۡعُوۡنَ رَبَّہُمۡ بِالۡغَدٰوۃِ وَ الۡعَشِیِّ یُرِیۡدُوۡنَ وَجۡہَہٗ). (The literal meaning of "wajh" is face, and at times it is used in the sense of essence. In the verse under consideration, the second meaning is intended. For more details on this topic, refer to Tafseer-e-Namoona, Volume 2, page 205 (Urdu translation)). A noteworthy point is that here, instead of mentioning the names or titles of these individuals, it suffices to mention only the attribute that they are engaged in the remembrance of God morning and evening—in other words, always. And this worshipand have joined the ranks of the Muslims, they should not be spurned at any cost, and in this way, the pretexts of the chiefs of Quraysh have been rebuked. Perhaps this is the same exegesis that has been stated in the story of Prophet Nuh (peace be upon him), which is similar to the story of the elites of Quraysh, where the people of Nuh say to him: Anu'minu laka wattaba'aka al-ardhalun "Shall we believe in you? while the worthless have followed you." Prophet Nuh (peace be upon him) says in reply to them: Wa ma 'ilmi bima kanu ya'malun. In hisabuhum illa 'ala Rabbi law tash'urun. Wa ma ana bitarid al-mu'minin. What knowledge do I have of what they used to do? Their account is only with my Lord, if you could but perceive. And I am not one to drive away the believers (Ash-Shu'ara, 111-114). In summary, the responsibility of the Prophet is to accept, without any distinction or discrimination, whoever expresses faith, regardless of what nation, tribe, or class he belongs to; let alone those pure-hearted and faithful individuals who seek no one but God, and whose only sin is that their hands are empty of wealth and riches and they are not polluted by the wretched life of the elites.

We know that in contemporary Christianity the scope of authority claimed by religious leaders has reached an almost absurd extent, to the point that they regard themselves as possessing the right to forgive sins, and on this basis they may, if they wish, repudiate a person over a trivial matter and declare him an unbeliever, or alternatively accept him. In the present verse and in other verses, the Qur’an gently but clearly reminds that not only religious scholars, but even the Prophet himself had no right to repudiate or expel a person who professed faith, so long as he had not committed any act that would take him outside Islam. The forgiveness of sins and the reckoning of servants belong solely to God, and no one else has the right to interfere in this matter. However, let no misunderstanding arise: the subject under discussion in the verse is religious excommunication, not legal exclusion, in the sense that if, for example, an educational institution is established for students of a particular category and a person initially meets those conditions but later no longer satisfies them, his removal from that institution involves no prohibition. Likewise, if the administrator of an institution possesses certain legitimate authorities in view of the interests of that institution, there is no objection to employing those lawful authorities in order to preserve its system, status, and function. (Accordingly, statements found in Tafsir al‑Manar under this verse that appear to contradict this explanation arise from confusing religious excommunication with legal exclusion.) In the following verse, affluent but faithless individuals are warned that these situations constitute a test for them, and that if they fail to emerge properly from this crucible of trial, they will face painful consequences. It is stated that in this manner We tested some of them by means of others (وَ کَذٰلِکَ فَتَنَّا بَعۡضَہُمۡ بِبَعۡضٍ). Here فتنه conveys the meaning of trial and testing (for further clarification, see Tafsir Namunah, vol. 2, under Surah al‑Baqarah, verses 191 and 193). What test could be more severe than this: that the aristocratic and wealthy, who for years had made it a habit to keep all their affairs entirely separate from those of the lower classes—neither sharing in their joys nor in their sorrows, to the extent that even their graves were separated—must suddenly break all these conventions, cast off these heavy chains from their hands and feet, and adopt a religion whose earliest adherents were, by conventional standards, people of the lowest social strata and the poor. It is then further stated that the situation of these wealthy individuals reached the point that, looking with contempt upon true believers, they remarked: “Are these the very people whom God has favored from among us and bestowed upon them the blessing of faith and Islam? Are they worthy of such distinction?” (لِّیَقُوۡلُوۡۤا اَہٰۤؤُلَآءِ مَنَّ اللّٰہُ عَلَیۡہِمۡ مِّنۡۢ بَیۡنِنَا). As noted under Surah Al‑Imran, verse 164, the word منّة fundamentally denotes the bestowal of a blessing (see Tafsir Namunah, vol. 3). Their response is then given: these people of faith are those who expressed gratitude for the blessing of discernment and put it into practice, and likewise they expressed gratitude for the blessing of the Prophet’s call by accepting his invitation. What blessing could be greater than this, and what form of gratitude could surpass it? It is for this reason that God firmly established faith within their hearts. Does God not know best those who are truly grateful?

See ayat 55 for tafseer.

Some hold the view that the first verse was revealed concerning those people whom, in the preceding verses, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny had been commanded not to repel or drive away from his presence, while others are of the opinion that this verse concerns certain sinners who came to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and confessed that they had committed many sins; the Messenger of God remained silent, whereupon the present verse was revealed. In any case, whatever the specific occasion of revelation may have been, there is no doubt that the meaning of the verse is general and comprehensive, encompassing all such cases. For first, as a general principle, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny was commanded that all believers—even if they are sinners—should not only not be driven away, but rather should be embraced and accepted. It was stated: when those who believe in Our signs come to you, say to them, “Peace be upon you” (وَ اِذَا جَآءَكَ الَّذِيْنَ يُؤْمِنُوْنَ بِاٰيٰتِنَا فَقُلْ سَلٰمٌ عَلَيْكُمْ). This greeting of peace may be from God conveyed through the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, or directly from the Prophet himself; in either case, it signifies welcoming, acceptance, and engaging with them through understanding and friendship. In the second statement it is further said: your Lord has prescribed mercy for Himself (كَتَبَ رَبُّكُمْ عَلٰى نَفْسِهِ الرَّحْمَةَ). The term كَتَبَ, derived from writing, is often used to mean making something obligatory, accepted, or undertaken, since one effect of writing is to make a matter settled and firmly established. In the third statement—which in fact explains and elaborates divine mercy—a compassionate expression is used: whoever among you commits an evil out of ignorance, then repents after that and makes amends, indeed God is Forgiving, Merciful (اَنَّهٗ مَنْ عَمِلَ مِنْكُمْ سُوْءًاۢ بِجَهَالَةٍ ثُمَّ تَابَ مِنْۢ بَعْدِهٖ وَ اَصْلَحَ فَاَنَّهٗ غَفُوْرٌ رَّحِيْمٌ). As has already been explained, “ignorance” here refers to the domination of passion and desire, to impulsiveness and transgression, whereby a person commits an act not out of hostility or enmity but under the overpowering influence of base desires, such that rational judgment is eclipsed and control is lost. Such a person does possess knowledge of the sin and its prohibition, yet because that knowledge is veiled by desire, the act is described as arising from “ignorance.” Undoubtedly, such a person remains accountable for the sin; however, since it was not committed out of deliberate defiance, he strives to repent, correct, and make amends. In reality, this verse commands the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny that no believer—regardless of social class, lineage, or circumstances—should ever be repelled; rather, the Prophet is to open his embrace equally to all, even if some are deeply tainted by sins, accepting them and working toward their reform. In the following verse, to reinforce this meaning, it is stated: thus We explain Our signs in detail so that the path of the seekers of truth and the obedient becomes clear, and the path of the obstinate sinners and enemies of the truth also becomes manifest (وَ كَذٰلِكَ نُفَصِّلُ الْاٰيٰتِ وَ لِتَسْتَبِيْنَ سَبِيْلُ الْمُجْرِمِيْنَ). In fact, the phrase وَلِتَسْتَبِيْنَ is coordinated with an omitted clause understood from the context, meaning that the path of the obedient believers and the path of the sinners are both distinctly clarified. It is evident that “mujrim” here does not mean every sinner, since the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is commanded to accept sinners who come to him, regardless of how many wrong actions they may have committed out of ignorance. Rather, “mujrim” here refers to those obstinate and hardened sinners who, by no means, are prepared to submit before the truth—those who remain defiant even after the general and comprehensive invitation to truth, and even after extending that invitation to repentant sinners. At this stage, the conduct and path of such obstinate criminals is being made fully clear and distinct.

See ayat 58 for tafseer.

See ayat 58 for tafseer.

In these verses the address is directed, as in much of this sūrah, toward the obstinate polytheists and idol‑worshippers. The tone is such as if they had invited the Prophet to incline toward their religion; therefore the Prophet is commanded to state to them explicitly that he has been forbidden from worshipping those whom they worship besides God (قُلۡ اِنِّیۡ نُہِیۡتُ اَنۡ اَعۡبُدَ الَّذِیۡنَ تَدۡعُوۡنَ مِنۡ دُوۡنِ اللّٰہِ). The use of the expression “الَّذِیۡنَ,” which grammatically applies to rational beings in the masculine plural, refers to idols because the argument is being conducted from within their own conceptual framework. The verb “نُهِيتُ” (I have been prohibited), expressed in the passive form, indicates that the prohibition of idol‑worship is not something new but has always existed and will always remain so. It is then said, “Say: I do not follow your desires” (قُلۡ لَّاۤ اَتَّبِعُ اَہۡوَآءَکُمۡ). Through this statement their demand is answered clearly: idol‑worship lacks any rational foundation and is wholly incompatible with reason and intellect. Reason readily perceives that the human being is superior to inanimate objects; how, then, can a human bow in reverence before another creature, particularly one inferior to himself? Moreover, most idols were themselves fashioned by human hands; how can something that is itself a human product become an object of worship or a solver of human problems? Thus, the source of idolatry is nothing other than blind imitation, superstition, and submission to base desires. Finally, by way of emphasis, it is stated: if I were to do this, I would surely have gone astray and would not be among the rightly guided (قَدۡ ضَلَلۡتُ اِذًا وَّ مَاۤ اَنَا مِنَ الۡمُہۡتَدِیۡنَ). In the following verse, another response is given: “Say: I stand upon a clear proof from my Lord, though you have rejected and denied it” (قُلۡ اِنِّیۡ عَلٰی بَیِّنَۃٍ مِّنۡ رَّبِّیۡ وَ کَذَّبۡتُمۡ بِہٖ). The term “بَیِّنَۃ” originally denotes something that separates two things in such a way that no reconnection is possible; it later came to signify a clear and evident proof, since it distinguishes truth from falsehood. Although in juridical usage “bayyinah” refers to the testimony of two just witnesses, its lexical meaning is broader, and such testimony is merely one of its instances. Miracles are also called “bayyinah” because they distinguish truth from falsehood, and likewise divine signs and laws fall within this broader sense. In summary, the Prophet is commanded here to rely on the fact that his path of God‑worship and opposition to idols rests upon evidence that is entirely clear and manifest, and that their denial and rejection cannot diminish its validity. Thereafter, another of their pretexts is addressed: they used to say that if the Prophet were truly upon the truth, he should hasten the punishment with which he warned them. In response, the Prophet is instructed to say: that which you seek to hasten is not in my power (مَا عِنۡدِیۡ مَا تَسۡتَعۡجِلُوۡنَ بِہٖ); judgment belongs to none but God (اِنِ الۡحُکۡمُ اِلَّا لِلّٰہِ). Then, by way of further emphasis, it is stated: He it is who distinguishes the truth, and He is the best of those who separate (یَقُصُّ الۡحَقَّ وَ ہُوَ خَیۡرُ الۡفٰصِلِیۡنَ). Clearly, only one whose knowledge is complete and for whom the distinction between truth and falsehood is entirely evident can distinguish them properly; moreover, such a being must possess sufficient power to implement that knowledge. These two attributes—unlimited knowledge and power—belong exclusively and eternally to God, and therefore He is the best distinguisher of truth from falsehood. In the next verse, the Prophet is commanded to say to this obstinate and ignorant group that if what they are demanding to be hastened were in his own control, and if he were to comply with their request, the matter between him and them would already have been settled (قُلۡ لَّوۡ اَنَّ عِنۡدِیۡ مَا تَسۡتَعۡجِلُوۡنَ بِہٖ لَقُضِیَ الۡاَمۡرُ بَیۡنِیۡ وَ بَیۡنَکُمۡ). But lest they imagine that their punishment has been forgotten, the Qur’an concludes by declaring that God knows the wrongdoers best and will punish them at the proper time (وَ اللّٰہُ اَعۡلَمُ بِالظّٰلِمِیۡنَ). Provide your feedback on BizChat

1. From the Qur’anic verses it becomes clear that many previous nations repeatedly made the same demand of their prophets, saying that if you are truthful, then why do you not bring upon us that punishment whose descent you expect. The people of Noah (عليه السلام) made the same demand of him and said: O Noah, you have disputed with us at great length and argued excessively with us; now bring to us what you promise, if you are among the truthful. قَالُواْ يَا نُوحُ قَدْ جَادَلْتَنَا فَأَكْثَرْتَ جِدَالَنَا فَأْتِنَا بِمَا تَعِدُنَا إِن كُنتَ مِنَ الصَّادِقِينَ (Hūd 32). A similar demand was also made by the people of Ṣāliḥ (عليه السلام) (al-Aʿrāf 77). The people of ʿĀd likewise made such a demand of their prophet Hūd (عليه السلام) (al-Aʿrāf 70). From Sūrat Banī Isrāʾīl it is also evident that this demand was made repeatedly of the Prophet, to the extent that they said: we will not believe in you unless you perform one of several acts, one of which was that you cause the sky, as you claim, to fall upon us in fragments (أو تسقط السماء كما زعمت علينا كسفا) (Banī Isrāʾīl 92). These unreasonable demands were either made in mockery and ridicule, or genuinely as a demand for miracles, and in both cases they were foolish, because in the latter case they would have become the cause of their own destruction, leaving no room for benefiting from the miracle, and in the former case as well, given the clear proofs and signs that all prophets brought with them, which at the very least created in the mind of any observer the possibility of their truthfulness, how could a person, with even such a possibility, demand his own destruction or engage in mockery of it. Yet fanaticism and obstinacy are such great afflictions that they block every path of thought and logic. 2. The statement “إِنْ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ” has a clear meaning, namely that all commands and judgments—whether related to the realm of creation and existence or to the realm of religious legislation and law—are entirely in the hand of God. Therefore, if any prophet carries out any of these matters, he does so only by His command. For example, if Jesus (عليه السلام) brings the dead to life, it is also by His permission. Likewise, every position entrusted to anyone, whether divine leadership or judicial or political authority, is from the Lord. It must, however, be said with regret that this clear and explicit statement has been misused many times throughout history. At times, the Khārijites, objecting during the Battle of Ṣiffīn to the appointment of arbiters—a measure that had itself come about at the demand of them and those like them—invoked this phrase, and, as stated by ʿAlī (عليه السلام), they used a word of truth for a false meaning, until the slogan “لا حكم إلا لله” gradually became their watchword. They were so ignorant and foolish that they imagined that if a person were appointed as a judge even in accordance with God’s command and the ordinances of Islam, this would be contrary to “إِنْ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ,” despite the fact that they recited the Qur’an abundantly but understood it very little, for the Qur’an itself explicitly prescribes, even in the case of marital disputes, the appointment of one arbiter from his family and one from hers: فَابْعَثُواْ حَكَمًا مِّنْ أَهْلِهِ وَحَكَمًا مِّنْ أَهْلِهَا (al-Nisāʾ 35). Some other individuals, as Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī has reported in his tafsīr, considered this statement to be evidence for the doctrine of compulsion (jabr), arguing that once it is accepted that all rulings in the realm of creation belong to God, no freedom of choice remains for anyone. Whereas we know that human free will and choice are themselves by the command of the Lord; it is God who wills that human beings be free and autonomous in their actions, so that in that state of freedom and choice He may place the burden of responsibility upon their shoulders and bring about their moral cultivation. 3. Lexically, “يَقُصُّ” is used in the sense of “cutting” or “severing,” and it is said in the dictionaries: قص الشعر والظفر قطع منهما بالمقص أي المقراض, meaning that cutting hair and nails with scissors (miqrāḍ) is called qaṣṣ, and the scissors are called miqṣ (with kasrah on the mīm and fatḥah on the qāf). In the present verse, the expression “يَقُصُّ الْحَقَّ” means that God completely severs and separates the truth from falsehood; accordingly, the subsequent phrase “وَهُوَ خَيْرُ الْفَاصِلِينَ” serves as an emphasis of this very point. It should also be noted that “يَقُصُّ” here is not derived from “قَصَص,” which means narrating a story or account, as some exegetes have supposed.

See ayat 62 for tafseer.

See ayat 62 for tafseer.

See ayat 62 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses the discussion concerned the extent of God’s knowledge and power and the scope of His command and authority; in the present verses, what was mentioned there in summary is explained in detail. First, taking up the subject of God’s knowledge, it states: the keys (or treasures) of the unseen are with Him alone, and none knows them except He (وَ عِنۡدَہٗ مَفَاتِحُ الۡغَیۡبِ لَا یَعۡلَمُہَاۤ اِلَّا ہُوَ). The term “مفاتح” is the plural of “مفتَح” (on the pattern of “مفتاح,” meaning a key), and it is also possible that it is the plural of “مفتح” (on the pattern of “مكتب”), meaning a treasury or a place for safeguarding things. In the first case, the verse means that all the keys of the unseen are in His hand; in the second, that all the treasuries of the unseen are under His control. It is also possible that both meanings are intended together, since where there is a treasury there is also necessarily a key. However, it appears more likely that “مفاتح” here means keys rather than treasuries, because the purpose is to express God’s knowledge, and the image of keys—by which access to various stores is obtained—is more appropriate. The word “مفاتح” is used elsewhere in the Qur’an with the meaning of keys as well. It then further explains and emphasizes: He knows whatever is on land and in the sea (وَ یَعۡلَمُ مَا فِی الۡبَرِّ وَ الۡبَحۡرِ). “بَرّ” denotes a wide expanse and commonly refers to dry land, while “بحر” denotes a vast place containing abundant water and generally refers to seas, and sometimes to great rivers. In any case, His knowing what is on land and in the sea signifies His complete encompassing knowledge over all things. Considering the breadth of this expression, a glimpse of the vastness of His knowledge becomes clear: He is aware of the movements of billions of small and large living beings in the depths of the oceans; of the trembling of leaves on trees throughout forests and mountains; of the precise moment each bud bursts and each flower blooms; of the waves of the breeze across deserts and the bending of ravines; of the exact number of veins in the human body and blood globules; of the hidden motions of all electrons within atoms; and, finally, of all the thoughts and imaginings that pass through our minds and the depths of our souls—yes, He is fully and equally aware of all of these. Then, emphasizing the scope of divine knowledge even further, it states: not a single leaf falls but He knows it (وَ مَا تَسۡقُطُ مِنۡ وَّرَقَۃٍ اِلَّا یَعۡلَمُہَا), that is, its number, the moment of its detachment from its branch, its movement through the air, and the instant of its reaching the ground are all manifest to His knowledge. Likewise, no single grain rests in the darknesses of the earth except that He knows all its characteristics (وَ لَا حَبَّۃٍ فِیۡ ظُلُمٰتِ الۡاَرۡضِ). In fact, the verse points to two extremely subtle realities beyond any human capacity, even if one were to live thousands of years and achieve the highest levels of technological advancement: who could know how many kinds of seeds are separated from plants by winds across the globe night and day, and where they are scattered—seeds that may remain hidden in the depths of the soil for years until sufficient moisture enables their growth? Who could know, at every moment, how many seeds of various kinds are dispersed by insects or by human activity and in which locations of the earth? What computational mind could count the number of leaves falling daily from forest trees, especially when observing a forest scene in autumn, particularly after continuous rain or strong winds? Truly, the falling of leaves marks a form of death, while the falling of seeds into the dark soil is the first step toward life, and only He knows this entire system of death and life, such that every stage a seed takes toward its full life and germination is manifest before His knowledge at every moment. This exposition has both a philosophical and an educative effect: philosophically, it refutes the notion of those who confine God’s knowledge to universals and deny His knowledge of particulars, affirming clearly that God fully knows both universals and particulars; educatively, belief in this limitless knowledge reminds a person that all the secrets of one’s existence, deeds, words, intentions, and thoughts are entirely manifest to God—how could one then fail to watch over one’s conduct, speech, and intentions? The verse concludes: neither the fresh nor the dry exists except that it is recorded in a clear book (وَ لَا رَطۡبٍ وَّ لَا یَابِسٍ اِلَّا فِیۡ کِتٰبٍ مُّبِیۡنٍ). This concise expression conveys the boundless extent of God’s knowledge over all beings, without exception; “fresh” and “dry” here are not meant in their literal senses but as an idiomatic expression denoting total comprehensiveness. Exegetes have advanced various views about “the clear book,” the most plausible being that it refers to God’s own all‑encompassing knowledge, with the “Preserved Tablet” serving as an expression of the same reality. Another view understands it as the order of creation and the chain of causes and effects in which everything is inscribed. Numerous traditions from the Ahl al‑Bayt interpret “leaf” as a miscarried fetus, “grain” as offspring, “the darknesses of the earth” as the wombs of mothers, “fresh” as embryos that survive, and “dry” as those that perish; while these interpretations do not adhere to the literal meanings alone, they illustrate the intended breadth of meaning and the need to avoid narrow literalism, indicating that the verse encompasses even the seeds of human life. The following verse then turns to God’s encompassing knowledge of human actions, which is its primary aim, and also clarifies His overwhelming power, so that people may draw necessary moral lessons: He is the One who takes your souls by night and knows what you earn by day (وَ ہُوَ الَّذِیۡ یَتَوَفّٰىکُمۡ بِالَّیۡلِ وَ یَعۡلَمُ مَا جَرَحۡتُمۡ بِالنَّہَارِ). “توفی” means taking back; sleep is described as a partial taking of the soul because sleep is the sister of death—death is the complete suspension of the brain’s function and severance of the soul‑body relation, whereas sleep is a partial suspension and weakening of that relation. “جرحتم,” from “جرح,” here means acquisition or earning. Thus you live day and night under the shade of God’s knowledge and power; He who knows the nurturing of seeds beneath the soil and the falling of leaves at all times and places also knows your deeds. It continues: this cycle of sleep and wakefulness repeats until the appointed term is fulfilled (ثُمَّ یَبۡعَثُکُمۡ فِیۡہِ لِیُقۡضٰۤی اَجَلٌ مُّسَمًّی), where “بعث” means awakening from sleep and “the appointed term” the lifespan decreed for each person. Finally, the conclusion is stated: then your return is to God, who will inform you of what you used to do (ثُمَّ اِلَیۡہِ مَرۡجِعُکُمۡ ثُمَّ یُنَبِّئُکُمۡ بِمَا کُنۡتُمۡ تَعۡمَلُوۡنَ). The next verse further clarifies God’s encompassing knowledge of human deeds and the meticulous preservation of their account: He has complete dominion over His servants and sends guardians to watch over you (وَ ہُوَ الۡقَاہِرُ فَوۡقَ عِبَادِہٖ وَ یُرۡسِلُ عَلَیۡکُمۡ حَفَظَۃً). “قاهریت” denotes such absolute dominance that no opposing power can stand against it; “حفظة,” the plural of “حافظ,” refers here to the angels charged with recording human deeds, as stated elsewhere: إِنَّ عَلَیۡکُمۡ لَحٰفِظِیۡنَ کِرَامًا کَاتِبِیۡنَ یَعۡلَمُوۡنَ مَا تَفۡعَلُوۡنَ. Although some exegetes interpret these guardians as protectors from calamities until the appointed time of death, reflection on the context shows that here they are guardians of deeds. This recording continues until the final moment of life (حَتّٰۤی اِذَا جَآءَ اَحَدَکُمُ الۡمَوۡتُ), when Our messengers appointed to take souls seize it (تَوَفَّتۡہُ رُسُلُنَا), without any negligence or delay in the discharge of their duty (وَ ہُمۡ لَا یُفَرِّطُوۡنَ), a description that may also apply to the angels overseeing the preservation of deeds. The next verse points to the final stage: after completing their worldly lives, human beings will be returned with their fully recorded deeds to their true Master, God (ثُمَّ رُدُّوۡۤا اِلَی اللّٰہِ مَوۡلٰىہُمُ الۡحَقِّ); judgment belongs to Him alone (اَلَا لَہُ الۡحُکۡمُ), and He is the swiftest of those who take account (وَ ہُوَ اَسۡرَعُ الۡحٰسِبِیۡنَ). Traditions state that God will take account of all His servants in the time it takes to milk a goat, an expression indicating extreme swiftness, even “in the blink of an eye,” because human deeds leave their traces upon the person and the surrounding reality, much like instruments that record performance instantaneously; thus the heaviness or length perceived in accounting for some people refers not to accessing the record but to the burden of answering for it and the completion of proof. These verses together constitute a comprehensive moral lesson: God’s knowledge of the smallest particles of existence, His encompassing dominion, His awareness of human actions, the meticulous recording of deeds, the taking of the soul at its appointed time, resurrection, and the precise and swift reckoning—who can truly believe in all this and then fail to watch over one’s deeds, commit injustice without restraint, lie without cause, or wrong others? Can such actions ever coexist with genuine faith, conviction, and attentiveness to these principles?

See ayat 64 for tafseer.

The Qur’an once again takes the polytheists by the hand and leads them into the depths of their own innate nature, pointing out within this mysterious inner sanctuary the light of monotheism and the signs of devotion to the One God, and commands the Prophet to say to them in this manner: who is it that delivers you from the darknesses of land and sea (قُلۡ مَنۡ یُّنَجِّیۡکُمۡ مِّنۡ ظُلُمٰتِ الۡبَرِّ وَ الۡبَحۡرِ). It should be recalled that darkness is sometimes sensory and sometimes moral: sensory darkness occurs when light is entirely cut off or so weakened that one cannot see at all or sees only with difficulty, while moral darkness consists of hardships, calamities, and anxieties whose outcomes are dark and unknown; ignorance is darkness, social and economic chaos, intellectual rootlessness, deviation, and moral corruption whose evil consequences cannot be foreseen, or anything that yields nothing but misery and distress—all of these are forms of darkness. Darkness is inherently frightening and imagination‑provoking, because the attacks of dangerous animals, thieves, and criminals usually occur under cover of night, and in such circumstances everyone feels exposed to danger; thus, when trapped in darkness, phantoms and fearful imaginings overwhelm a person, generating horrifying shapes from multiple angles that terrorize ordinary people. Darkness belongs to the realm of non‑being, and the human being instinctively recoils from non‑being and feels dread toward it; for this reason people generally fear darkness. When such darkness is compounded by truly terrifying events—for example, when a person is caught on a sea voyage amid a pitch‑black night, raging waves, and a storm—panic and distress increase many times over compared to the same dangers in daylight, because in such moments all avenues of escape appear blocked. Likewise, if a person loses his way in a forest or desert on a dark night, with the terrifying sounds of wild beasts roaming near and far in search of prey, that is the moment when a person forgets everything except himself and that radiant light shining in the depths of the soul, calling him toward a single source as the only one capable of resolving such crises; in such states, these moments become gateways to the world of monotheism and knowledge of God. Hence the next statement declares that in such a condition you call upon Him for help from His infinite grace, sometimes with manifest humility and supplication, and at other times secretly within your heart (تَدۡعُوۡنَہٗ تَضَرُّعًا وَّ خُفۡیَۃً), and in that state you immediately bind yourself in a covenant with that great source, declaring that if He rescues you from this danger you will surely be among the grateful and will attach your hearts to none besides Him (لَئِنۡ اَنۡجٰىنَا مِنۡ ہٰذِہٖ لَنَکُوۡنَنَّ مِنَ الشّٰکِرِیۡنَ). But, O Prophet, tell them that it is God who delivers you from these darknesses and from every kind of distress (and He has delivered you repeatedly), yet after being saved you return once again to the same path of polytheism and disbelief (قُلِ اللّٰہُ یُنَجِّیۡکُمۡ مِّنۡہَا وَ مِنۡ کُلِّ کَرۡبٍ ثُمَّ اَنۡتُمۡ تُشۡرِکُوۡنَ).

1. The mention of تضرع—which denotes open and outward supplication—and of خفیة—which denotes secret and inward supplication—may be due to the fact that difficulties differ from one another: at times a difficulty does not reach the stage of intensity and therefore calls a person to hidden supplication, while at other times it reaches a severe stage, leading one to raise hands openly in prayer, and sometimes even to lamentation and cries; the point is that God resolves both severe difficulties and minor ones. 2. Some hold that four psychological states of the human being are indicated, each representing a form of response when difficulties arise: the state of prayer and entreaty, the state of humility and submission, the state of sincerity, and the state of commitment to gratitude at the time of deliverance from hardship; but regrettably, for many people these precious states pass swiftly like lightning and arise almost involuntarily in the face of calamities, and since they lack knowledge and awareness, they lapse into silence as soon as the hardships are removed; nonetheless, even though these states are fleeting, they can still serve as evidence of God‑recognition for distant individuals. 3. The word کرب (on the pattern of حرب) originally denotes overturning or digging the ground, and also refers to the firm knot tied in the rope of a well‑bucket; thereafter it came to be applied to grief and distress that overturn the heart and settle upon it like a knot; accordingly, in the verse above, the term کرب, which has a broad meaning encompassing all major difficulties, appears after the mention of “ظلمات البر والبحر,” which refers to a specific category of hardships, so that after a particular meaning a general meaning is expressed. It is appropriate here to cite the report transmitted in some Islamic commentaries under this verse, in which the Messenger of God صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said: خیر الدعاء الخفی وخیر الرزق ما یکفی—the best supplication is that which is made secretly (and with utmost sincerity), and the best provision is that which suffices; and it is also reported that he passed by a group who were raising their voices in supplication and said: انکم لاتدعون الاصم ولا غائبا وانما تدعون سمیعا قریبا—you are not calling upon one who is deaf or absent, but rather upon One who hears and is near; from this it is understood that supplication performed quietly, with attentiveness and sincerity, is preferable.

In the preceding verses, within the context of explaining innate monotheism (tawḥīd fiṭrī), there was in fact a form of encouragement and an expression of divine compassion toward human beings, showing how God Almighty takes them under His protection and fulfills their needs during times of severe hardship and difficulty. In the present verse, for the completion of the various methods of moral training, recourse is made to warning through divine punishment and chastisement. That is, just as God is the All‑Merciful, All‑Compassionate, and the refuge of the helpless, so too is He overpowering and avenging in the face of the rebellious and transgressors. In this verse, the Prophet is commanded to warn the criminals of three kinds of punishments: punishments descending from above, punishments coming from below, and punishments in the form of mutual conflict whereby the fire of war and bloodshed is ignited through internal division. Accordingly, it is stated: Say: He is able to send upon you a punishment from above you or from beneath your feet (قُلْ هُوَ الْقَادِرُ عَلَىٰ أَنْ يَبْعَثَ عَلَيْكُمْ عَذَابًا مِنْ فَوْقِكُمْ أَوْ مِنْ تَحْتِ أَرْجُلِكُمْ), or to break you into sects and make some of you taste the violence of others (أَوْ يَلْبِسَكُمْ شِيَعًا وَيُذِيقَ بَعْضَكُمْ بَأْسَ بَعْضٍ). At the end of the verse, the Qur’an further states: Observe how We diversify the signs for them, so that they may understand and return to the truth (اُنْظُرْ كَيْفَ نُصَرِّفُ الْآيَاتِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَفْقَهُونَ).

1. With respect to what is meant by punishment “from above” and punishment “from below,” exegetes have differed, but the apparent meaning is that both expressions (fawq and taḥt) are extremely broad in scope. They include, in a sensory sense, the notions of above and below: punishments that descend from above, such as lightning, destructive rain, and storms, and punishments that emerge from below, such as earthquakes, earth‑rending fissures, and the destructive surges of rivers and seas. Also included within this meaning are those painful afflictions that descend upon nations from ruling elites and the upper strata of society, as well as the hardships and disturbances that befall people as a result of the irresponsibility, ignorance, and lawlessness of the lower strata—hardships that are at times no less severe than the afflictions caused by the former. Likewise, the terrifying instruments of modern warfare that, from the air and from the ground, devastate human life in dreadful ways—turning the most prosperous cities, within moments, into heaps of rubble through aerial bombardment, ground assaults, missiles, and submarines—can also be considered encompassed within the broad meaning of this verse. 2. The term yulbisakum derives from labs (on the pattern of ḥabs) and means to cause mutual collision, confusion, and entanglement with one another, not from labs (on the pattern of qarḍ), which means to wear clothing. Accordingly, the meaning of the phrase is that He can cause you to clash with one another in the form of different groups and factions (shiʿa, the plural of shiʿah, meaning group). This expression indicates that division of the community (disunity and fragmentation) is so dangerous that it has been equated with heavenly punishments such as lightning and natural catastrophes like earthquakes. In reality, this is indeed the case; at times, the destruction caused by internal division and fragmentation exceeds by many degrees the devastation caused by earthquakes and lightning. History has repeatedly shown that prosperous nations fall prey to ruin under the ominous shadow of hypocrisy and factionalism. This statement thus serves as a serious warning and a call to vigilance for all Muslims of the world. There is also another possible interpretation of this phrase, namely that in addition to heavenly and earthly physical punishments, two further types of punishment are mentioned: first, the punishment of disagreement in belief and worldview (which resembles punishments from above), and second, the punishment of conflict in action and social practice, whose outcome manifests as warfare and bloodshed (which resembles punishments from below). On this interpretation, the verse alludes to four types of natural punishments and two types of social punishments. 1. It must not be misunderstood that when the verse states that God may cause division among you, it does not mean that God arbitrarily plunges people into discord and conflict. Rather, this is the consequence of their own corrupt deeds, selfishness, egotism, and pursuit of personal interests, whose effects manifest outwardly as discord and division. The attribution of this outcome to God is because He has established such consequences within the very structure of those wrongful actions. 2. Considering that in these verses the address is directed toward polytheists and idol‑worshippers, we may conclude that a polytheistic society that has deviated from the path of monotheism and devotion to the One God becomes ensnared both in the oppression and injustice of the ruling classes and in the afflictions arising from the irresponsibility of the lower strata. Such a society is gripped by doctrinal conflict as well as by violent social and blood‑soaked struggles. As is evident today, materialistic societies that bow before the idols of mere industry and wealth are caught within all these great calamities and flounder helplessly among them. We are also aware of religious communities that verbally claim adherence to monotheism and God‑worship yet are, in practice, polytheistic and idolatrous; such religions and nations will likewise be afflicted by the same fate as the open polytheists. In this context, the traditions in which Imam Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (عليه السلام) is reported to have said, قل هذا في أهل القبلة—“Say that this applies to the People of the Qiblah”—may point to the fact that when Muslims deviate from the path of monotheism, when selfishness and self‑worship replace Islamic brotherhood, when personal interests are given priority over the common good, when each person becomes absorbed solely in his own concerns, and when divine commands are forgotten, they too will fall prey to the same outcomes.

See ayat 67 for tafseer.

These two verses in fact complete the discussion that has unfolded in the preceding verses regarding calling people to God, to the Hereafter, and to the truths of Islam, as well as warning them of divine punishment. First it is stated that your people and community, namely Quraysh and the people of Mecca, have denied your teachings, even though they are pure truth and are supported by diverse rational, natural, and sensory proofs (وَ کَذَّبَ بِہٖ قَوۡمُکَ وَ ہُوَ الۡحَقُّ). The pronoun “بِہٖ” has been interpreted by some as referring to the Qurʾān and by others as referring to the specific punishment mentioned in the preceding verse, but the apparent meaning is that it refers to all the truths conveyed by the Prophet and to all his teachings that his opponents used to reject, as is also evidenced by the final part of the verse. Consequently, their denial and rejection do not diminish the significance or the truth of these realities in the slightest, regardless of how numerous the opponents and deniers may be. It is then commanded that they be told: my responsibility is only the conveyance of the divine message, and I am not a guarantor over you as to whether you accept it or not (قُلۡ لَّسۡتُ عَلَیۡکُمۡ بِوَکِیۡلٍ). From the many verses in which this expression or similar expressions occur (such as al‑Anʿām 107, Yūnus 108, al‑Zumar 41, and al‑Shūrā 6), it is evident that here “وکیل” means one who is responsible for ensuring practical guidance and who guarantees others, thus the Prophet makes clear to them that it is entirely up to them whether to accept or reject the truth, while he has merely been charged with conveying the divine message and invitation. In the following verse, through a concise yet profound statement, they are admonished and called to careful reflection and discernment in choosing the right path: every message or report that God or the Prophet conveys to you shall in the end reach its appointed realization, either in this world or in the next, and will inevitably materialize at its fixed time, and you will soon come to know it (لِکُلِّ نَبَاٍ مُّسۡتَقَرٌّ ۫ وَّ سَوۡفَ تَعۡلَمُوۡنَ). It is possible that “مُسْتَقَرٌّ” here is a verbal noun (maṣdar mīmī) meaning realization and establishment, in which case it indicates the definite fulfillment of divine promises, or that it is a noun of time and place meaning the locus or time of settlement, in which case it informs of the time and place of their fulfillment.

See ayat 69 for tafseer.

In Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān it is narrated from Imam al‑Bāqir (عليه السلام) that when the first verse was revealed and the Muslims were forbidden from associating and socializing with the disbelievers and those who mocked the divine signs, a group of Muslims said that if they were to act upon this command everywhere, then they should neither go to al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām nor perform ṭawāf of the Kaʿbah, because such people were spread throughout the mosque, engaged in false discourse concerning the divine signs, and even a brief stay in any corner of al‑Masjid al‑Ḥarām would inevitably cause their words to reach the ears of the believers. At this point, the second verse was revealed, commanding the Muslims that in such circumstances they should advise those people and, insofar as possible, strive for their guidance and proper instruction. The mention of a specific occasion of revelation for this verse, as already noted earlier, does not contradict the fact that the entire sūrah was revealed at one time, because it is possible that various events occurred in the lives of the Muslims, after which a sūrah was revealed as a whole, with individual verses addressing particular aspects of those events.

Since most of the discussions in this sūrah concern the conditions of the polytheists and idol‑worshippers, these two verses allude to another issue related to them. First, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is instructed that when you see obstinate and irrational opponents mocking the signs of God, turn away from them until they abandon this behavior and begin a different conversation (وَ اِذَا رَاَیۡتَ الَّذِیۡنَ یَخُوۡضُوۡنَ فِیۡۤ اٰیٰتِنَا فَاَعۡرِضۡ عَنۡہُمۡ حَتّٰی یَخُوۡضُوۡا فِیۡ حَدِیۡثٍ غَیۡرِہٖ). Although the address here is directed to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, it is clear that this command is not exclusive to him but applies to all believers. The rationale for this instruction is evident: if Muslims were to participate in such gatherings, those people would persist in their false and offensive speech in order to provoke and distress them; however, when believers pass by them with indifference, they will naturally fall silent and turn to other topics, since their primary aim was merely to hurt the Prophet and the Muslims. It is then further stated that this matter is of such importance that if Satan causes you to forget and you inadvertently sit with such people, then as soon as you recall the matter you should immediately withdraw from that gathering and not remain seated with the wrongdoing people (وَ اِمَّا یُنۡسِیَنَّکَ الشَّیۡطٰنُ فَلَا تَقۡعُدۡ بَعۡدَ الذِّکۡرٰی مَعَ الۡقَوۡمِ الظّٰلِمِیۡنَ). It hardly needs to be emphasized that the phrase “فَلَا تَقْعُدْ” (do not sit with them) does not mean that only sitting alongside such individuals is prohibited; rather, the intent is participation in their company in any form, whether sitting, standing, or moving along with them.

The first question is whether it is possible for Satan to gain influence over the Prophet and cause forgetfulness; in other words, whether despite the station of infallibility and immunity from error, it is possible even in matters of subject‑matter that the Prophet could be afflicted by mistake or forgetfulness. In response, it may be said that although the address in the verse is directed toward the Prophet, in reality his followers are intended: that if they fall into forgetfulness and, inadvertently, take part in the sinful gatherings of disbelievers, then whenever they remember, they must immediately rise and leave. This mode of address is common in everyday speech and in the literary usage of various languages, where one person is addressed while the intent is for others to hear, as in the well‑known Arabic proverb: ایاک اعنی واسمعی یا جارة—“it is you whom I address, but O neighbour, you should listen.” Some exegetes, such as Ṭabarsī in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān and Abū al‑Futūḥ in his well‑known commentary, have offered another response, the substance of which is that error and forgetfulness in the conveyance of divine commands and in the station of prophethood are impermissible for the prophets; however, in external subject‑matters, if they do not lead to misguidance of the people, there is no objection. Yet this response is not compatible with the principle widely held among our theologians that the prophets and Imams, peace be upon them, are protected from error not only in the conveyance of commands but also in general matters. The second question is that some Sunni scholars have taken this verse as evidence that taqiyyah is not permissible for religious leaders, arguing that the verse explicitly states that one must not practice taqiyyah before one’s opponents, and that even if one happens to be present in their gathering, one must leave it. The response to this objection is entirely clear: the Shiʿi position has never been that taqiyyah is obligatory in all circumstances; rather, in some situations it is categorically forbidden, and its obligation is limited to cases in which refraining from the open expression of truth entails benefits that outweigh those of open declaration, or where taqiyyah serves to avert serious harm or comprehensive danger. In the following verse, by way of exception, the Qur’an states that if people of piety attend such gatherings with the purpose of nahy ʿan al‑munkar, in the hope that through exhortation and admonition those people may adopt piety and turn back from sin, then there is no objection; and their sins will not be recorded in the account of such righteous individuals, since in all circumstances their intent was service and the fulfillment of duty (وَ مَا عَلَی الَّذِیۡنَ یَتَّقُوۡنَ مِنۡ حِسَابِہِمۡ مِّنۡ شَیۡءٍ وَّ لٰکِنۡ ذِکۡرٰی لَعَلَّہُمۡ یَتَّقُوۡنَ). Another interpretation of this verse has also been advanced, but what has been stated here accords with the apparent meaning of the verse and its occasion of revelation. It should also be noted that only those individuals who, according to the wording of the verse, possess the station of taqwā can benefit from this exception: those who are not themselves influenced by such gatherings, but instead are capable of influencing others. A similar theme appears in Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ, verse 140, where further points have been discussed.

This verse in fact completes the discussion of the preceding verse and instructs the Noble Messenger that he should turn away from those people who have made their religion and way of life a matter of mockery and play, who have reduced religion to frivolous amusement, and whom worldly life and its means have deceived, and that he should leave them to their own condition (وَ ذَرِ الَّذِیۡنَ اتَّخَذُوۡا دِیۡنَہُمۡ لَعِبًا وَّ لَہۡوًا وَّ غَرَّتۡہُمُ الۡحَیٰوۃُ الدُّنۡیَا). It is clear that the command to leave such people does not contradict the matter of jihād in any way, because jihād has its own specific conditions, and heedless association with disbelievers has different conditions; each of these must be applied in its proper place. Sometimes opposition must be subdued precisely through deliberate indifference, while at other times confrontation through struggle, jihād, and armed resistance becomes necessary. Therefore, the notion held by some that the verses of jihād have abrogated this verse is entirely unfounded. In reality, the above verse points to the fact that their religion, in terms of its meanings, is empty and futile, and that they have given the name of religion to certain acts that resemble children’s games and the idle chatter of the feeble‑minded. Such people are not worthy of debate or discussion, and thus the command is given to turn away from them and not to concern oneself with them or with their hollow religion. From what has been stated, it becomes clear that dīnahum refers to their own polytheistic and idolatrous religion; the suggestion that it might refer to the true religion, with its attribution to them justified on the basis of innate religion, appears extremely remote. Another interpretation of the verse is also possible, namely that the Qur’an refers to a group among the disbelievers who themselves regarded their own religion as nothing more than play and diversion, and never reflected upon it as a matter of true reality; that is, even in their disbelief they lacked commitment, and were not faithful even to the baseless principles of their own religion. In any case, the verse is not restricted only to disbelievers; rather, it encompasses all those who treat divine sanctities and God’s commands as a game for the attainment of personal and material interests, who turn religion into an instrument of worldly benefit and make God’s commandments a plaything for personal objections. Thereafter, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny is commanded to warn them of the consequence of these actions, because a day is coming when every person will be delivered over to what he has earned, and there will be no escape from its grip (وَ ذَکِّرۡ بِہٖۤ اَنۡ تُبۡسَلَ نَفۡسٌۢ بِمَا کَسَبَتۡ). On that day, apart from God, there will be neither any protector nor any intercessor (لَیۡسَ لَہَا مِنۡ دُوۡنِ اللّٰہِ وَلِیٌّ وَّ لَا شَفِیۡعٌ). Their situation on that day will be so severe and painful, and they will be so firmly chained by the consequences of their deeds, that even if they were to offer any ransom whatsoever in order to deliver themselves from punishment, it would not be accepted from them (وَ اِنۡ تَعۡدِلۡ کُلَّ عَدۡلٍ لَّا یُؤۡخَذۡ مِنۡہَا). This is because they have become imprisoned by their own deeds; on that day there is neither any possibility of compensation nor any remaining opportunity for repentance, and thus no path of deliverance will exist for them (اُولٰٓئِکَ الَّذِیۡنَ اُبۡسِلُوۡا بِمَا کَسَبُوۡا). Thereafter, one aspect of their painful punishment is pointed out, namely that because they rejected truth and reality, for them there will be boiling hot water to drink along with a painful chastisement (لَہُمۡ شَرَابٌ مِّنۡ حَمِیۡمٍ وَّ عَذَابٌ اَلِیۡمٌۢ بِمَا کَانُوۡا یَکۡفُرُوۡنَ): they will burn inwardly from the scalding water and outwardly in the fire. One point that deserves special attention is that the statement (اُولٰٓئِکَ الَّذِیۡنَ اُبۡسِلُوۡا بِمَا کَسَبُوۡا), “they are held captive by what they have earned,” in reality serves as the reason and explanation for the rejection of ransom and the absence of any protector or intercessor; that is, their punishment does not arise from some external factor that could be repelled, but rather its source lies within their own selves, attributes, and deeds. They are prisoners of their own evil actions, and therefore their release is impossible, because separation from one’s actions and their effects is equivalent to separation from oneself. It should also be noted that this severity, the closing of the path of return, and the absence of intercession are specific to those who persist in disbelief and remain steadfast upon it, as indicated by the phrase (بِمَا کَانُوۡا یَکۡفُرُوۡنَ), since the imperfect verb denotes continuity and persistence.

See ayat 72 for tafseer.

This verse responds to the insistence with which the polytheists sought to draw the Muslims toward disbelief and idolatry. It commands the Prophet to answer them with a decisive argument and to ask them, by way of a rhetorical question of denial: Do you say that we should call upon, besides God, something that can neither benefit us so that we might seek it for that benefit, nor harm us so that we might fear its harm (قُلۡ اَنَدۡعُوۡا مِنۡ دُوۡنِ اللّٰہِ مَا لَا یَنۡفَعُنَا وَ لَا یَضُرُّنَا). This statement in fact points to the reality that human actions generally arise from one of these two sources: either seeking benefit (whether material or spiritual), or warding off harm (whether material or spiritual). How could a rational person perform an action in which neither of these two motives exists? Then another argument is advanced against the polytheists: if we were to return to idolatry and tread the path of polytheism after God has guided us, we would in that case be turning backward, which is contrary to the law of development that governs the entire realm of life (وَ نُرَدُّ عَلٰۤی اَعۡقَابِنَا بَعۡدَ اِذۡ ہَدٰىنَا اللّٰہُ). The term اَعۡقَاب is the plural of عَقِب (heel), and turning back upon the heels signifies retreating backward and deviating from a goal. This is the very phenomenon that is today described as regression. Thereafter, by way of an example, the meaning is made still clearer: returning from monotheism to polytheism is like the case of a person whom satanic whisperings (or desert demons, as imagined by the Arabs of the Age of Ignorance, who were thought to lie in ambush on pathways and mislead travelers) cause to lose his way, leaving him wandering and bewildered in the open land (کَالَّذِی اسۡتَہۡوَتۡہُ الشَّیٰطِیۡنُ فِی الۡاَرۡضِ حَیۡرَانَ), while he has companions who call him toward guidance and the straight path, inviting him: come to us; yet he is so bewildered and confused that it is as though he does not hear them, or lacks the will to respond (لَہٗۤ اَصۡحٰبٌ یَّدۡعُوۡنَہٗۤ اِلَی الۡہُدَی ائۡتِنَا). The verb اسۡتَہۡوَتۡہُ derives from ہَوٰی and denotes drawing someone toward following base desire; حَیۡرَان literally signifies movement back and forth and is generally used as a metaphor for confusion and wandering. Thus the verse likens those who turn from faith back to polytheism to confused followers of desire whose fundamental program is derived from satanic inspiration. At the end of the verse, the Prophet is commanded to declare explicitly: Indeed, the guidance of God alone is true guidance, and we have been commanded to submit to the Lord of all the worlds (قُلۡ اِنَّ ہُدَی اللّٰہِ ہُوَ الۡہُدٰی ؕ وَ اُمِرۡنَا لِنُسۡلِمَ لِرَبِّ الۡعٰلَمِیۡنَ). This statement itself constitutes another proof negating the religion of the polytheists, because submission is owed only to a being who is the possessor, creator, and nurturer of the entire realm of existence, not to idols that have no role whatsoever in the creation or ordering of the world. A question and its answer arise here: was the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, before his mission, a follower of the polytheists’ religion, such that it is said, “shall we be turned back on our heels”? For we know that he never prostrated before any idol, and no historical source records such an act, nor does the principle of infallibility allow for it. The expression is in fact spoken from the perspective of a group among the Muslims, not from the personal standpoint of the Prophet, which is why it appears in the plural form. In the following verse, the obligations that accompany the divine call are explained: along with monotheism, it has been commanded that prayer be established and that piety be observed (وَ اَنۡ اَقِیۡمُوا الصَّلٰوۃَ وَ اتَّقُوۡہُ). Finally, attention is drawn to resurrection and the Hereafter, noting that gathering and return are unto God, thus concluding the discussion (وَ ہُوَ الَّذِیۡۤ اِلَیۡہِ تُحۡشَرُوۡنَ). In truth, within these few concise statements, the entire program to which the Prophet called—drawing on reason and divine command—is presented as a four‑principle scheme, beginning with monotheism and ending with resurrection, with its intermediate stages consisting of strengthening the bond with God and abstaining from all sin.

This verse is in fact both an argument reinforcing the content of the preceding verse and a proof of the necessity of submitting before the Lord of the worlds and following His guidance. Accordingly, it first states: He is the One who created the heavens and the earth in truth (وَ هُوَ الَّذِیۡ خَلَقَ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضَ بِالۡحَقِّ). Only the Being who is the origin of the entire realm of existence is worthy and qualified to be followed as a guide and to whom submission is due, because He has created all things for a sound purpose. In the above phrase, “الْحَقِّ” refers to purposefulness, meaning, objective, benefit, and wisdom; that is, He created everything for a meaningful end and purpose. In reality, this statement is similar to what is expressed in Surah Ṣād, verse 27: وَمَا خَلَقْنَا السَّمَاءَ وَالْأَرْضَ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا بَاطِلًا, “We did not create the heavens and the earth and what lies between them in vain.” It is then stated that not only is the origin of existence from Him, but resurrection and the Hereafter will also occur by His command; on the day when He says “Be,” it shall immediately come into being (وَ يَوْمَ يَقُولُ كُنْ فَيَكُونُ). Regarding the term “يَوْمَ,” which grammatically functions as an adverb of time, exegetes have differed as to what it is related to: some connect it to the verb “خَلَقَ,” others to an omitted verb such as “اذكروا,” but it is not unlikely that it is related to “يَكُونُ,” yielding the sense: “the Resurrection will occur on the day when God says ‘Be.’” Some have suggested that this phrase refers to the initial act of creation and the origination of the universe, since all things came into existence by His command; however, considering that “يَقُولُ” is in the imperfect tense, that the preceding clause already refers to the original creation, and that the subsequent clauses concern the Hereafter, it is more appropriate to understand this phrase as referring specifically to resurrection and God’s command concerning it. As has been explained in the commentary on Surah al‑Baqarah, verse 117, the expression “كُنْ فَيَكُونُ” does not mean that God verbally utters the word “Be,” but rather that when He wills the creation of something, His will itself is realized without the need for any intermediary cause: if He wills that a thing come into existence instantaneously, it does so at once; and if He wills that it come into existence gradually, its gradual process begins. The Qur’an then adds: His word is the truth (قَوْلُهُ الْحَقُّ); that is, just as the beginning of creation was grounded in purpose, consequence, and wisdom, so too will resurrection and the Hereafter be. And on the day when the Trumpet is blown and the Resurrection is established, sovereignty and dominion will belong exclusively to Him (وَ لَهُ الْمُلْكُ يَوْمَ يُنْفَخُ فِي الصُّورِ). It is true that God’s sovereignty and dominion have always encompassed the entire realm of existence, from the beginning of the world until its end, and will continue so in the Hereafter, and are not limited to the Day of Resurrection alone. However, in this world, because a network of causes and means operates for the fulfillment of purposes and the execution of affairs, these causes sometimes distract attention from God, the ultimate cause of all causes; but on the Day when all such secondary causes will be rendered ineffective, His sovereignty and dominion will become more manifest and evident than ever before. This is similar to another verse which states: لِمَنِ الْمُلْكُ الْيَوْمَ ۖ لِلَّهِ الْوَاحِدِ الْقَهَّارِ — “To whom belongs sovereignty today? To God, the One, the All‑Compelling” (Surah al‑Muʾmin, verse 16). As for what is meant by the Trumpet (الصُّور) into which the angel Isrāfīl will blow, causing all beings to die, and then being blown again so that all will be revived and the Resurrection will occur, God willing this will be discussed in detail under Surah al‑Zumar, verse 68, as that discussion is more appropriate there. At the end of the verse, by pointing to three of God’s attributes, it is said that He is the Knower of the unseen and the seen (عٰلِمُ الْغَيْبِ وَالشَّهَادَةِ), and that all His acts are performed with wisdom and full awareness (وَهُوَ الْحَكِيمُ الْخَبِيرُ). In verses concerning resurrection, reference is often made to these attributes: that He is knowing, powerful, and wise, meaning that in accordance with His knowledge and awareness, He recompenses every individual appropriately.

Because this sūrah is oriented toward confronting polytheism and idolatry, and its address is directed mostly toward idol‑worshippers, various methods are employed to awaken them. Here, reference is made to one aspect of the life of the courageous idol‑breaker Abraham, and his rational argument against idols is presented in a few verses. It is noteworthy that the Qur’an frequently invokes this very account in many discussions concerning monotheism and the struggle against idols, because Abraham (عليه السلام) was a figure of great respect among all peoples, and especially among the Arab polytheists. First it is stated that Abraham admonished his father (his uncle) and said to him: do you take these worthless and lifeless idols as gods? (وَ اِذۡ قَالَ اِبۡرٰہِیۡمُ لِاَبِیۡہِ اٰزَرَ اَتَتَّخِذُ اَصۡنَامًا اٰلِہَۃً). There is no doubt that I see you, your followers, and your like‑minded group in manifest error—what error could be greater than that a human being should regard his own creation as his deity, consider lifeless and senseless objects to be his refuge, and seek the solution of his problems from them? (اِنِّیۡۤ اَرٰىکَ وَ قَوۡمَکَ فِیۡ ضَلٰلٍ مُّبِیۡنٍ).

The term ab in the Arabic language is generally used for one’s father, and, as we shall see, it is also sometimes applied to an uncle, grandfather, guardian, teacher, or others who bear some role in a person’s upbringing and care. However, there is no doubt that when this word is used without any contextual indicator, the meaning that immediately comes to mind is that of the biological father. This raises the question: does the above verse truly state that the idolater Āzar was the father of Abraham (عليه السلام)? If so, can an idolater and idol‑maker be the father of a prophet from among the ulū al‑ʿazm? In that case, would the inheritance of psychological traits and characteristics not produce undesirable effects in the son? A group of Sunni exegetes have answered the first question affirmatively and have considered Āzar to be the biological father of Abraham (عليه السلام), whereas all Shiʿi exegetes and scholars maintain that Āzar was not the father of Abraham (عليه السلام). Some regard him as his grandfather, and many consider him to be his uncle. The evidences supporting the Shiʿi position are as follows. First, no historical source or record mentions the name of Abraham’s father as Āzar; rather, all have recorded his name as Tārikh. The same name appears in the books of the Old and New Testaments. Notably, those who insist that Āzar was Abraham’s father have offered interpretations that are not acceptable in any convincing way, among them the claim that Abraham’s father’s name was Tārikh while Āzar was his title—yet this title is likewise not mentioned in historical sources—or the claim that Āzar was the name of an idol worshipped by Abraham’s father, an interpretation that does not accord at all with the apparent meaning of the verse, which presents Āzar as Abraham’s father, unless one assumes an implied word or phrase contrary to the apparent wording. Second, the Qur’an states that Muslims have no right to seek forgiveness for polytheists, even if they are close relatives, and then, so that Abraham’s seeking forgiveness for Āzar might not be used as evidence to the contrary, it states: وَمَا كَانَ اسْتِغْفَارُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ لِأَبِيهِ إِلاَّ عَن مَّوْعِدَةٍ وَعَدَهَا إِيَّاهُ فَلَمَّا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ أَنَّهُ عَدُوٌّ لِلَّهِ تَبَرَّأَ مِنْهُ (Sūrah al‑Tawbah, 114). Abraham’s seeking forgiveness for his ab was only on the basis of a promise he had made to him, as indicated by his statement: سَأَسْتَغْفِرُ لَكَ رَبِّي (Sūrah Maryam, 47)—that is, “I shall soon seek forgiveness for you.” This was done in the hope that such a promise might lead him to abandon idolatry; but when it became clear that he was firmly entrenched and obstinate in idolatry, Abraham ceased seeking forgiveness for him. From this verse it becomes evident that after losing hope in Āzar, Abraham (عليه السلام) never again sought forgiveness for him, and such conduct was appropriate. All the indicators suggest that this episode belongs to Abraham’s youth, when he resided in Babylon and was actively confronting idolaters. However, other Qur’anic verses indicate that Abraham (عليه السلام), after building the Kaʿbah in his later years, sought forgiveness for his father (though, as will be discussed later, those verses use the word wālidayya, which explicitly denotes biological parents, rather than ab). The Qur’an states: اَلْحَمْدُ لِلّٰهِ الَّذِي وَهَبَ لِي عَلَى الْكِبَرِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ إِنَّ رَبِّي لَسَمِيعُ الدُّعَاءِ … رَبَّنَا اغْفِرْ لِي وَلِوَالِدَيَّ وَلِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ يَوْمَ يَقُومُ الْحِسَابُ—“Praise belongs to God who granted me, in old age, Ishmael and Isaac; indeed my Lord hears supplication… Our Lord, forgive me, my parents, and the believers on the Day the reckoning is established.” When this verse is read alongside the verse of Sūrah al‑Tawbah, which forbids seeking forgiveness for polytheists and restricts even Abraham’s case to a limited period and a specific noble purpose, it becomes clear that in the verse under discussion ab does not mean biological father, but rather uncle, grandfather, or a similar relation. In other words, wālid explicitly denotes biological father, whereas ab does not necessarily do so. The Qur’an itself uses the word ab to refer to an uncle, as in Sūrah al‑Baqarah, 133: قَالُوا نَعْبُدُ إِلٰهَكَ وَإِلٰهَ آبَائِكَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ إِلٰهًا—“They said: We shall worship your God and the God of your fathers, Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac.” It is well known that Ishmael was Jacob’s uncle, not his father. Third, various Islamic traditions also support this conclusion. In a well‑known hadith narrated from the Messenger of God صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, he said: لَمْ يَزَلِ اللَّهُ يَنْقُلُنِي مِنْ أَصْلَابِ الطَّاهِرِينَ إِلَى أَرْحَامِ الْمُطَهَّرَاتِ حَتَّى أَخْرَجَنِي فِي عَالَمِكُمْ هَذَا لَمْ يُدَنِّسْنِي بِدَنَسِ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ—“God continuously transferred me from the loins of the pure to the wombs of the purified until He brought me forth into this world; He never tainted me with the impurities of the Age of Ignorance.” This hadith has been transmitted by many Shiʿi and Sunni exegetes alike. There is no doubt that the most manifest impurity of the Age of Ignorance is polytheism and idolatry, and those who limit this impurity to sexual immorality have no evidence for their claim, especially when the Qur’an states: إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ—“Indeed, the polytheists are impure” (Sūrah al‑Tawbah, 28). Al‑Ṭabarī, among the Sunni scholars, narrates in his Jāmiʿ al‑Bayān from the famous exegete Mujāhid that he explicitly stated that Āzar was not Abraham’s father. Another Sunni exegete, al‑Ālūsī, states in Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī that those who claim the view that Āzar was not Abraham’s father is exclusive to the Shiʿa are merely displaying their lack of information, because many Sunni scholars also hold that Āzar was Abraham’s uncle. Al‑Suyūṭī, the well‑known Sunni scholar, in his work Masālik al‑Ḥunafāʾ, citing Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī’s Asrār al‑Tanzīl, reports that the parents and ancestors of the Prophet of Islam were never polytheists, arguing on the basis of the aforementioned hadith. Al‑Suyūṭī further adds that this fact can be proven through two kinds of Islamic traditions: first, reports stating that each of the Prophet’s ancestors back to Adam was the best individual of his time; second, reports asserting that in every age there have always been monotheists and God‑worshippers. By combining these two sets of traditions, it becomes evident that the Prophet’s ancestors—including the father of Abraham—were certainly monotheists. In light of what has been presented, it becomes clear that the above‑mentioned interpretation of the verse is grounded in explicit Qur’anic evidence and well‑established Islamic traditions, and does not constitute interpretation by personal opinion, contrary to what some biased Sunni writers, such as the author of al‑Manār, have claimed.

See ayat 79 for tafseer.

See ayat 79 for tafseer.

See ayat 79 for tafseer.

See ayat 79 for tafseer.

After this rebuke and reproach that Abraham addressed to the idols, and after the call he issued to Āzar to abandon idol‑worship, these verses point to Abraham’s logical confrontations with the various groups of idol‑worshippers and explain, through the method of clear rational argumentation, how he established the principle of monotheism. It first states: just as We made Abraham aware of the evils of idol‑worship, so too We showed him the absolute dominion and sovereignty of the Lord over the heavens and the earth (وَ کَذٰلِکَ نُرِیۡۤ اِبۡرٰہِیۡمَ مَلَکُوۡتَ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ). Accordingly, the verse contains an implicit ellipsis made clear by the preceding verses, and its meaning is in effect: “Just as We showed Abraham the repugnance of what his people practiced in the worship of idols, so We show Abraham the dominion of the heavens and the earth.” The term “ملکوت” derives from “ملک” (on the pattern of “حکم”), meaning rule and ownership, and the addition of wāw and tāʾ serves for emphasis and intensification; thus it denotes God’s absolute sovereignty over the entire realm of existence. This verse is, in fact, a concise indication of what is elaborated in the subsequent verses regarding Abraham’s observation of the stars, the moon, and the sun, and his inference from their setting that they are created and therefore not divine. The Qur’an first presents a summary of these events and then proceeds to their detailed exposition, thereby clarifying the purpose of showing Abraham the dominion of the heavens and the earth. At the end of the verse, the Qur’an states that the goal was for Abraham to be among those who possess certainty (وَ لِیَکُوۡنَ مِنَ الۡمُوۡقِنِیۡنَ). There is no doubt that Abraham already possessed rational and innate certainty regarding the oneness of God, but through contemplation of the mysteries of creation this certainty attained its highest perfection, just as he believed in resurrection, yet through witnessing the revival of slaughtered birds his faith rose to the level of ʿayn al‑yaqīn. The following verses present this subject in detail by illustrating Abraham’s reasoning from the rising and setting of the stars and the sun to their unsuitability for divinity. It first states: when the darkness of night covered everything, a star appeared before his eyes. Abraham exclaimed: is this my Lord? But when it set, he declared with complete certainty that he does not love those that set and does not consider them worthy of divinity or lordship (فَلَمَّا جَنَّ عَلَیۡہِ الَّیۡلُ رَاٰ کَوۡکَبًا ۚ قَالَ ہٰذَا رَبِّیۡ ۚ فَلَمَّاۤ اَفَلَ قَالَ لَاۤ اُحِبُّ الۡاٰفِلِیۡنَ). He fixed his gaze once again upon the expanse of the sky. This time the silvery disk of the moon appeared upon the sky with its broad and pleasing radiance. Upon seeing the moon, Abraham said: is this my Lord? But when it too suffered the same fate as the star and hid its face behind the horizon, the seeker of truth declared: if my Lord does not guide me, I will surely be among the misguided people (فَلَمَّا رَأَى الْقَمَرَ بَازِغًا قَالَ هَـذَا رَبِّي فَلَمَّا أَفَلَ قَالَ لَئِن لَّمْ يَهْدِنِي رَبِّي لَأَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْقَوْمِ الضَّالِّينَ). By that time the night was drawing to a close and withdrawing its dark veils from the horizon; the sun rose in the east and spread its delicate and beautiful light over plains, mountains, and deserts like a piece of brocade. When Abraham’s discerning gaze fell upon its dazzling radiance, he exclaimed: is this my Lord, this which is greater and more resplendent? But when the sun set and its disk disappeared into the mouth of the night, Abraham pronounced his final word and said: O my people, I am free and disassociated from all these fabricated deities that you have set up as partners (فَلَمَّا رَأَى الشَّمْسَ بَازِغَةً قَالَ هَـذَا رَبِّي هَـذَآ أَكْبَرُ فَلَمَّا أَفَلَتْ قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ إِنِّي بَرِيءٌ مِّمَّا تُشْرِكُونَ). Now that I have understood that beyond these changeable, limited creations—ensnared within the laws of nature—there is a God who exercises sovereign power over this entire cosmic order, I turn my face toward the One who originated the heavens and the earth, inclining exclusively toward Him without associating even the slightest trace of polytheism; I am a pure monotheist and not among the polytheists (اِنِّیۡ وَجَّہۡتُ وَجۡہِیَ لِلَّذِیۡ فَطَرَ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضَ حَنِیۡفًا وَّ مَاۤ اَنَا مِنَ الۡمُشۡرِکِیۡنَ). Exegetes have discussed at length the interpretation of this verse and the subsequent verses, particularly how Abraham—such a staunch monotheist—could point to a star and say, “this is my Lord.” Among the many interpretations, two are especially noteworthy, each adopted by prominent exegetes and supported by narrations. The first is that Abraham himself sought to reflect upon and contemplate God, and to search for the object of worship whom he already recognized in the depths of his soul through pure nature and rational, implicit proof. He had no doubt whatsoever about God’s existence, as demonstrated by his entire conduct, but he wished to reach the stage of ḥaqq al‑yaqīn through clearer and more explicit rational proofs. This incident is said to have occurred prior to his prophetic mission, possibly at the onset of or even before maturity. Some reports suggest that this was the first time Abraham looked upon the stars at night, because his mother had raised him in a cave from infancy out of fear of the tyrant Nimrod; however, it is highly implausible that a human being could live for years in a cave without ever stepping outside, even at night. The phrase “رَأَى كَوْكَبًا” does not indicate that he had never seen stars before, but rather that this was the first time he observed them with the eye of a monotheistic investigator, reflecting on their rising and setting as evidence against their divinity. Thus, Abraham’s statement “هَٰذَا رَبِّي” was not a definitive assertion of belief, but a hypothetical proposal put forward for reflection and examination. This resembles the method by which one analyzes an event by considering all possible hypotheses in order to identify the truth through examination of their implications; such an approach does not negate faith, but rather represents a path toward deeper understanding and higher levels of certainty. In the matter of resurrection as well, Abraham sought further investigation in order to reach the stage of witnessing and the tranquility it produces. In Tafsīr al‑ʿAyyāshī, it is reported through Muḥammad ibn Muslim from Imam al‑Bāqir or Imam al‑Ṣādiq that: “Abraham spoke in this manner as a seeker of his Lord and did not fall into disbelief; and whoever among people speaks thus for the sake of reflection and investigation occupies the same station.” The second interpretation is that Abraham made these statements while debating with star‑worshippers and sun‑worshippers. It is possible that after his intense struggles against the idol‑worshippers of Babylon and his departure from that land toward Syria, he encountered these groups and engaged them in discussion. Having already experienced the obstinacy of foolish nations in Babylon, Abraham adopted this method to draw the attention of those who worshipped the sun, moon, and stars: he initially spoke in their idiom, saying to the star‑worshippers, according to your belief this star—Venus—is my Lord; very well, let us consider it until I demonstrate before you the outcome of this belief. Shortly thereafter, when the brilliant star disappeared behind the dark veil of the horizon, Abraham gained a powerful argument and declared that he could never accept a deity that sets. Thus, the expression “هَٰذَا رَبِّي” means “according to your belief, this is my Lord,” or it may be understood as a rhetorical question: “Is this my Lord?” In support of this interpretation as well, there are narrations reported in Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn and other works, transmitted from ʿUyūn Akhbār al‑Riḍā.

The term ab in the Arabic language is generally used to denote the father, and, as will be seen, it is at times also applied to an uncle, grandfather, guardian, or teacher, and likewise to those who bear some measure of responsibility and effort in a person’s upbringing. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that when the term is used without any contextual indicator, the primary meaning that comes to mind is that of the biological father. This raises the question whether the preceding verse truly states that the idolater Āzar was the father of Abraham (عليه السلام). If so, can an idolater and idol‑maker be the father of a prophet from among the ulū al‑ʿazm, and would such a situation not produce undesirable hereditary effects in the son’s disposition and character? A group of Sunni exegetes has answered the first question affirmatively and considered Āzar to be the biological father of Abraham (عليه السلام), whereas all Shiʿi exegetes and scholars hold that Āzar was not Abraham’s father; some consider him his grandfather, and many regard him as his uncle. The indications supporting the Shiʿi position are as follows. First, no historical source or book records the name of Abraham’s father as Āzar; rather, all sources record his name as Tārikh, and this same name appears in the books of the Old and New Testaments. It is noteworthy that those who insist that Āzar was Abraham’s father have proposed explanations that are in no way convincing, among them the claim that Abraham’s father’s name was Tārikh and that Āzar was his epithet, even though this epithet is likewise never mentioned in historical sources, or the claim that Āzar was the name of an idol worshipped by Abraham’s father, an interpretation that does not accord at all with the apparent wording of the verse, which presents Āzar as Abraham’s father, unless one assumes an implied word or clause contrary to the apparent meaning. Second, the Qurʾān states that Muslims have no right to seek forgiveness for polytheists, even if they are close relatives. Then, lest Abraham’s seeking forgiveness for Āzar be taken as evidence to the contrary, it states: وَمَا كَانَ اسْتِغْفَارُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ لِأَبِيهِ إِلاَّ عَن مَّوْعِدَةٍ وَعَدَهَا إِيَّاهُ فَلَمَّا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ أَنَّهُ عَدُوٌّ لِلّهِ تَبَرَّأَ مِنْهُ (سورة التوبة: 114). Abraham’s seeking forgiveness for Āzar was solely on the basis of a promise he had made to him, when he said: سَأَسْتَغْفِرُ لَكَ رَبِّي (مريم: 47), that is, “I shall soon seek forgiveness for you from my Lord,” in the hope that he might thereby desist from idolatry. But when he was found to be firmly entrenched and obstinate upon that path, Abraham abandoned seeking forgiveness for him. This verse makes clear that after Abraham lost hope in Āzar, he never again sought forgiveness for him, and that such restraint was appropriate. All indications suggest that this episode belongs to Abraham’s youth, when he resided in Babylon and was confronting idol‑worshippers. However, other Qurʾānic verses indicate that Abraham (عليه السلام), in the latter part of his life after building the Kaʿbah, sought forgiveness for his father—yet in those verses, as will be explained, the term ab is not used, but rather wālid, which denotes the biological father explicitly, as in the verse: اَلْحَمْدُ لِلّٰهِ الَّذِي وَهَبَ لِي عَلَى الْكِبَرِ إِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ ... رَبَّنَا اغْفِرْ لِي وَلِوَالِدَيَّ وَلِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ يَوْمَ يَقُومُ الْحِسَابُ. When this verse is read alongside the verse of Sūrat al‑Tawbah that forbids seeking forgiveness for polytheists and restricts even Abraham’s case to a limited period and a specific noble aim, it becomes clear that in the verse under discussion ab does not mean biological father, but rather uncle, grandfather, or a similar relation. In other words, wālid signifies father explicitly, whereas ab does not necessarily do so. The Qurʾān itself employs ab to refer to an uncle, as in Sūrat al‑Baqarah (2:133): قَالُوا نَعْبُدُ إِلَـهَكَ وَإِلَـهَ آبَائِكَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ إِلَـهًا; it is well known that Ishmael was Jacob’s uncle, not his father. Third, various Islamic traditions also support this conclusion. In a well‑known report transmitted from the Messenger of God صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, he said: لَمْ يَزَلِ اللَّهُ يَنْقُلُنِي مِنْ أَصْلَابِ الطَّاهِرِينَ إِلَى أَرْحَامِ الْمُطَهَّرَاتِ حَتَّى أَخْرَجَنِي فِي عَالَمِكُمْ هَذَا لَمْ يُدَنِّسْنِي بِدَنَسِ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ—“God continuously transferred me from the loins of the pure to the wombs of the purified until He brought me forth into this world, and He never contaminated me with the impurities of the Age of Ignorance.” This narration has been transmitted by many Shiʿi and Sunni exegetes. There is no doubt that the most manifest impurity of the Age of Ignorance is polytheism and idolatry, and those who restrict this impurity to sexual immorality have no proof for such a claim, especially since the Qurʾān states: إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ (سورة التوبة: 28). Al‑Ṭabarī, among Sunni scholars, transmits in his Jāmiʿ al‑Bayān from the renowned exegete Mujāhid that he explicitly stated that Āzar was not Abraham’s father. Another Sunni exegete, al‑Ālūsī, states in Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī that those who claim the belief that Āzar was not Abraham’s father is exclusive to the Shiʿa merely reveal their lack of information, since many Sunni scholars also hold that Āzar was Abraham’s uncle. Al‑Suyūṭī, the well‑known Sunni scholar, in his work Masālik al‑Ḥunafāʾ, citing Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī’s Asrār al‑Tanzīl, reports that the parents and ancestors of the Prophet of Islam were never polytheists, arguing on the basis of the aforementioned hadith. He then adds that this reality can be established through two types of reports: those that state that each of the Prophet’s ancestors, up to Adam, was the best individual of his time, and those that affirm that monotheists and God‑worshippers have always existed in every age. By combining these reports, it becomes evident that the Prophet’s ancestors, among whom were Abraham’s forebears, were certainly monotheists. In light of the foregoing, it becomes clear that the interpretation presented with regard to this verse is based on explicit Qurʾānic evidence and well‑established Islamic traditions, and does not constitute interpretation by personal opinion, as alleged by some biased Sunni writers such as the author of al‑Manār.

In the verse under discussion, the word “کَذٰلِکَ” (“in the same manner”) draws attention to itself. Its meaning is that just as We made the harms and deficiencies of idolatry clear to Abraham’s reason and intellect, so too did We point out to him God’s sovereignty and dominion over the heavens and the earth. Some exegetes have stated that its meaning is that just as We showed you the signs of Our power and sovereignty in the heavens, in the same way We showed them to Abraham, so that through them he might become more fully acquainted with God.

The word “جَنَّ” (from the root j‑n‑n, on the pattern of “فَنّ”) means “to conceal” or “to cover,” and in the verse under discussion the expression signifies that “when the night concealed visible things from Abraham.” The term majnoon (mad) is used because it is as though a veil has fallen over a person’s intellect, and beings that are unseen are called jinn for the same reason. Janīn is so called because the child is concealed in the mother’s womb, and jannah is applied to Paradise or a garden because the ground is hidden beneath trees. Likewise, the heart is called jinān (on the pattern of zamān) because it is concealed within the chest, or because it preserves and conceals a person’s inner secrets. The expression “كوكبًا”—which star is meant by this?

Regarding which star is meant by “كَوْكَبًا” (“a star”), exegetes have differed. However, the majority of commentators identify it as either Venus (al‑Zuhrah) or Jupiter (al‑Mushtarī). Historical sources indicate that in ancient times stars were worshipped and regarded as part of the pantheon of ālihah (deities). In a hadith reported from Imam ʿAlī ibn Mūsā al‑Riḍā in ʿUyūn al‑Akhbār, it is explicitly stated that the star in question was Venus; the same view is also transmitted from Imam al‑Ṣādiq in Tafsīr ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm . Some exegetes have stated that the peoples of Chaldea and Babylon engaged in confrontation and debate with idol‑worshippers there, and that they regarded each star as the creator or as the patron deity of specific beings: Mars (al‑Mirrīkh) as the patron deity of war, Jupiter (al‑Mushtarī) as the patron deity of justice and knowledge, Mercury (ʿUṭārid) as the patron deity of ministers, and the sun as the sovereign over all .

"Bāzigh" is from the root "bazgh" (on the pattern of "nadhr"). It is originally used in the sense of making an incision and causing blood to flow. For this reason, the surgery of animals is called "bazgh". The application of this word to the rising of the sun or moon is, in reality, a type of beautiful simile, because the sun and moon, at the time of their rising, as it were, tear the curtain of darkness. Furthermore, on the edge of the horizon, they create a slight redness around them which resembles the color of blood.

The term “فطر”, derived from “فطور”, means to split, cleave, or break open, and as we have already noted under verse 14 of this same sūrah, the application of this word to the creation of the heavens and the earth may be due to the fact that, according to modern scientific understanding, the entire universe was initially a single entity, from which various parts gradually separated, and celestial bodies came into existence successively (for further explanation, reference may be made to the commentary on the aforementioned verse).

The term ḥanīf means “pure” or “exclusively devoted,” as has already been explained in detail under Sūrah Āl ʿImrān, verse 67, in volume two of Tafsīr‑e‑Namūneh, page 329 (Urdu translation).

See ayat 83 for tafseer.

See ayat 83 for tafseer.

See ayat 83 for tafseer.

After the discussion in the preceding verses concerning the monotheistic arguments of Abraham (عليه السلام), these verses refer to the same debate and dialogue that took place between Abraham (عليه السلام) and his idolatrous people. It is first stated that the people of Abraham disputed and argued with him (وَ حَآجَّہٗ قَوۡمُہٗ). Abraham (عليه السلام) replied to them: why do you dispute with me concerning God, when God has already guided me to the path of monotheism through clear and rational proofs (قَالَ اَتُحَآجُّوۡٓنِّیۡ فِی اللّٰہِ وَ قَدۡ ہَدٰىنِ). From this verse it becomes clear that the idolatrous community of Abraham was striving, by whatever means possible, to turn Abraham (عليه السلام) away from his belief and draw him back toward the religion of idolatry. However, Abraham (عليه السلام) stood firm against them with courage and resolve, responding to all their claims with logical arguments. Although the specific reasoning by which they opposed Abraham (عليه السلام) is not explicitly described in these verses, it can be inferred from Abraham’s response that they had threatened him with the wrath and punishment of their gods and idols and sought to frighten him by opposing them. This is evident from Abraham’s statement at the end of the verse: I do not fear what you associate with God (وَ لَاۤ اَخَافُ مَا تُشۡرِکُوۡنَ بِہٖۤ), for none of your idols possesses the power to cause harm. No person or force can harm me unless my Lord wills it (اِلَّاۤ اَنۡ یَّشَآءَ رَبِّیۡ شَیۡئًا). In reality, this clause resembles an exception of disconnection, because all power to cause benefit or harm is denied of the idols and affirmed solely for God. Although some exegetes have proposed other interpretations, the explanation presented here appears more sound. It is as though Abraham (عليه السلام) wished to anticipate a possible objection and clarify that if any misfortune were hypothetically to befall him during this dispute, it would have no connection whatsoever with the idols, but would relate only to divine will, since lifeless and senseless idols possess no authority even over themselves, let alone over others. He then adds that his Lord’s knowledge is all‑embracing and encompasses everything (وَسِعَ رَبِّیۡ کُلَّ شَیۡءٍ عِلۡمًا). This statement serves as a justification for the previous one: idols cannot cause any benefit or harm because they possess neither knowledge nor awareness, and the foremost condition for benefiting or harming is knowledge and perception. Only the God whose knowledge encompasses all things has the capacity to bring benefit or loss; therefore, there is no reason to fear the wrath of anything other than Him. Finally, to awaken their understanding, Abraham (عليه السلام) addresses them and says: will you not then take heed and reflect (اَفَلَا تَتَذَکَّرُوۡنَ). In the next verse, another line of reasoning is presented in Abraham’s discourse with the idolaters. He says to them: how is it possible that I should fear the idols you associate with God and feel dread in response to your threats, when I see no sign of intellect, awareness, or power in them? Yet you, despite believing in God and recognizing His knowledge and power, and despite the fact that He has revealed no sanction to you regarding the worship of idols, do not fear Him at all. How, then, could I fear idols (وَ کَیۡفَ اَخَافُ مَاۤ اَشۡرَکۡتُمۡ وَ لَا تَخَافُوۡنَ اَنَّکُمۡ اَشۡرَکۡتُمۡ بِاللّٰہِ مَا لَمۡ یُنَزِّلۡ بِہٖ عَلَیۡکُمۡ سُلۡطٰنًا). The term sulṭān signifies authority and dominance, and since proof and evidence constitute the means of dominance, they are sometimes referred to as sulṭān. Thus, this verse indicates that there exists no proof or authority permitting the worship of idols. In fact, this is a claim that no idolater can reasonably deny, since such authorization could only come through reason or revelation, and neither provides any support for idolatry. It is well known that idolaters did not deny the existence of a Creator of the heavens and the earth; rather, they merely associated idols with God in worship and regarded them as intercessors before Him. Now judge for yourselves: which of the two parties is more entitled to security—me or you—if you truly know (فَاَیُّ الۡفَرِیۡقَیۡنِ اَحَقُّ بِالۡاَمۡنِ ۚ اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ تَعۡلَمُوۡنَ). At this point, Abraham’s reasoning takes the form of a purely rational argument: you threaten me with the anger of idols whose efficacy is imaginary, while you yourselves do not fear the Great God whom we all acknowledge and whose commands we ought to follow, and from whom no command authorizing idol‑worship has been issued. You have abandoned what is certain and clung to what is illusory. In the following verse, the answer to the question Abraham himself posed is provided in his words. In rational argumentation, this is an effective method: the one making the argument sometimes raises the opposing question and then answers it himself, indicating that the matter is so evident that the answer should already be apparent. It is stated: those who believe and do not mix their faith with injustice, for them there is security, and they are the rightly guided (اَلَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا وَ لَمۡ یَلۡبِسُوۡۤا اِیۡمَانَہُمۡ بِظُلۡمٍ اُولٰٓئِکَ لَہُمُ الۡاَمۡنُ وَ ہُمۡ مُّہۡتَدُوۡنَ). A narration transmitted from the Commander of the Faithful, Ali (عليه السلام), also confirms that this discourse is a continuation of Abraham’s debate with the idolaters. Some exegetes have suggested that this statement represents God’s declaration rather than Abraham’s speech; however, the first interpretation not only accords with the reported narrations but also fits more coherently with the sequence and structure of the verses, whereas the possibility that the statement reflects the idolaters’ own words after being awakened by Abraham’s reasoning appears highly improbable.

It is well known among exegetes that the term “ẓulm” in this context means shirk (associating partners with God). They cite as evidence the statement in Sūrah Luqmān (verse 13), where it is said that “shirk is a great injustice.” A narration transmitted from Ibn Masʿūd reports that when this verse (under discussion) was revealed, it weighed heavily upon the people. They said: “O Messenger of God, who is there that has not committed some degree of injustice against himself?” (thus assuming that the verse encompasses everyone). The Messenger of God responded: “The meaning is not what you have supposed. Have you not heard the statement of God’s righteous servant (Luqmān) addressing his son: ‘My son, do not associate partners with God, for indeed shirk is a great injustice.’” (reported in Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān under the verse in question). However, since Qur’anic verses often carry two or more meanings, and since one meaning may be broader and more general than another, it is also possible here that “security” (amniyyah) refers to security in a comprehensive sense: security from divine punishment, security from painful social calamities, security from wars, oppression, corruption, and crime, and even inner spiritual tranquillity. Such security is attainable only when two principles govern human society: first, faith, and second, social justice. If the foundations of faith in God are shaken, the sense of accountability before the Lord is lost, and injustice replaces social justice, then security inevitably disappears from such a society. This is why, despite the extensive efforts of many thinkers to eradicate various forms of insecurity in the world, true security continues to recede from human societies day by day. The cause of this condition is precisely what the verse alludes to: weakening faith on the one hand, and the dominance of injustice on the other. In particular, the role of faith in producing inner peace and spiritual security is beyond dispute, just as the disturbance of conscience and the loss of inner tranquillity resulting from injustice are universally evident. In some narrations attributed to Imam al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), it is reported that the verse refers to those who believe, in accordance with the command of the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him and his family), in the matter of leadership and authority of the Islamic community after him, and who do not mix that belief with the authority and leadership of others; such people, it is said, possess security and safety (Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 1, p. 740). In reality, this interpretation is presented with attention to the spirit and core of the verse itself, because the verse concerns divine authority and leadership and the obligation not to mix it with other forms of authority. Since the leadership of Imam ʿAlī (peace be upon him), in light of the verse “إِنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ اللّٰهُ وَرَسُولُهُ …”, is a manifestation of the authority of God and the Messenger, whereas other forms of leadership not designated by God do not possess this quality, the verse—when viewed broadly—encompasses all such cases. Accordingly, this narration should not be understood as restricting the meaning of the verse exclusively to that interpretation, but rather as highlighting an application of its primary meaning. This is why, in another narration from Imam al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), the verse is also said to apply to the Khārijites, who abandoned the authority of the rightful leader of God and entered under the authority and leadership of Satan (Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 1, p. 538). In the following verse, pointing briefly to all the foregoing discussions concerning Abraham’s presentation of monotheism and his confrontation with polytheism, it is stated in summary: “These were Our arguments which We gave to Abraham against his people” (وَ تِلْكَ حُجَّتُنَا آتَيْنَاهَا إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَلَىٰ قَوْمِهِ). It is true that these arguments possessed a logical dimension and that Abraham (peace be upon him) reached them through rational reflection and innate inspiration; however, since both reason and innate inspiration are themselves gifts from God, He attributes these arguments to Himself as part of His blessings, which manifest in prepared and receptive hearts such as that of Abraham. It is noteworthy that “tilka” is a demonstrative pronoun used in Arabic for distant reference, yet sometimes the importance or lofty status of a subject leads to its designation with a demonstrative of distance even when it is conceptually near. An example of this appears at the beginning of Sūrat al‑Baqarah: “ذَٰلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ” (“That is the Book in which there is no doubt”). To complete the discussion, the verse continues: “We raise in degrees whom We will” (نَرْفَعُ دَرَجَاتٍ مَنْ نَشَاءُ). The distinction between darajah (degree) and darak has been discussed earlier under Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ, verse 145. To prevent misunderstanding—that God raises ranks arbitrarily or with partiality—the Qur’an immediately adds: “Indeed, your Lord is Wise, All‑Knowing” (إِنَّ رَبَّكَ حَكِيمٌ عَلِيمٌ), meaning that He grants ranks in accordance with wisdom, knowledge of merit and capacity, and the measure of justice; no one is granted elevation unless truly qualified to receive it.

See ayat 87 for tafseer.

See ayat 87 for tafseer.

See ayat 87 for tafseer.

In these verses, reference is made to one of the divine blessings that God the Exalted bestowed upon Abraham (عليه السلام), namely righteous offspring and a noble, worthy lineage, which is among the greatest of divine favors. It is first stated: We granted to Abraham Isaac and (the son of Isaac) Jacob (وَ وَهَبْنَا لَهُ إِسْحَاقَ وَ يَعْقُوبَ). If here there is no explicit mention of Abraham’s other son, Ishmael, although he is mentioned elsewhere in the course of the discussion, this may be because the birth of Isaac from a barren woman such as Sarah, and that too in old age, was an especially extraordinary event and an unexpected blessing. Then, in order to clarify that the distinction of these two was not merely due to their being descendants of a prophet, but rather that they personally established the light of guidance within their hearts under the shade of sound thought and righteous action, the Qur’an states: We guided each of them (كُلًّا هَدَيْنَا). Thereafter, so that it not be imagined that before Abraham there were no standard‑bearers of monotheism, and that this mission began only in his time, it adds: and before him We guided Noah (وَ نُوحًا هَدَيْنَا مِنْ قَبْلُ). We know that Noah was the first of the resolute prophets vested with divine law and that he formed an early link in the chain of the great prophetic messengers. In effect, by referring to Noah and those among Abraham’s forefathers, and likewise by mentioning the group of prophets who emerged from Abraham’s progeny, the Qur’an delineates Abraham’s distinguished status in terms of ancestry, origin, and outcome. The Qur’an then enumerates a number of prophets from among Abraham’s descendants, first stating: and from his progeny were David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron (وَ مِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِهِ دَاوُدَ وَ سُلَيْمَانَ وَ أَيُّوبَ وَ يُوسُفَ وَ مُوسَىٰ وَ هَارُونَ). With the statement, “Thus do We reward the doers of good” (وَ كَذَٰلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُحْسِنِينَ), it makes clear that their rank and standing were the result of their own deeds and conduct. Regarding the pronoun in “وَمِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِهِ” (from his progeny), whether it refers to Abraham or to Noah has been a matter of dispute among exegetes; however, the majority refer it to Abraham, and apparently there is no reason to doubt this, since the discussion concerns the divine blessings associated with Abraham rather than with Noah. Moreover, numerous narrations—some of which will be cited later—also support this view. Only one consideration led some exegetes to return the pronoun to Noah, namely the mention in subsequent verses of Jonah and Lot, since it is commonly held in historical accounts that Jonah was not from Abraham’s progeny and that Lot was Abraham’s nephew. Yet there is no unanimous historical agreement concerning Jonah; some consider him among Abraham’s descendants, while others count him among the prophets of the Children of Israel. Furthermore, genealogical records typically preserve lineage through the paternal line, yet there is nothing to preclude the possibility that the lineage of Jonah—and of Jesus, who is also mentioned above—reaches Abraham through the maternal line. As for Lot, although he was not Abraham’s son, he was from among his close relatives; just as in Arabic usage an uncle is sometimes designated as “father,” so too nephews may at times be included under the designation of progeny. Hence, one should not abandon the apparent meaning of the verses concerning Abraham and reassign the pronoun to Noah, who is not the primary subject here. In the following verse, the names of Zechariah, John, Jesus, and Elias are mentioned, and it is further stated that they were all among the righteous (وَ زَكَرِيَّا وَ يَحْيَىٰ وَ عِيسَىٰ وَ إِلْيَاسَ ۖ كُلٌّ مِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ), meaning that their rank and status were not merely honorary or imposed, but that they attained dignity and greatness in the divine presence through righteous action. In the next verse as well, four more prophets and divinely guided figures are named, and it is said: and Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah, and Lot—each of them We favored above the worlds (وَ إِسْمَاعِيلَ وَ الْيَسَعَ وَ يُونُسَ وَ لُوطًا ۖ وَ كُلًّا فَضَّلْنَا عَلَى الْعَالَمِينَ). Regarding Elisha (اليسع), exegetes and Arab linguists have differed as to the nature of the name and which prophet is intended: some regard it as a Hebrew name originally “Joshua,” later prefixed with the definite article and with the consonant altered, while others consider it an Arabic name derived from yasʿa (a verb denoting expansiveness). Another opinion holds that it was the name of one of the earlier prophets; in any case, he too was a prophet from the lineage of Abraham. Finally, in the closing verse, with a general reference to the righteous forefathers, descendants, and brothers of the aforementioned prophets—whose names are not individually listed—the Qur’an states: and from among their fathers, their progeny, and their brothers, We selected some, and We guided them to a straight path (وَمِنْ آبَائِهِمْ وَذُرِّيَّاتِهِمْ وَإِخْوَانِهِمْ وَاجْتَبَيْنَاهُمْ وَهَدَيْنَاهُمْ إِلَىٰ صِرَاطٍ مُّسْتَقِيمٍ).

Children of the Prophet. In the preceding verses, Jesus (عليه السلام) has been counted among the descendants (dhurriyyah) of Abraham (and, according to one possibility, of Noah), even though it is well known that he is related to Abraham only through his mother. This serves as evidence that both grandsons through sons and grandsons through daughters are regarded as one’s progeny and descendants. For this reason, the Imams from among the Ahl al‑Bayt—who all trace their lineage to the Noble Messenger through his daughter—are called “abnāʾ Rasūl Allāh” (sons/descendants of the Messenger of God). Although in the Age of Ignorance, when women held little status, lineage was understood solely through the paternal line, Islam invalidated this ignorant notion. Regrettably, however, some writers lacking proper affinity with the Ahl al‑Bayt have attempted to deny this reality, avoiding the designation Ibn Rasūl Allāh and thereby reviving pre‑Islamic conventions. This very issue arose in the lifetimes of the Imams themselves, and they responded with this verse as a decisive proof. Among these reports is what is transmitted in al‑Kāfī and Tafsīr al‑ʿAyyāshī from Imam al‑Ṣādiq (عليه السلام): God, exalted is He, has described the lineage of Jesus—who is related to Abraham through his mother—as dhurriyyah (descendants). The Imam then recited the verse “وَمِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِهِ دَاوُودَ وَسُلَيْمَانَ …” up to the mention of Jesus. In Tafsīr al‑ʿAyyāshī it is also reported from Abū al‑Aswad, who said: one day al‑Ḥajjāj sent someone to Yaḥyā ibn Maʿmar, who was known for his love of the family of the Messenger, and asked him whether it was true that he regarded Ḥasan and Ḥusayn as sons of the Messenger on the basis of Qurʾānic verses, even though he (al‑Ḥajjāj) had read the Qurʾān from beginning to end and found no such verse. Yaḥyā replied: have you read the verse in Sūrat al‑Anʿām that says “وَمِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِهِ دَاوُودَ وَسُلَيْمَانَ … وَيَحْيَىٰ وَعِيسَىٰ”? He answered yes. Yaḥyā said: is Jesus not counted among the descendants of Abraham in these verses, despite the fact that he does not descend from him through the father? In ʿUyūn al‑Akhbār there is a lengthy report recounting the dialogue of Imam Mūsā ibn Jaʿfar (عليه السلام) with Hārūn al‑Rashīd and Mūsā ibn al‑Mahdī. Hārūn said to the Imam: how can you claim to be the descendants of the Messenger, when the Messenger had no son and lineage follows through sons, not daughters, whereas you are the offspring of his daughter? The Imam asked him to leave the matter, but Hārūn persisted, insisting that since they claimed everything was contained in the Qurʾān, they should provide a Qurʾānic proof. The Imam recited: “أَعُوذُ بِاللّٰهِ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ الرَّجِيمِ، بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ: وَمِنْ قَبْلُ وَمِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِهِ دَاوُودَ وَسُلَيْمَانَ … وَزَكَرِيَّا وَيَحْيَىٰ وَعِيسَىٰ …” and then asked: O Hārūn, who was the father of Jesus? Hārūn replied: Jesus had no father. The Imam said: therefore, since he is included among the descendants of the prophets, that lineage is through Mary; likewise, we are included among the descendants of the Messenger of God through our mother Fāṭimah. It is noteworthy that even some Sunni exegetes have recorded this point under the same verse. Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī writes in his Tafsīr al‑Kabīr: “This verse indicates that Ḥasan and Ḥusayn are among the descendants of the Prophet, because God counted Jesus among the descendants of Abraham, even though he is connected to him only through the mother.” The author of al‑Manār, who in certain theological matters is no less rigorous than Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī, after quoting this statement, adds that there is also a sound hadith from Abū Bakr reported in Ṣaḥīḥ al‑Bukhārī, in which the Prophet, pointing to Imam Ḥasan, said: “إِنَّ ابْنِي هٰذَا سَيِّدٌ” (“This son of mine is a leader”), thus applying the term son to him, even though in the Age of Ignorance Arabs did not apply ibn to the offspring of daughters. He then adds that it was for this reason that people regarded the children of Fāṭimah as the children of the Messenger and as his progeny and household. In any case, there is no doubt that the offspring of one’s offspring—whether through sons or daughters—are equally regarded as one’s descendants, and there is no distinction between the two. This is not a special privilege confined to our Prophet, nor does opposition to it arise from anything other than prejudice or remnants of pre‑Islamic thought. Accordingly, Islamic legal rulings—such as those related to marriage and inheritance—make no distinction between the two lines. There is only one exception, namely the ruling of khums, which is specifically connected with sādāt for particular juristic reasons discussed in the chapters on khums. Why the prophets’ names are mentioned in three groups. Some exegetes have suggested that the first group—David, Solomon, Job, Moses, and Aaron—were among those prophets who combined prophethood and messengership with governance and sovereignty; hence the phrase “وَكَذٰلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُحْسِنِينَ” following their mention may allude to the abundant good they rendered in their respective periods of rule. The second group—Zechariah, John, Jesus, and Elias—were prophets distinguished by exceptional asceticism and piety in addition to prophethood and messengership, to which the phrase “كُلٌّ مِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ” may allude. The third group—Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah, and Lot—are distinguished by major migrations undertaken to establish the religion of God in practice; thus the phrase “كُلًّا فَضَّلْنَا عَلَى الْعَالَمِينَ” (on the view that it refers specifically to these four) may point to their travels among diverse peoples and regions. The importance of righteous offspring in defining a person’s character. Another lesson evident from these verses is this very point: to present the lofty station of the courageous idol‑breaker Abraham, God enumerates at length the great figures of humanity who emerged from his progeny across different eras. Of the twenty‑five prophets named in the Qurʾān, sixteen mentioned in these verses are from Abraham’s offspring or closely related to him, and one is from among his forefathers. This constitutes a profound lesson for Muslims, indicating that a person’s offspring and close relatives are considered part of one’s own character, and that educational and moral concerns related to them are therefore of great importance. Answer to an objection. Some may infer from the final verse—which states that among their fathers, offspring, and brothers some were chosen and guided to the straight path—that not all of the prophets’ ancestors were believers and that some were non‑monotheists, as some Sunni exegetes have suggested. However, when attention is paid to the phrase “اجْتَبَيْنَاهُمْ وَهَدَيْنَاهُمْ” and to its usage elsewhere in this sequence of verses, where guidance clearly refers to the station of prophethood and messengership, this difficulty is resolved. The meaning is that among them God selected some for prophethood; it does not negate the monotheism or righteousness of the others. In Sūrat al‑Anʿām, verse 90—only a few verses later—guidance is likewise applied specifically to the station of prophethood. (From a grammatical perspective, “مِنْ آبَائِهِمْ” is a prepositional phrase governed either by “فَضَّلْنَا” in the preceding verse or by an implied verb indicated by what follows; moreover, “مِنْ” here is partitive.)

See ayat 90 for tafseer.

See ayat 90 for tafseer.

After mentioning the names of various groups of prophets in the preceding verses, God the Exalted, by pointing here to the overall and fundamental lines of their lives, first states: this is God’s guidance, by means of which He guides whomever He wills among His servants (ذٰلِکَ ہُدَی اللّٰہِ یَہۡدِیۡ بِہٖ مَنۡ یَّشَآءُ مِنۡ عِبَادِہٖ). That is, although they were righteous and virtuous people who advanced on the path of guidance with the full strength of reason and intellect and with their entire being, nevertheless, had divine success not encompassed them and had the gracious hand of God not supported and upheld them, the possibility of error would have existed for them as well, just as it exists for every human being. Then, lest it be imagined that they advanced along this path under compulsion, and likewise lest anyone suppose that God held an exceptional and unwarranted special regard for them, it is stated: if—hypothetically—those prophets, despite the lofty rank and status they possessed, had fallen into polytheism, all their deeds would have been nullified (وَ لَوۡ اَشۡرَکُوۡا لَحَبِطَ عَنۡہُمۡ مَّا کَانُوۡا یَعۡمَلُوۡنَ). This means that the same divine laws apply to them as to others, and there is no exception for anyone. In the following verse, by pointing to three fundamental distinctions that underlie all other distinctions of the prophets, it states: these were the people to whom We gave the Book, judgment, and prophethood (اُولٰٓئِکَ الَّذِیۡنَ اٰتَیۡنٰہُمُ الۡکِتٰبَ وَ الۡحُکۡمَ وَ النُّبُوَّۃَ). This does not mean that all of them were recipients of a revealed scripture; rather, since the discussion concerns all of them collectively, the attribution is made in a collective sense, similar to saying that in a certain book the scholars and their works are discussed—that is, the works of those who authored them. With respect to what is meant by ḥukm, three possibilities are mentioned: first, it may denote intellect, understanding, and discernment, meaning that in addition to granting them a divine book, God endowed them with the capacity to comprehend it, since a book has no practical effect without sound understanding; second, it may denote the office of judgment, in the sense that under the guidance of the divine laws they were able to adjudicate among people and possessed all the qualities required of just judges; third, it may denote governance and authority, insofar as they held the station of rule in addition to prophethood and messengership. Evidence for these meanings, besides the lexical scope of ḥukm, lies in the fact that the Qur’an elsewhere employs the term in all these senses. Moreover, there is no impediment to understanding ḥukm here in a comprehensive sense that encompasses all three meanings, since, as noted by al‑Rāghib in al‑Mufradāt, the primary sense of the root is restraint and prevention: intellect restrains from error, just judgment restrains injustice, and righteous governance restrains illegitimate authority. Of course, as indicated, not all prophets possessed all these ranks, but when such attributes are ascribed to a group, it is not required that every individual within that group possess every one of those attributes; rather, some may possess some of them. Accordingly, the matter of revealed scripture—limited to a number of the prophets mentioned—does not create difficulty in understanding the verse. Thereafter it is stated: if this group—that is, the polytheists of Mecca and others like them—reject these truths, then your call will not remain unanswered, for We have entrusted it to a people who will not disbelieve in it, and who will submit to the truth (فَاِنۡ یَّکۡفُرۡ بِہَا ہٰۤؤُلَآءِ فَقَدۡ وَکَّلۡنَا بِہَا قَوۡمًا لَّیۡسُوۡا بِہَا بِکٰفِرِیۡنَ). Some exegetes, as reported in Tafsīr al‑Manār and Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī, have held that this group refers to the Persians, who soon embraced Islam and exerted their full capacities for its advancement, with their scholars authoring numerous works in diverse Islamic disciplines. Another possibility in interpreting the verse is that hāʾulāʾ refers to the prophets themselves; that is, if—hypothetically—those great prophets had reneged on the duty of conveying the message, even then the divine message would not have remained unrealized on earth, for another community would have been charged with conveying it to the worlds, as expressed elsewhere in the Qur’an (e.g., لَئِنۡ أَشۡرَکۡتَ لَیَحۡبَطَنَّ عَمَلُکَ). In the final verse, introducing the program and achievements of those eminent prophets as the highest model of guidance for the Prophet of Islam, the Qur’an declares: those are the ones whom God guided; so follow their guidance (اُولٰٓئِکَ الَّذِیۡنَ ہَدَی اللّٰہُ فَبِہُدٰىہُمُ اقۡتَدِہۡ). (It should be noted that in iqtadi‑h, the hāʾ is not a pronominal suffix but a hāʾ al‑sakt, which is used at pause and, like hamzat al‑waṣl, drops in continuous speech; however, since it appears in the written Qur’anic script, prudence suggests observing it at pause.) This verse once again emphasizes that the foundational principles of the prophetic call are one and the same for all prophets: while specific rulings differed in accordance with the needs of different eras, and subsequent religions were progressively more complete, culminating in Islam, the core principles remained constant. Regarding which guidance is intended as the model for the Prophet of Islam, some exegetes have suggested patience and steadfastness in the face of hardship, others have said monotheism and the proclamation of the message; however, it is evident that guidance here has a broad meaning encompassing monotheism, other foundational beliefs, patience and perseverance, as well as the principles of ethics, education, and cultivation. From what has been stated, it becomes clear that this verse does not conflict with the fact that Islam abrogates previous laws, since abrogation pertains only to certain legal rulings, not to the fundamental principles of the divine call. Thereafter, the Noble Messenger is commanded to say to the people: I ask of you no reward for this message, just as the previous prophets made no such demand; I too follow their enduring practice (قُلۡ لَّاۤ اَسۡـَٔلُکُمۡ عَلَیۡہِ اَجۡرًا). Indeed, since this pure religion that I bring to you is a divine trust entrusted to me for conveyance, it makes no sense to demand compensation for delivering a divine trust. Moreover, this Qur’an, the message, and the guidance are a universal reminder and awakening for all beings (اِنۡ ہُوَ اِلَّا ذِکۡرٰی لِلۡعٰلَمِیۡنَ), comparable to the light of the sun, the movement of air, and rainfall—universal blessings that are available to all and are neither bought nor sold, nor compensated. Guidance and prophethood likewise possess no exclusive or proprietary character warranting remuneration. Finally, this concluding statement clearly indicates that the religion of Islam is neither regional nor national in scope, but a universal and humanitarian religion for all places and all people.

It is narrated from Ibn ʿAbbās that a group of Jews said: O Muḥammad, has God truly sent down a Book to you? The Prophet replied: Yes. They said: By God, God has not sent down any Book from heaven. (Reported in Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, Abū al‑Futūḥ al‑Rāzī, and al‑Manār under the verse in question.) Other reports have also been transmitted concerning the occasion of revelation of this verse, and, as will become clear later, what we have stated above is the most sound and most appropriate explanation.

There is disagreement among exegetes as to whether this verse concerns the Jews or the polytheists. However, given that the Messenger of God did not have encounters or discussions with Jews in Mecca and that his dealings with them occurred in Medina, and given also that Sūrat al‑Anʿām—of which this verse forms a part—is Makkan, some scholars have held that this verse was revealed exceptionally in Medina and, by the Prophet’s directive, was placed within this Makkan sūrah due to a particular appropriateness, for which there are several precedents in the Qur’an. In order for the substance of the matter to become clear, it is first necessary to understand a concise interpretation of the verse itself, and only then to discuss to whom the verse is addressed and what its aim and purpose are. The verse first states that they did not value God as He ought to be valued, because they said that God has not sent down anything upon any human being (وَ مَا قَدَرُوا اللّٰہَ حَقَّ قَدۡرِہٖۤ اِذۡ قَالُوۡا مَاۤ اَنۡزَلَ اللّٰہُ عَلٰی بَشَرٍ مِّنۡ شَیۡءٍ). God then commands His Prophet to say to them: who sent down the Book that Moses brought, as a light and guidance for people (قُلۡ مَنۡ اَنۡزَلَ الۡکِتٰبَ الَّذِیۡ جَآءَ بِہٖ مُوۡسٰی نُوۡرًا وَّ ہُدًی لِّلنَّاسِ) — that very Book which you have turned into scattered sheets, revealing some of it that serves your interests and concealing much of it that you deem harmful to yourselves (تَجۡعَلُوۡنَہٗ قَرَاطِیۡسَ تُبۡدُوۡنَہَا وَ تُخۡفُوۡنَ کَثِیۡرًا). And in it you were taught things that neither you nor your forefathers knew and could never have known without divine instruction (وَ عُلِّمۡتُمۡ مَّا لَمۡ تَعۡلَمُوۡۤا اَنۡتُمۡ وَ لَاۤ اٰبَآؤُکُمۡ). At the end of the verse, the Prophet is instructed to say: God (alone), and then leave them immersed in their vain disputation and play, for they are people who have turned the divine Book and its signs into a plaything (قُلِ اللّٰہُ ۙ ثُمَّ ذَرۡہُمۡ فِیۡ خَوۡضِہِمۡ یَلۡعَبُوۡنَ). If this verse was revealed in Medina and the address is directed to the Jews, its meaning would be that a group among the Jews denied the descent of any heavenly book upon any of the prophets. One might wonder whether it is possible that Jews—followers of the Torah—could deny the descent of a heavenly scripture. Indeed, if this seems surprising, attention to one key point removes the difficulty. A careful study of the books of the New Testament (the Gospels) and the Old Testament (the Torah and related writings) shows that none of these texts bears the style of direct divine address from God to humanity; rather, it is evident that they were written in the form of historical and biographical accounts by disciples and later followers of Moses and Jesus. Apparently, contemporary Jews and Christians do not deny this, since these books contain descriptions of the deaths of Moses and Jesus and many events occurring after their times, reported not as prophecies but as accounts of the past. How, then, could such books have been directly revealed to Moses and Jesus? At most, Jews and Christians believe that because these books were written by individuals acquainted with divine revelation, they are sacred, trustworthy, and free from error. With this in mind, it becomes clear why they found the Qur’anic style—addressing the Prophet and humankind directly in God’s voice—so astonishing. As noted in the reported occasion of revelation, they asked with surprise whether God had truly sent down a heavenly book, and then categorically denied that any book had been sent down by God to any human being, even to Moses. God responds by pointing out that they themselves believe that tablets and certain teachings were sent down to Moses. In other words, even if what they possess is not regarded by them as a fully revealed book, they nonetheless acknowledge that something was sent down by God, parts of which they disclose and parts of which they conceal. Thus, no objection remains as to how Jews could deny the descent of a heavenly book. If, on the other hand, the verse—like the other verses of this sūrah—addresses the polytheists, then its meaning is that they denied the descent of any heavenly book whatsoever in order to deny the call of the Prophet of Islam. God counters this by arguing that such a claim is untenable, since God sent down the Torah to Moses. The polytheists, although they did not follow the Jewish religion, nevertheless acknowledged previous prophets—especially Abraham and even Moses—as prophets of specific times and regions, and they considered themselves followers of the religion of Abraham. For this reason, when the Prophet of Islam appeared, they turned to the People of the Book to inquire about his signs and asked them to examine their scriptures to see whether they foretold such a prophet. Had they wholly rejected those scriptures, how could they have made such a request? Instead, after consulting the Jews, they revealed whatever served their interests and concealed whatever was harmful to them, such as the signs of the Prophet mentioned in earlier scriptures. Nonetheless, the first interpretation accords more closely with the wording of the verse, its reported occasion of revelation, and the pronouns employed within it.

1. Qarāṭīs: This is the plural of qirṭās, and, as some have stated, its origin is taken from the Greek language. Its meaning, as noted by Rāghib in al‑Mufradāt, is “that upon which one writes.” Accordingly, this term applies not only to ordinary paper but also to animal skins, tree bark, and similar materials on which writing and books were inscribed in ancient times. 2. Is writing on paper being condemned? It may be asked why the verse censures the Jews for having written the divine revelation on paper and similar materials, for this in itself does not appear blameworthy. The response is that the censure is not directed at the act of writing as such, but rather at the fact that they recorded the contents of the Torah on dispersed sheets and similar materials, then disclosed to people whatever served their own interests while concealing whatever they considered detrimental to themselves. 3. The statement “وَمَا قَدَرُوا اللّٰهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ” (“They did not accord God His true measure”) in reality points to the fact that whoever attains a sound understanding of God cannot deny that He would send guides and heavenly scriptures to humankind. For divine wisdom necessitates, first, that since God created the human being for a specific purpose—namely, the aim of moral and spiritual perfection—He must assist him along the intricate and hazardous path that lies before him; otherwise, the very purpose of creation would not be fulfilled. Such assistance is not possible without sending revelation, revealing heavenly books, and providing pure, correct teachings free from error and distortion. Second, how could God’s universal and particular mercy allow that He should leave the human being alone on the path of felicity, replete as it is with innumerable obstacles and points of deviation, without extending His aid and guidance through comprehensive instruction and appointed guides? Thus, both God’s wisdom and His mercy demand the sending of heavenly scriptures. There is no doubt that complete knowledge of God’s essence and attributes is beyond anyone’s capacity, and the verse does not advance such a claim; rather, the point is that once a person attains as much understanding of God’s essence and attributes as is humanly possible, no doubt remains that such a God would not abandon His servants without guidance and without a revealed book.

After the discussion in the preceding verse concerning the Jews and the heavenly scripture, reference is made here to the Qur’an, which is another revealed scripture. In reality, the mention of the Torah serves as a prelude to the mention of the Qur’an, so that people should not find it strange that a heavenly book is sent down upon a human being. First it is stated: this is a Book which We have sent down (وَ ہٰذَا کِتٰبٌ اَنۡزَلۡنٰہُ). It is a blessed Book (مُبٰرَکٌ), because it is a source of manifold virtues, righteousness, and felicity. Moreover, it confirms the scriptures that preceded it (مُّصَدِّقُ الَّذِیۡ بَیۡنَ یَدَیۡہِ). By the Qur’an’s confirmation of the earlier sacred books is meant that all the signs and indications mentioned therein correspond to it. Thus, in these two statements, two clear proofs of the Qur’an’s truthfulness are presented: first, the realization of the signs foretold in previous scriptures, and second, the lofty content of the Qur’an itself, in which every form of goodness, blessing, and means of salvation is contained. Hence, both with respect to its exalted teachings and from the standpoint of historical testimony and textual evidence, manifest signs of its truth are present. Thereafter, the purpose of the Qur’an’s revelation is explained as follows: it has been sent down so that you may warn Umm al‑Qurā (Mecca) and all those who dwell around it, and make them aware of their responsibilities and obligations (وَ لِتُنۡذِرَ اُمَّ الۡقُرٰی وَ مَنۡ حَوۡلَہَا). Since warning—namely, drawing attention to duties and obligations and cautioning against neglecting them—is especially necessary for those who are rebellious and defiant, and since this constitutes one of the most important aims of the Qur’an, emphasis is placed on this aspect alone. Finally, the verse states that those who believe in the Hereafter, in reckoning and recompense for deeds, will also believe in this Book, and they will be vigilant in observing their prayers (وَ الَّذِیۡنَ یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ بِالۡاٰخِرَۃِ یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ بِہٖ وَ ہُمۡ عَلٰی صَلَاتِہِمۡ یُحَافِظُوۡنَ).

Islam as a universal religion. Numerous verses of the Qur’an clearly testify that Islam is a universal religion. Expressions such as “لِاَنْذِرَکُمْ بِہِ وَمَن بَلَغَ” (“My aim is to warn you and all those to whom my message reaches by means of the Qur’an,” al‑Anʿām 19), “اِنْ ہُوَ اِلَّا ذِکْریٰ لِلْعَالَمِینَ” (“This Qur’an is but a reminder for all the worlds,” al‑Anʿām 90), “قُلْ یَا اَیُّہَا النَّاسُ اِنِّی رَسُولُ اللهِ اِلَیکُمْ جَمِیعاً” (“Say: O people, indeed I am the Messenger of God to you all,” al‑Aʿrāf 158), and many other similar verses that are abundant in the Qur’an bear witness to this reality. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that many of these verses were revealed in Mecca, at a time when Islam had not yet gone beyond the boundaries of that city. In light of the verse under discussion, however, a question arises: how can the aim of the Prophet’s mission be described as warning and guiding Mecca and those around it? Does this not contradict the universality of Islam? In fact, this objection has been reported from some Jews and adherents of other religions, who imagined it to be a strong argument limiting Islam to a specific region (Mecca and its surroundings). The answer becomes entirely clear by considering two points, which show that this verse not only does not contradict the universality of Islam but can even be regarded as evidence for it. First, the term qaryah in Qur’anic usage denotes any place of habitation, whether a large city or a small settlement. For example, in Sūrat Yūsuf (12:82), the brothers of Joseph say: “وَ اسْئَلِ الْقَرْیَةَ الَّتِی کُنَّا فِیہَا” (“Ask the town in which we were”), referring to Egypt’s capital, not a mere village. Likewise, the verse “وَلَوْ أَنَّ أَهْلَ الْقُرَىٰ آمَنُوا وَاتَّقَوْا لَفَتَحْنَا عَلَیْهِمْ بَرَکَاتٍ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ وَالْأَرْضِ” (al‑Aʿrāf 96) plainly intends all inhabited regions of the world, not villages alone. Moreover, many narrations state that the dry lands of the earth were spread out from beneath the Kaʿbah, which is why this event is known as dahw al‑arḍ. It is also known that initially the entire globe was covered with water, which gradually receded, exposing land; according to Islamic traditions, the first land to emerge from beneath the water was the land of Mecca. Even if Mecca is not today the highest point on earth, this does not contradict the argument, since millions of years have passed and geological processes have radically altered the earth’s surface—facts well established in geology. Second, the word “umm” denotes the origin, foundation, and point of beginning. Given the above, it becomes clear that Mecca is called Umm al‑Qurā because it is the original base and starting point of the earth’s dry lands. Consequently, “وَمَنْ حَوْلَهَا” (“and those around it”) encompasses all humanity. Previous verses concerning the universality of Islam support this interpretation, as do the numerous letters sent by the Prophet to major rulers of the world such as Chosroes and Caesar, the details of which have been discussed elsewhere. 1. The connection between belief in the Qur’an and belief in the Hereafter. The verse states that those who believe in the Hereafter also believe in the Qur’an, meaning that they understand this world to be a preparation for the next, much like a field of cultivation or a place of training. Such a purpose necessarily requires a system of laws, guidance, and a divinely revealed program, without which preparation for the Hereafter would be impossible. In other words, since God has sent the human being into this world for growth and perfection, and since the ultimate destination is the Hereafter, belief in God and the Hereafter naturally entails belief in prophets and heavenly books; otherwise, the very purpose of creation would be undermined. 2. The importance of prayer. Among all religious obligations, this verse mentions only prayer. As is well known, prayer symbolizes the bond between the human being and God and serves as the most manifest expression of this relationship; for this reason it surpasses all other acts of worship. According to some views, at the time of the revelation of these verses, prayer was the only formally prescribed religious duty.

It is reported in the hadith sources and works of Qur’anic exegesis that several narrations exist concerning the occasion of revelation of this verse. Among them is the report that it was revealed regarding a man named ʿAbdullāh ibn Saʿd, who served as a scribe of revelation and then committed betrayal, whereupon the Prophet dismissed him and expelled him; he subsequently claimed that he himself could produce verses similar to those of the Qur’an. A group of exegetes has also stated that this verse, or part of it, was revealed concerning Musaylimah the Liar, who was among the early claimants to prophethood. However, given that the episode of Musaylimah belongs to the final period of the Prophet’s life, whereas this sūrah is among the Makkan sūrahs, those who endorse this occasion of revelation hold the view that this verse—like several other verses within this sūrah—was revealed in Madinah and, by the directive of the Messenger of God, was inserted into the midst of this Makkan sūrah. In any case, just like all other Qur’anic verses that may have been revealed in response to specific circumstances yet convey a general and universal meaning, the content and import of this verse are likewise general and comprehensive, encompassing all such claimants to prophethood and all others of a similar kind.

After the preceding verses that referred to the Jews’ claim denying the descent of any heavenly book upon any human being, this verse turns to another group of sinners who stand at the opposite extreme: those who falsely claim that divine revelation has been sent down upon them. In reality, the verse under discussion points to three groups of such individuals. First, the Qur’an states that who could be more unjust than one who fabricates falsehood against God—by attributing lies to Him, distorting His signs, or altering His words (وَ مَنۡ اَظۡلَمُ مِمَّنِ افۡتَرٰی عَلَی اللّٰہِ کَذِبًا). The second group consists of those who claim prophethood and revelation while they are neither prophets nor recipients of any revelation at all (اَوۡ قَالَ اُوۡحِیَ اِلَیَّ وَ لَمۡ یُوۡحَ اِلَیۡہِ شَیۡءٌ). The third group includes those who, either in denial of the prophethood of the Messenger of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny or out of mockery and ridicule, declare: “We too can bring down revelations like what God has sent down,” even though they are lying and possess no such power or capacity (وَ مَنْ قَالَ سَاٴُنزِلُ مِثْلَ مَا اٴَنزَلَ اللَّہُ). All of these are wrongdoers, and no one is more unjust than they are, because they block the path of truth for God’s servants, turn people away from guidance, oppose the direction set by true leaders, and leave others wandering astray. They themselves are misguided and also draw others into misguidance. There is no injustice greater than for those who lack any qualification for leadership nonetheless to assert a claim to leadership—indeed, to divine and heavenly leadership. Although the verse is directly concerned with false claimants to prophethood and revelation, its spirit extends to all individuals who falsely claim a station or authority to which they have no rightful claim. The verse then describes the painful punishment awaiting such people. It says, addressing the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny: if only you could see these wrongdoers at the time when they are overwhelmed by the agonies of death, while the angels charged with taking souls extend their hands toward them, saying, “Bring forth your souls,” you would witness a scene of extreme anguish and humiliation (وَ لَوۡ تَرٰۤی اِذِ الظّٰلِمُوۡنَ فِیۡ غَمَرٰتِ الۡمَوۡتِ وَ الۡمَلٰٓئِکَۃُ بَاسِطُوۡۤا اَیۡدِیۡہِمۡ ۚ اَخۡرِجُوۡۤا اَنۡفُسَکُمۡ). The term ghamarāt is the plural of ghamrah and originally denotes obliterating or overwhelming something; it later came to be used for abundant water that covers everything, and from there for intense hardships, difficulties, and afflictions that draw a person toward destruction. In this state, the angels of punishment address them, saying that on this day they will be recompensed with a humiliating chastisement for two reasons: first, because they used to speak falsehood about God; and second, because they arrogantly rejected His signs and refused to submit to them (اَلۡیَوۡمَ تُجۡزَوۡنَ عَذَابَ الۡہُوۡنِ بِمَا کُنۡتُمۡ تَقُوۡلُوۡنَ عَلَی اللّٰہِ غَیۡرَ الۿَقِّ وَ کُنۡتُمۡ عَنۡ اٰیٰتِہٖ تَسۡتَکۡبِرُوۡنَ). Several noteworthy points emerge from this passage. First, false claimants to prophethood and fabricated guides are portrayed as the worst of wrongdoers; in truth, there is no injustice greater than stealing people’s minds, corrupting their beliefs, closing the path of felicity to them, and turning them into subjects of intellectual domination. Second, the phrase bāsitū aydīhim may signify that the angels extend their hands either in readiness to seize their souls or to begin the infliction of punishment. Third, the command “akh’rijū anfusakum” (“bring forth your souls”) constitutes a form of humiliation and contempt, for the act of taking the soul is not something performed by the sinners themselves but by the angels; the expression resembles what is said to a condemned criminal at the moment of execution. This humiliation corresponds to the contempt and scorn they themselves showed toward God’s signs, prophets, and servants. Incidentally, the verse also serves as further evidence for the independent reality of the soul as something distinct from the body, and it indicates that punishment for such sinners begins already at the moment of death.

1. False claimants to prophethood and fabricated leaders. As is evident, the verse portrays false claimants to prophethood and artificial guides and leaders as the most grievous of wrongdoers. In reality, there is no injustice greater than stealing a person’s intellect, corrupting their beliefs, closing the path of felicity to them, and turning them into subjects of intellectual colonization. 2. The phrase “بَاسِطُوۡۤا اَیۡدِیۡہِمۡ”. This expression may mean that the angels assigned to seize souls extend their hands in readiness to take their souls, and it may also mean that they extend their hands in order to begin administering punishment. 3. The command “اَخۡرِجُوۡۤا اَنۡفُسَکُمۡ”. The phrase “Bring forth your souls” constitutes a form of humiliation and degradation directed at such wrongdoers by the angels of death. Otherwise, giving up the soul is not the act of the sinners themselves but the task of those angels, just as a condemned murderer is told at the moment of execution, “Now taste death.” In any case, this humiliation corresponds to the contempt and degradation they themselves showed toward God’s signs, His prophets, and His servants. Incidentally, this verse also serves as further evidence for the independence of the soul and its distinctness from the body. The verse likewise indicates that punishment for such sinners begins at the very moment of death.

It is reported in Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, the commentary of al‑Ṭabarsī, and Tafsīr Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī that among the polytheists there was a man named al‑Naḍr ibn al‑Ḥārith who said that al‑Lāt and al‑ʿUzzā (the two well‑known idols of the Arabs) would intercede for him on the Day of Resurrection. Thereupon the above verse was revealed as a response to him and to others like him.

After the preceding verse, which referred to certain states of the wrongdoers at the threshold of death, this verse reflects the address that God will make to them either at the moment of death or upon their entry into the plain of Resurrection. It begins by declaring: Today you have come to Us alone, just as We created you the first time (وَ لَقَدۡ جِئۡتُمُوۡنَا فُرَادٰی کَمَا خَلَقۡنٰکُمۡ اَوَّلَ مَرَّۃ). And you have left behind, cast altogether behind your backs, all that wealth and possessions which We had granted you and which served as your support in worldly life (وَ تَرَکۡتُمۡ مَّا خَوَّلۡنٰکُمۡ وَرَآءَ ظُہُوۡرِکُمۡ). The term خَوَّلْنَاكُم derives from خول (on the pattern of عمل) and originally denotes something that requires care, administration, and stewardship; it is commonly used for wealth and the various blessings that God bestows upon human beings. It then adds: We do not see with you any of your intercessors—those whom you claimed to be partners in your affair and whom you regarded as sharers in determining your destiny (وَ مَا نَرٰی مَعَکُمۡ شُفَعَآءَکُمُ الَّذِیۡنَ زَعَمۡتُمۡ اَنَّہُمۡ فِیۡکُمۡ شُرَکٰٓؤُا). In reality, your unity has been shattered and all bonds between you have been severed (لَقَدۡ تَّقَطَّعَ بَیۡنَکُمۡ), and all the supports upon which you relied have vanished and been lost to you (وَ ضَلَّ عَنۡکُمۡ مَّا کُنۡتُمۡ تَزۡعُمُوۡنَ). The Arab polytheists and idol‑worshippers relied upon three things: first, their tribe and clan to which they belonged; second, the wealth and property they had amassed; and third, the idols that they regarded as intercessors before God in determining human destiny. Each of the three clauses of this verse points to one of these supports, showing how all of them abandon the human being at the time of death and leave him utterly alone. Two important points may be noted. First, the placement of this verse immediately after the verse describing the dialogue of the angels who seize souls at the moment of death, together with the phrase “you have left behind what We granted you,” suggests that this address also takes place at the moment of death, though it is attributed directly to God. Some narrations, however, indicate that this address occurs after entering the arena of Resurrection; in any case, this difference does not affect the essential aim and meaning of the verse. Second, although the verse was revealed concerning the Arab polytheists, it is by no means exclusive to them. On that Day, all ties, all material attachments, all imaginary and fabricated deities, and all supports that human beings fashioned for themselves in this world—imagining them to be helpers and allies in times of distress—will be completely severed. What will remain is the human being himself and his deeds; he will stand with his God alone, and everything else will disappear. In the Qur’anic expression, all of those supports will “vanish,” meaning that they will become so insignificant, reduced, and unknown that they will no longer even enter one’s awareness.

See ayat 96 for tafseer.

After the preceding verse, which pointed to certain states of the wrongdoers at the threshold of death, this verse once again turns the address toward the polytheists and presents the proofs of divine unity in detail, through vivid examples drawn from the mysteries of the cosmos, the order of creation, and the wondrous phenomena of existence. In the first verse, reference is made to three remarkable marvels found on the earth, and in the second verse to three manifestations observed in the heavens. It first states: God is the One who splits the grain and the date‑stone (اِنَّ اللّٰہَ فَالِقُ الۡحَبِّ وَ النَّوٰی). The term fāliq derives from the root falaq, meaning to split or cleave something so that one part becomes distinct from another. ḥabb denotes edible grains such as wheat and barley, though it is at times extended to other seeds of vegetation, while nawā refers to the kernel or pit of fruit; although it is sometimes thought to be specific to the pit of the date, this is likely due to the environmental familiarity of the Arabs with the date palm. The subtle point in this expression is that the most crucial moment in the life of a plant is the splitting of the seed or pit, a moment comparable to childbirth, whereby an entity is transferred from one realm of existence to another and undergoes a profound transformation. It is particularly noteworthy that seeds and pits are often extremely hard and resistant; a cursory glance at the pits of dates or fruits such as peaches, or at the grains of certain cereals, reveals that the embryonic life within them is enclosed in a remarkably firm enclosure. Yet the workshop of creation endows this seemingly impenetrable structure with a readiness to yield, and grants the delicate sprout growing within such strength that it pierces the surrounding walls and emerges upright. This is truly one of the astonishing phenomena of the vegetal world, to which the Qur’an draws attention as a sign of divine unity. The verse then states: He brings forth the living from the dead and brings forth the dead from the living (یُخۡرِجُ الۡحَیَّ مِنَ الۡمَیِّتِ وَ مُخۡرِجُ الۡمَیِّتِ مِنَ الۡحَیِّ). This expression, reiterated at various points in the Qur’an, points to the system of life and death and their continuous transformation into one another. At times, from lifeless and dry materials in the depths of seas, forests, deserts, and wastelands, diverse forms of life are produced; substances that individually act as lethal poisons are combined to yield life‑giving matter. At other times, powerful living beings are converted, through a minor transformation, into lifeless entities. The phenomenon of life—whether vegetal or animal—remains among the most intricate and least understood realities; human knowledge has not yet unveiled its full secrets, nor explained how inert elements and dry matter are transformed through astonishing processes into living beings. Even if at some future point humanity were able, through complex combinations of natural components, to construct a living organism—just as machines are assembled from pre‑fabricated parts—neither present incapacity nor future possibility diminishes the significance of life as pointing to a knowing and powerful originator. Hence the Qur’an repeatedly employs this very phenomenon as an argument for the existence of God. Abraham and Moses, for example, also reasoned against tyrants such as Nimrod and Pharaoh by appealing to the emergence of life as proof of a wise and omnipotent source of being. It must also be noted that the emergence of life from lifeless matter is not limited to the primordial origin of life on earth. Even today, water and other materials are absorbed by living cells and thereby clothed in life; thus, although contemporary natural sciences maintain that under present terrestrial conditions no living being arises except from a living seed, this fact in no way conflicts with the Qur’anic claim. Traditions transmitted from the Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt further indicate that the verse does not refer solely to material life and death but also encompasses spiritual life and death. Thus one may observe believers emerging from unbelieving forebears, and corrupt, sinful, or unbelieving individuals descending from pure and virtuous lineages—instances in which human freedom and will break the apparent determinism of heredity, themselves another sign of the Creator’s greatness in having endowed humanity with such agency. The use of the imperfect verb yukhrij and the active participle mukhrij further suggests continuity, indicating that the bringing forth of life from death and death from life is an ongoing and universal order of creation. The verse concludes with an emphatic statement: this is God—your God—and these are the manifestations of His infinite knowledge and power; how, then, are you turned away from the truth and led toward falsehood (ذَٰلِكُمُ اللّٰهُ فَأَنَّى تُؤْفَكُونَ). In the following verse, attention is directed to three celestial and atmospheric blessings. It states first: He is the One who cleaves the dawn (فَالِقُ الْإِصْبَاحِ). The root falaq again conveys the sense of splitting, and iṣbāḥ and ṣubḥ both denote morning. This expression is particularly apt, for the darkness of night is likened to a dense curtain that is torn apart by the fine white thread of dawn. This applies both to the phenomenon of the false dawn and to the true dawn: the former appears as a vertical streak of faint light in the eastern sky near the end of night, while the latter emerges as a broad, radiant band spreading horizontally along the eastern horizon and gradually widening until it illuminates the entire sky. The Qur’an frequently refers to the blessings of light and darkness and of night and day, and here it singles out the breaking of day as one of God’s great favors. This phenomenon itself is the result of the earth’s atmosphere; without it, as on the moon, there would be no twilight, no gradual transition between night and day, but instead an abrupt appearance and disappearance of the sun, painful to the eyes and disruptive to life. The gradual transitions enabled by the atmosphere prepare the human body and environment to receive light or darkness in a gentle and bearable manner, preserving physical and sensory well‑being. Lest it be imagined that darkness is an undesirable state or a form of deprivation, the Qur’an immediately adds: He has made the night a time of rest and tranquillity (وَجَعَلَ اللَّيْلَ سَكَنًا). It is an established fact that human beings are predisposed to activity in light, while darkness inclines them toward rest; physiological processes corroborate this, as blood flow and cellular activity diminish in darkness, facilitating deep and restorative sleep. This principle applies not only to animals but also to plants, which enter a form of dormancy at night and resume activity with the first light of dawn. Numerous traditions from the Imams emphasize this natural order, warning against reversing it by habitual nocturnal wakefulness and daytime sleep. The verse then mentions a third blessing and sign of divine greatness: He has made the sun and the moon a means of reckoning (وَالشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ حُسْبَانًا). The term ḥusbān derives from ḥisāb and denotes calculation and reckoning. The orderly motion of these two celestial bodies—perceived as such from the earth—enables the structuring of human life according to precise temporal systems. At the same time, their flawlessly regulated movements constitute a compelling sign of divine design. For millions of years, the earth has revolved around the sun and the moon around the earth, each with exact balance between gravitational attraction and centrifugal force, so precise that even the slightest deviation would disrupt the entire cosmic order. Such meticulous regulation can only arise from infinite knowledge and power, which is why the verse concludes: this is the measuring and determination of the Mighty, the All‑Knowing (ذَٰلِكَ تَقْدِيرُ الْعَزِيزِ الْعَلِيمِ).

After the preceding verse, which pointed to the motion of the sun and the moon, reference is made here to yet another divine blessing. It is stated that He is the One who has made the stars for you, so that by means of them you may find your way in the darknesses of land and sea: وَهُوَ الَّذِي جَعَلَ لَكُمُ النُّجُومَ لِتَهْتَدُوا بِهَا فِي ظُلُمَاتِ الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ. At the end of the verse it is said: We have set forth Our signs and proofs in detail for a people who know and understand (قَدْ فَصَّلْنَا الْآيَاتِ لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ). Human beings have been acquainted with the stars and their system for thousands of years. Although, as human knowledge and understanding continue to increase, people penetrate ever more deeply into the complexities of this system, nevertheless in every age they possessed at least a general familiarity with its structure and order. For this reason, in journeys by land and sea the stars constituted the best means for determining direction. Especially on the vast oceans, where there were no landmarks to indicate route or destination, and at a time when the compass had not yet been invented, no reliable means existed other than the celestial stars. It was these stars that saved countless people from loss and drowning and guided them to their intended destinations. By observing the sky on successive nights, it appears as though the stars retain the same configuration in every location, as if they were pearls fixed upon a dark cloth, which from the beginning of the night is gradually drawn from east to west, with all the stars moving along with it and revolving around the earth’s axis. Meanwhile, the relative distances between the stars do not change. The only apparent exception to this general rule is that certain stars, which are called planets, possess their own independent and specific motions, and their number does not exceed eight. Of these, six are visible to the naked eye (Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Mars, and Jupiter), while the remaining three planets (Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto) can be seen only with the aid of a telescope. (If one takes into account that the earth itself is also a planet revolving around the sun, their total number reaches nine.) It is not unlikely that prehistoric human beings were also familiar, at least in broad terms, with the distinction between the “fixed stars” and the “planets,” for there is scarcely any sight more captivating and alluring to the human eye than the star‑filled sky on a dark night. It is therefore plausible that they, too, made use of the stars to determine their paths. From some traditions transmitted through the Ahl al‑Bayt (peace be upon them), it is inferred that the above verse admits of another interpretation as well: namely, that the “stars” refer to the divinely appointed guides and leaders on the path of felicity—that is, the infallible Imams (peace be upon them)—through whom people are delivered from misguidance amid the darknesses of life. As has been stated repeatedly, this kind of spiritual interpretation does not conflict with the apparent, physical meaning of the verse, and it is possible that the verse intends both meanings simultaneously.

See ayat 99 for tafseer.

In these verses as well, the proofs of tawḥīd and knowledge of God are presented. The Qur’an sometimes takes the human being on a journey through the horizons and the distant realms of the universe for this purpose, and at other times invites him to journey within his own being, elucidating the signs of God present in his very body and soul, so that he may behold God everywhere and in everything. It first states: He is the One who created you from a single soul (وَ هُوَ الَّذِیۡۤ اَنۡشَاَکُمۡ مِّنۡ نَّفۡسٍ وَّاحِدَۃٍ). That is, despite the multiplicity of appearances, the diversity of dispositions and thoughts, and the vast variety of existential aspects, you all originate from one single individual. In this, the supreme greatness of the Creator becomes manifest: how He produced such diverse forms from one single source. It is noteworthy that human creation is here expressed with the term inshāʾ, which, as lexical sources indicate, denotes a kind of origination infused with order, nurture, and development. This means that God not only created you without any prior model or experience, but also assumed responsibility for your nurture and sustenance. It is self‑evident that if a creator were to produce something and then abandon it, this would not be a great display of power; but if he were to take it under his perpetual care and never be negligent of its sustenance even for a moment, he would thereby fully manifest his greatness and mercy. Incidentally, the phrase should not be misunderstood to imply that Eve was created from Adam, as stated in some scriptural traditions; for according to Islamic reports, Adam and Eve were created from the same substance and belong to the same species, and thus the expression nafs wāḥidah applies to both, as discussed earlier at the beginning of Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ. The verse then states: among humanity there is one that is established and one that is entrusted (فَمُسۡتَقَرٌّ وَّ مُسۡتَوۡدَعٌ). The term mustaqar derives from the root qarr, denoting coldness and stability; because intense cold confines beings to dwelling places, the term came to signify rest, settlement, and permanence. Mustaqar thus denotes something stable and enduring. Mustawdaʿ, from the root wadaʿa, means to leave or depart; hence it is also used for what is temporary and impermanent. From this linguistic background it follows that the verse indicates that some human states are enduring while others are transient. Exegetes differ on the precise referent of these terms, but several interpretations—mutually compatible and close to the truth—may all be embraced by the verse. One interpretation is that mustaqar refers to human beings whose creation has been completed, whether in the womb or upon the earth, while mustawdaʿ refers to those whose creation is not yet complete and who exist only as potential in the loins of their forebears. Another interpretation takes mustaqar to refer to the human soul, which is enduring, and mustawdaʿ to the human body, which is transient and perishable. Some traditions give a moral interpretation, taking mustaqar to denote those whose faith is firm and enduring, and mustawdaʿ those whose faith is unstable and fleeting. A further possibility is that the two terms allude to the components of the human embryo: the ovum, which remains relatively stationary in the womb, and the sperm, which is mobile; when the first sperm reaches the ovum and penetrates it, the primordial human entity is formed. The verse concludes: We have set forth the signs in detail for a people who understand (قَدۡ فَصَّلۡنَا الۡاٰیٰتِ لِقَوۡمٍ یَّفۡقَہُوۡنَ). Lexically, fiqh denotes not mere knowledge, but penetrating understanding that infers what is unseen from what is seen. Thus reflection upon human creation, with its innumerable outward and inward forms, enables discerning minds to recognize their Lord. The following verse, which concludes this series of discussions, again invites reflection on the wonders of creation as a means to knowledge of God. It begins by pointing to one of the most fundamental divine blessings, which may rightly be considered the root and foundation of all other blessings: the growth and flourishing of plants and trees. It states: He is the One who sent down water from the sky (وَ هُوَ الَّذِیۡۤ اَنۡزَلَ مِنَ السَّمَآءِ مَآءً). The reference to “the sky” signifies what lies above, for in Arabic usage anything above is called sky; all terrestrial sources of water—springs, rivers, canals, and wells—ultimately depend upon rainfall, and drought affects them all alike. The verse then points to the manifest effect of rain: through it We bring forth every kind of vegetation (فَاَخۡرَجۡنَا بِہٖ نَبَاتَ کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ). Exegetes have offered two explanations of nabāt kulli shayʾ: first, that it refers to every species and type of plant nourished by the same water and earth, despite their widely differing and sometimes opposing properties—an astonishing phenomenon of creation; second, that it refers to the plants required by all creatures, providing sustenance for birds, livestock, insects, and land and sea animals alike. It is striking that from the same soil and the same water, nourishment perfectly suited to the needs of every being is produced—an extraordinary masterpiece of divine power. The verse continues by highlighting particular examples: from that water We bring forth fresh green growth (فَاَخۡرَجۡنَا مِنۡہُ خَضِرًا), and from it We bring forth grain layered one upon another (نُّخۡرِجُ مِنۡہُ حَبًّا مُّتَرَاکِبًا), as in the ears of wheat or maize; and from the date‑palm, from its spathes, clusters hanging low (وَ مِنَ النَّخۡلِ مِنۡ طَلۡعِہَا قِنۡوَانٌ دَانِیَۃٌ). Ṭalʿ denotes the enclosed spathe of the date‑palm, which splits open to reveal delicate strands that later form the fruit clusters; qinwān (plural of qinw) refers to these strands, and dāniyah indicates their closeness or their drooping under weight. The verse also mentions gardens of grapes, olives, and pomegranates (وَّ جَنّٰتٍ مِّنۡ اَعۡنَابٍ وَّ الزَّیۡتُوۡنَ وَ الرُّمَّانَ), and then draws attention to another marvel: some are alike yet not alike (مُشۡتَبِہًا وَّ غَیۡرَ مُتَشَابِہٍ). Olive and pomegranate trees, for example, resemble one another in shape, branches, and leaves, yet differ in fruit, taste, and properties—sometimes growing in the same soil with the same water. Finally, the verse invites contemplation of the fruit itself: Look at its fruit when it bears fruit, and at its ripening—surely in that are signs for a people who believe (اُنۡظُرُوۡۤا اِلٰی ثَمَرِہٖۤ اِذَاۤ اَثۡمَرَ وَ یَنۡعِہٖ ؕ اِنَّ فِیۡ ذٰلِکُمۡ لَاٰیٰتٍ لِّقَوۡمٍ یُّؤۡمِنُوۡنَ). Modern scientific study of plant reproduction and fruit maturation clarifies this point further: fruit formation parallels animal reproduction in complexity, involving fertilization, development, and the formation of nutritive structures of immense variety in form, taste, and benefit—each grain within certain fruits itself containing the potential of a new tree.

The internal structure of all fruits and their nutritional and medicinal constituents lie beyond the scope of the present discussion. Nevertheless, there is no harm in pointing, by way of illustration, to the internal structure of the pomegranate, to which the Qur’an alludes in the foregoing verse. If we split open a pomegranate, take a single small aril in the hand, and hold it up to the light of the sun or a lamp, examining it carefully, we observe that it is composed of numerous minute compartments, resembling very small glass vessels, each containing a specific quantity of pomegranate juice, tightly arranged next to one another. Within a single small aril there may be hundreds of such tiny “vessels.” These are enclosed by a delicate membrane, which constitutes the skin of the aril itself. In order to make this packaging more complete, more secure, and better protected from harm, a particular number of arils are arranged around a central column according to an orderly pattern, and a relatively thick white membrane is wrapped around them. Over all of this is drawn a strong and dense outer rind, coated on both sides with a special kind of mucilage, which prevents the penetration of air and microbes, protects the arils from impact, and minimizes as much as possible the evaporation of the liquid contained within them. This refined and intricate system of packaging is not exclusive to pomegranate arils; it can also be observed in other fruits such as oranges and lemons, though it is more striking and aesthetically impressive in pomegranates and grapes. It seems as though humankind has themselves learned from this pattern how to transport liquids from one place to another: first placing small containers into a smaller box, then placing several such boxes into a larger crate, and finally transporting the whole as a single bundle to the destination. Even more astonishing is the manner in which the pomegranate arils are positioned upon their internal columns and derive their allotted water and nutrients from them. What is most remarkable is that these are phenomena we can already observe with the naked eye. If, however, we were to place the microscopic components of these fruits under a microscope, an entire bustling world of astonishing structures and extraordinarily precise organization would unfold before our eyes. How is it possible, then, that a person could look at a fruit with an eye that truly seeks reality and still maintain that its maker possesses no knowledge or wisdom? It is precisely for this reason that the Qur’an commands careful observation and reflection regarding such vegetation with the expression “unẓurū” (“look!”): to draw attention to these very realities. On the one hand are these intricate structures themselves, and on the other are the multiple stages that a fruit passes through from its initial raw state to the point of full ripeness—both of which are profoundly worthy of contemplation. Within fruits, internal “laboratories” are constantly at work, methodically altering their chemical composition in an ordered manner, until they reach their final stage and their composition assumes its proper form. Each of these processes, in its own place, constitutes a sign of the greatness and power of the Creator of the universe. It must, however, be borne in mind that, according to the Qur’anic expression, it is only people of faith—that is, those who seek truth with an open and perceptive gaze—who truly see these realities. With eyes clouded by obstinacy, prejudice, indifference, or superficiality, it is not possible to perceive even a single one of these truths.

See ayat 103 for tafseer.

See ayat 103 for tafseer.

In these verses, some of the false and absurd beliefs of the polytheists and followers of false religions are mentioned, and a logical response to them is indicated. First, it is stated: They have made partners for God from among the jinn (وَ جَعَلُوۡا لِلّٰہِ شُرَکَآءَ الۡجِنَّ). Regarding this, whether "jinn" here refers to its literal meaning, i.e., beings hidden and unseen by humankind, or specifically those jinn about whom the Quran has spoken repeatedly and to which we will refer shortly, the commentators have stated two possibilities in this regard. Based on the first possibility, it is possible that the verse refers to people who worshipped angels and every unseen thing. However, based on the second possibility, the verse is referring to those people who considered the jinn to be God's partners or His wife. "Kalbi" in "Al-Asnam" narrates that among the Arab tribes, there was a tribe named "Banu Tayyih," which was a branch of the "Khuzā'ah" tribe, that worshipped the jinn (Reference: Tafsīr Fī Zilāl, Volume 3, Page 326, footnote). It is said that the worship of "jinn" and the belief in their divinity was also found in the absurd and nonsensical religions of ancient Greece and India (Reference: Tafsīr al-Manār, Volume 8, Page 648). As is in verse 158 of Surah As-Saffat: "وَجَعَلُوا بَیْنَہُ وَبَیْنَ الْجِنَّةِ نَسَبًا" "And they have invented a kinship between Him and the jinn." From this, it is known that there were some people among the Arabs who believed in a kind of kinship between the jinn and God. And as many commentators have narrated, the Quraysh held the belief that God had married the jinn, and the angels were the result and fruit of this marriage. (Reference: Tafsīr Majma' al-Bayān and other commentaries under the verse in question) After this, in response to this nonsensical and absurd idea, it is stated: whereas He created them (i.e., the jinn) (وَ خَلَقَہُمۡ). Meaning, how can it be that a creation becomes a partner to its creator? Because partnership is a sign of being of the same kind and rank, whereas a creation can never be on par with the Creator. The second absurd matter was that: they ignorantly attributed sons and daughters to God (وَ خَرَقُوۡا لَہٗ بَنِیۡنَ وَ بَنٰتٍۭ بِغَیۡرِ عِلۡمٍ). In reality, the best proof of the falsehood of these absurd beliefs is what is understood from the words "without knowledge," meaning they possessed no proof or sign whatsoever for these superstitions and delusions. It is noteworthy that "kharaqū" is derived from the root "kharq" (on the pattern of "gharq"), which originally means to tear something apart thoughtlessly and without reason. This word is the exact opposite of the word "khalq," which is used in the sense of creating something with thought and according to a measure. Both these words (khalq and kharq) are sometimes also used for fabricated and false matters. At most, a lie that is fabricated with thought and according to a measure is called "khalq" and "ikhtilāq," while a lie that is without any measure or estimation, and is, according to the idiom, an elaborate lie, is called "kharq" and "ikhtirāq." Meaning, they fabricated this lie without studying its various aspects and without considering its implications. Now, as for which groups believed in sons for God, the Quran has named two groups in another verse. One is the Christians, who held the belief that Prophet Isa was the son of God, and the other is the Jews, who considered Uzair to be the son of God, as is generally understood from verse 30 of Surah At-Tawbah. A group of contemporary researchers, after studying the common principles of Christianity and Buddhism, especially on the issue of the Trinity, has also found that the concept of a son of God was not exclusive to Christians and Jews but was also present in absurd and nonsensical religions before them. As for the belief in the existence of daughters, the Quran itself has clarified this matter in other verses, stating: "وَجَعَلُوا الْمَلَائِکَةَ الَّذِینَ ھُمْ عِبَادُ الرَّحْمَانِ إِنَاثًا " "And they make the angels, who are servants of the Most Merciful, females" (Az-Zukhruf: 19). As we have also indicated in the preceding lines, it is mentioned in commentaries and histories that a group of the Quraysh believed that the angels were the children of God who came into being as a result of God's marriage to the jinn. But at the end of this verse, the Quran has drawn a red line through these absurd claims and baseless, imaginary ideas, and with a fine and awakening sentence, has negated all these falsehoods, stating: God is free (from these superstitions) and is far above and exalted from the attributes they describe for Him (سُبۡحٰنَہٗ وَ تَعٰلٰی عَمَّا یَصِفُوۡنَ). In the following verse, while responding to these absurd beliefs, it is first said: God is the Being who originated the heavens and the earth (بَدِیۡعُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ). Is there anyone else who has done such a thing, or even has the power to do so, on the basis of which they could be His [partner] in worship?be considered a partner? No! It is not so; rather, all are His creation, subservient to His command, and all are in need of His pure Being. Besides, how can it be possible for Him to have a son when He has no wife (اَنّٰی یَکُوۡنُ لَہٗ وَلَدٌ وَّ لَمۡ تَکُنۡ لَّہٗ صَاحِبَۃٌ). Fundamentally, what need does He have for a wife? And then, for whom is it possible to be His (wife or) equal when all are His creation? Apart from all these points, His sacred Being is pure and free from physical attributes, and having a wife and children are clearly among the physical and material attributes. A second time, His being the Creator of all things and all individuals, and His encompassing knowledge concerning all of them, is stated: He created all things, and He is the Knower of all things (وَ خَلَقَ کُلَّ شَیۡءٍ ۚ وَ ہُوَ بِکُلِّ شَیۡءٍ عَلِیۡمٌ). In the third verse under discussion, after mentioning His being the Creator of all things, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, His being free from physical and corporeal attributes and from having a wife and children, and His encompassing knowledge over every deed and every thing, this conclusion is drawn: "Such is Allah, your Lord, and since no one else possesses these attributes, therefore, no one besides Him can be worthy of worship. He is the Lord and He is also the Creator and Maker; on this basis, only He can be the one to be worshipped, therefore, worship Him (ذٰلِکُمُ اللّٰہُ رَبُّکُمۡ ۚ لَاۤ اِلٰہَ اِلَّا ہُوَ ۚ خَالِقُ کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ فَاعۡبُدُوۡہُ). At the end of the verse, with this objective in view and for the purpose of cutting off every kind of hope from other than God, and to completely eliminate the root of every kind of shirk and reliance on anyone other than God, the Quran says: And He is the Guardian, Protector, and Disposer of all things (وَ ہُوَ عَلٰی کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ وَّکِیۡلٌ). On this basis, the keys to the solution of your problems are in His hand alone, and no one besides Him has the power for this task, because whoever is besides Him, they are all needy and dependent on Him and are hopeful of His favor. In these circumstances, there is no reason for anyone to take their problems to someone else and seek a solution from them. The noteworthy point here is that it says “`alā kulli shay'in wakeel`” and not “`li kulli shay'in wakeel`,” and the difference between these two is clear, because the mention of the word “`alā`” is evidence of His dominance and command, whereas the use of the word “`lām`” is a sign of being subordinate. In other words, the first expression is in the sense of guardianship and being a protector, and the second expression is in the sense of representation. In the final [verse] under discussion, to prove His sovereignty and watchfulness over all things, and likewise to prove His distinction from all beings, it is stated: Vision cannot perceive Him, but He perceives all vision. He is the Bestower of various kinds of bounties and is aware and informed of the smallest of matters. He knows the interests of the servants and is aware of their needs and necessities, and He deals with them according to His grace and kindness (لَا تُدۡرِکُہُ الۡاَبۡصَارُ ۫ وَ ہُوَ یُدۡرِکُ الۡاَبۡصَارَ ۚ وَ ہُوَ اللَّطِیۡفُ الۡخَبِیۡرُ). In reality, one who wishes to be the protector, sustainer, and support of all things must possess these attributes. Furthermore, this sentence is evidence that He is different and distinct from all beings of the world, because among them are some things that both see and are seen, like humans; and some that neither see nor are seen, like our internal attributes; and some that can be seen but do not see anything, like inanimate objects. The only Being who cannot be seen but sees every thing and every person is His pure Self alone.

1. God cannot be seen by the eyes. Rational proofs testify that God can never be seen with the eyes, because the eyes perceive only bodies—or, more precisely, certain qualities of bodies. That which is neither a body nor a quality of a body can never be perceived by sight. In other words, for something to be seen by the eye it must occupy a place, belong to a direction, and possess corporeality, whereas God is exalted and transcendent above all of these. He is an unlimited being, and for that very reason He is beyond the material realm, for everything in the material world is limited. Many Qur’anic verses—among them those that speak about the Children of Israel and their demand to see God—explicitly deny the possibility of divine vision (as will be explained, God willing, in the commentary on Sūrat al‑Aʿrāf, verse 143). It is astonishing that many among the Ahl al‑Sunnah hold the belief that if God cannot be seen in this world, He will be seen in the Hereafter. According to the author of Tafsīr al‑Manār: “This is the doctrine of Ahl al‑Sunnah and the scholars of hadith.” Even more astonishing is that some contemporary scholars, including those regarded as enlightened thinkers, incline toward this view and sometimes defend it with great firmness. Yet the falsity of this belief is so obvious that it requires little discussion. There is no difference between this world and the Hereafter regarding this matter (even considering bodily resurrection). Will God, who is an immaterial being, be transformed into a material being on the Day of Resurrection? Will an unlimited being become limited? Will He become a body or an attribute of a body? Do the rational proofs denying the possibility of seeing God distinguish between this world and the next? Reason’s judgment in this matter is immutable. The excuse offered by some—that human beings may acquire a different kind of perception in the Hereafter—is entirely without proof. If such perception means intellectual or spiritual vision, that already exists in this world, through the eye of the heart and the power of reason. If it means a perception by which bodies are seen, then such perception with respect to God is impossible, whether in this world or the next. Hence the claim that God will not be seen in this world but will be seen by believers on the Day of Resurrection is illogical and unacceptable. The only factor that appears to have prompted defense of this belief is the existence of certain traditions in well‑known collections that speak of seeing God in the Hereafter. Would it not be more appropriate, in light of rational judgment, to regard the falsity of this notion as evidence that those traditions are spurious—or that the books containing them are unreliable—unless such traditions are interpreted as referring to vision by the heart? If certain Qur’anic expressions appear at first glance to suggest the vision of God, such as: “Faces on that day will be radiant, looking toward their Lord” (Q 75:22–23), they are akin to expressions like “The hand of God is above their hands” (Q 48:10). These are figurative, not literal, expressions, for no Qur’anic verse can ever contradict the judgment of reason. Significantly, the traditions of the Ahl al‑Bayt (peace be upon them) strongly reject this erroneous belief and sharply criticize those who hold it. Among them is a report from Imam Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), in which he explains that the Prophet never saw God with the physical eye; vision is of two kinds—vision by the heart and vision by the physical eye. Whoever speaks of vision by the heart speaks the truth, but whoever claims vision by the physical eye lies and disbelieves in God and His signs. Another report states explicitly that the eyes perceive only colors and forms, while God is the creator of colors and forms and thus cannot be seen. 2. God is the creator of all things. Some Sunni exegetes who adhere to the doctrine of determinism (jabr) have used the verse stating that God is the creator of all things as proof for determinism. They argue that since human actions are among “things,” and since thing applies to every existent—material or immaterial—then God must be the creator of human acts, implying compulsion. Advocates of free will reply clearly that God’s creatorship of human acts does not negate human choice. Human acts may be attributed to God insofar as He provides all their prerequisites—power, capacity, and free will—but they are attributed to human beings insofar as the final choice belongs to them. Philosophically, these are not two causes operating on the same level, but two causes arranged in a vertical order. Thus human responsibility remains intact. 3. The meaning of Badīʿ. As previously noted, badīʿ means one who brings something into existence without any prior model, matter, or blueprint. God created the heavens and the earth without relying on any pre‑existing material or plan. The question of how something can come into existence after non‑existence has been addressed in detail under Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 117. In brief, when we say that beings were brought into existence after non‑existence, we do not mean that non‑existence itself was the material cause. Rather, we mean that things previously did not exist and then came into existence—an idea that presents no contradiction. As an analogy, the human mind can create new mental forms that previously did not exist in consciousness; although mental existence differs from external existence, this shows that origination after non‑existence is intelligible. 4. The meaning of Laṭīf. The attribute laṭīf derives from luṭf. When applied to bodies it means “subtle” or “light,” and when applied to movements it denotes a very fine and imperceptible motion. It also refers to entities and actions that are exceedingly delicate and beyond sensory perception. When God is described as Laṭīf, it means that He is the creator of subtle and imperceptible beings and actions, and that He has knowledge of extremely fine and concealed realities. A noteworthy narration from Imam ʿAlī ibn Mūsā al‑Riḍā (peace be upon him) explains that God is called Laṭīf because He created subtle beings and is aware of subtle and invisible things, such as minute creatures, tiny insects, and realities hidden from ordinary perception. Another interpretation—also supported by Ahl al‑Bayt traditions—is that God is Laṭīf because His essence cannot be grasped by the senses, while He is Khabīr because He is fully aware of all things. There is no obstacle to understanding both meanings together.

See ayat 107 for tafseer.

See ayat 107 for tafseer.

See ayat 107 for tafseer.

In reality, these verses present a kind of summary and conclusion of the preceding discussions. They first declare: clear and illuminating proofs concerning tawḥīd, God‑consciousness, and the negation of all forms of polytheism have come to you from your Lord—proofs that bestow insight and inner vision (قَدۡ جَآءَکُمۡ بَصَآئِرُ مِنۡ رَّبِّکُمۡ). The term baṣāʾir is the plural of baṣīrah, derived from baṣar (seeing), but it is commonly used to denote intellectual and rational insight. At times it applies to anything that enables comprehension and understanding. In the present verse it denotes proofs, evidences, and clear signs, and it encompasses all the arguments for God‑knowledge that have been set forth in the preceding verses—indeed, it can be said to encompass the entire Qur’an. To clarify that these proofs are sufficient to reveal the truth and possess full logical force, the verse continues: whoever gains insight through them does so for his own benefit, and whoever blinds himself to them harms only himself (فَمَنۡ اَبۡصَرَ فَلِنَفۡسِہٖ ۚ وَ مَنۡ عَمِیَ فَعَلَیۡہَا). At the end of the verse, the Prophet is made to say: I am not a guardian over you (وَ مَاۤ اَنَا عَلَیۡکُمۡ بِحَفِیۡظٍ). Concerning the meaning of this phrase, exegetes have mentioned two possibilities. The first is: I am not the keeper of your deeds, nor am I responsible for them; God alone safeguards all and recompenses every person. My duty is only to convey the message and to exert the utmost effort in guiding people. The second meaning is: I am not charged with compelling you by force or coercion to accept faith; my task is merely to present the truth rationally, and the final decision rests with you. There is no impediment to understanding the phrase as encompassing both meanings. The subsequent verse emphasizes this point further by stating that the final choice between truth and falsehood lies in the hands of the people themselves: We present and diversify the signs in various forms, styles, and expressions (وَ كَذَٰلِكَ نُصَرِّفُ الْآيَاتِ). The verb nuṣarrif (from taṣrīf) means to vary, to turn from one form to another, indicating that the Qur’anic signs employ diverse modes of expression and persuasive approaches suitable for people of differing intellectual, psychological, and social dispositions. Yet one group persists in opposition and, without reflection or evidence, claims: “You have studied this from others”—that is, from Jews and Christians and their books (وَ لِيَقُولُوا دَرَسْتَ). Here the lām in li‑yaqūlū is what rhetoricians call lām al‑ʿāqibah, indicating the eventual outcome rather than the intended purpose; darasta, from dars, means to learn or acquire, and this was a baseless accusation repeatedly leveled by the polytheists against the Prophet. Another group, however—those receptive to the truth and endowed with insight and knowledge—perceives reality through these signs and accepts it (وَلِنُبَيِّنَهُ لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ). The accusation that the Prophet derived his teachings from Jews or Christians is one that obstinate opponents have often made, and some still make today. Yet, in truth, no educational institutions or organized scholarly traditions existed in the Arabian Peninsula from which the Prophet could have learned; his travels outside Arabia were extremely limited, leaving no room for such speculation. Moreover, the knowledge of Jews and Christians living in the Hijaz was itself meager and intermixed with myths and distortions, utterly incapable of matching the depth and coherence of the Qur’an and the Prophet’s teachings. Further clarification of this issue will come, God willing, in the commentary on Sūrat al‑Naḥl, verse 103. The verse then defines the Prophet’s duty in the face of such obstinacy, malice, and calumny: follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord—there is no deity but He (اِتَّبِعۡ مَاۤ اُوۡحِیَ اِلَیۡکَ مِنۡ رَّبِّکَ ۚ لَاۤ اِلٰہَ اِلَّا ہُوَ)—and turn away from the polytheists (وَ اَعۡرِضۡ عَنِ الۡمُشۡرِکِینَ). In reality, this verse offers the Prophet solace and spiritual reinforcement, ensuring that his firm resolve and iron‑like determination are not shaken by such opposition. It also becomes clear that the command “turn away from the polytheists” does not conflict with inviting them to Islam or, where appropriate, confronting them; rather, it means ignoring their baseless accusations and remaining steadfast upon the path of truth. In the final verse under discussion, the same reality is emphatically restated: God does not will that people be compelled into faith—had He willed, they would all have believed and no one would have remained a polytheist (وَ لَوۡ شَآءَ اللّٰہُ مَاۤ اَشۡرَکُوۡا). You are not made a guardian over them (وَ مَا جَعَلۡنٰکَ عَلَیۡہِمۡ حَفِیۡظًا), nor are you appointed as an agent to force them toward good (وَ مَاۤ اَنۡتَ عَلَیۡہِمۡ بِوَکِیۡلٍ). The difference between ḥafīẓ and wakīl is that the former protects against harm, while the latter seeks benefit on another’s behalf; denying both attributes to the Prophet means that he is neither to coerce people away from harm nor to compel them toward benefit. Rather, his mission is to convey, exhort, and invite, leaving acceptance to free choice. The tone of these verses powerfully underscores that faith in God and the foundations of Islam cannot contain any coercive element. Progress must come through reasoned argument, persuasion, and penetration into human hearts and minds, for coerced faith has no worth; what matters is that people understand the truths and accept them freely. The Qur’an repeatedly stresses this principle and distances Islam from the oppressive practices of forced belief associated with the Medieval Inquisition and similar institutions. God willing, the reasons for Islam’s firmness toward the polytheists at certain historical junctures will be discussed at the beginning of Sūrat al‑Barāʾah. Finally, verse 108 declares: Do not insult those whom they invoke besides God, lest they, in enmity and ignorance, insult God in return. Thus We have made the deeds of every community seem fair to them; then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them of what they used to do (وَ لَا تَسُبُّوا الَّذِیۡنَ یَدۡعُوۡنَ مِنۡ دُوۡنِ اللّٰہِ فَیَسُبُّوا اللّٰہَ عَدۡوًۢا بِغَیۡرِ عِلۡمٍ ؕ كَذٰلِكَ زَيَّنَّا لِكُلِّ أُمَّةٍ عَمَلَهُمْ ۪ ثُمَّ اِلٰى رَبِّهِمْ مَرْجِعُهُمْ فَيُنَبِّئُهُمْ بِمَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ).

After the discussion in the preceding verses about the logical nature of Islamic teachings, the necessity of inviting through reasoned argument, and the rejection of coercive methods, these verses reiterate with emphasis that believers must never insult the idols and false deities of the polytheists. Doing so would provoke the reaction that they, out of hostility and ignorance, would in turn insult God Most High (وَ لَا تَسُبُّوا الَّذِیۡنَ یَدۡعُوۡنَ مِنۡ دُوۡنِ اللّٰہِ فَیَسُبُّوا اللّٰہَ عَدۡوًۢا بِغَیۡرِ عِلۡمٍ). As some narrations indicate, a group of believers—out of intense indignation toward idolatry—would at times revile the idols of the polytheists. The Qur’an explicitly forbade this behavior and firmly established the principles of propriety, moral restraint, and courteous speech as necessary and obligatory, even in confronting the most false and reprehensible systems of belief. The rationale for this command is clear: abuse and insult never turn a person away from falsehood. On the contrary, the ignorant and intense fanaticism characteristic of such individuals causes them, in the words of the proverb, to become even more entrenched in obstinate resistance, thereby holding ever more tightly to their false beliefs. In such circumstances, it becomes easy for them to retaliate by resorting to blasphemy and insults against the Divine Majesty itself. This is because every community and every religious group tends to be prejudiced in favor of its own beliefs and practices, as the Qur’an states in the following clause: thus We have adorned for every community their deeds (كَذٰلِکَ زَیَّنَّا لِکُلِّ اُمَّۃٍ عَمَلَہُمۡ). At the end of the verse, it further states: then their return is to their Lord, and He will inform them of what they used to do (ثُمَّ اِلٰی رَبِّہِمۡ مَّرۡجِعُہُمۡ فَیُنَبِّئُہُمۡ بِمَا کَانُوۡا یَعۡمَلُوۡنَ).

1. Does God adorn deeds? In the preceding verse, the attribution of making a person’s good and bad deeds appear attractive is ascribed to God. This may cause surprise for some: how can it be that God adorns evil deeds in a person’s sight? The answer is the same as has been explained repeatedly before, namely that such expressions point to the inherent effect and consequence of actions themselves. When a person repeatedly performs a certain act, its ugliness and reprehensibility gradually fade from his perception, until it comes to appear pleasant and acceptable to him. Since God is the ultimate cause of causes (ʿillat al‑ʿilal), the Originator of all things, and since all effects ultimately trace back to Him, the Qurʾānic style at times attributes these effects to God. In clearer terms, the meaning of “زَیَّنَّا لِکُلِّ أُمَّۃٍ عَمَلَہُمْ” is that, as a consequence of their own evil actions, We have left them ensnared in a state where their misdeeds appear fair to them. This also clarifies why, in some Qurʾānic verses, the adornment of evil deeds is attributed to Satan: Satan whispers and invites people to commit evil acts, they submit to his insinuations, and ultimately they become entangled in the consequences of their own wrongdoing. From a precise analytical standpoint, causality belongs to God, while the origination of the proximate cause occurs through those individuals themselves and through satanic temptation. Accordingly, the different Qurʾānic expressions—sometimes attributing adornment to Satan, sometimes using the passive form, and sometimes attributing it to God—converge upon a single meaning when viewed correctly. 2. The prohibition of insulting others. Islamic traditions fully accord with the Qurʾānic logic of refraining from insulting misguided and deviant people. The great leaders and guides of Islam instructed Muslims to rely on reasoned argument and sound reasoning, and not to adopt the futile weapon of abuse and insult when dealing with the beliefs of opponents. In Nahj al‑Balāghah, we read that Imam ʿAlī (peace be upon him), addressing a group of his companions who were insulting the followers of Muʿāwiyah during the days of Ṣiffīn, said: “I dislike that you become people who abuse and revile, but if instead of insulting you describe their deeds and recount their conduct, that would be more correct in speech and more effective in argument.” This statement demonstrates that reasoned critique and clear analysis are more truthful and more compelling than invective and abuse. 3. Can idol‑worshippers speak ill of God? At times it is objected: how is it possible that idol‑worshippers would revile God, when the majority of them believed in God and regarded idols merely as intercessors before Him? Yet, if one reflects upon the mentality and behavior of stubborn and fanatical masses, this is not surprising at all. Such people, when overtaken by anger, strive to inflict pain upon their opponents in whatever way possible, even if that entails speaking ill of beliefs that both sides share. The Sunni scholar Ālūsī relates in Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī that among ignorant masses, some, upon seeing Shiʿis revile the first two caliphs, became enraged and began to speak disrespectfully about Imam ʿAlī (peace be upon him). When one such person was asked why he was insulting Imam ʿAlī, whom he himself regarded as worthy of reverence, he replied that he wished to hurt the Shiʿis in the most painful manner possible, having observed that no affront distressed them more. He was later persuaded to repent of this behavior. This example vividly illustrates how blind hostility and ignorance can drive individuals to violate even their own shared sacred principles.

See ayat 110 for tafseer.

A group of exegetes have reported concerning the occasion of revelation of this verse that a group from Quraysh came into the presence of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and said: You recount the great miracles of Moses and Jesus, and likewise of other prophets; therefore, perform for us a similar act so that we may believe. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: Which act do you want me to perform for you? They replied: Ask God to transform Mount Ṣafā into gold, to bring back to life some of our previously deceased forefathers so that we may ask them about your truthfulness, and to show us angels who would testify on your behalf—or bring God and the angels together with you. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: If I were to perform some of these acts, would you then believe? They said: By God, we certainly would (that is, we would believe). When the Muslims observed the insistence of the polytheists in this matter, they urged the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny to do so, hoping that they might believe. Just as the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny was preparing to supplicate to God for some of these demands (for some of them were unreasonable and impossible), the Trustworthy Bearer of Revelation descended and conveyed the message that if the Prophet wished, his supplication would be accepted; however, in that case—since complete proof would thereby be established in every respect and the matter would become manifestly evident—if they still did not believe, all of them would be subjected to severe punishment (and would be utterly destroyed). But if their demands were not fulfilled and they were left in their present state, it was possible that some of them might later repent and adopt the path of truth. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny accepted this, and upon this the above-mentioned verses were revealed.

In the preceding verses, numerous rational arguments were presented concerning tawḥīd which were sufficient to establish divine unity and to negate polytheism and idol‑worship. Nevertheless, a group of stubborn and bigoted polytheists refused to submit and began to fabricate excuses. Among these was their demand from the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny for strange and extraordinary miracles, some of which were fundamentally impossible, while falsely claiming that their purpose was to believe after witnessing such miracles. The Qur’an describes their state in the first verse as follows: they swore their strongest oaths by God that if a sign were to come to them, they would surely believe in it (وَاٴَقْسَمُوا بِاللهِ جَہْدَ اٴَیْمَانِہِمْ لَئِنْ جَائَتْہُمْ آیَةٌ لَیُؤْمِنُنَّ بِہَا). In response, the Qur’an states two realities. First, it commands the Prophet to tell them that this matter does not lie within his authority such that he could fulfill every demand and request of theirs; rather, signs and miracles are only from God and appear solely by His command (قُلْ إِنَّمَا الْآیَاتُ عِنْدَ اللهِ). Thereafter, addressing those well‑intentioned but simple believers who had been impressed by the polytheists’ severe oaths, it declares: you do not realize that they are lying, and even if the miracles and signs they demand were to appear, they would still not believe (وَمَا یُشْعِرُکُمْ اٴَنَّہَا إِذَا جَائَتْ لاَیُؤْمِنُونَ). The various encounters of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny with them bear clear witness to the fact that this group was not in pursuit of truth; rather, their aim was to keep people occupied with pretexts and to continue sowing the seeds of doubt and skepticism in their hearts. In the following verse, the cause of their obstinacy is explained: due to deviation, ignorant fanaticism, and persistent refusal to submit to the truth, they have lost the capacity for sound perception and correct vision, and they wander about in a state of bewilderment and misguidance. The Qur’an expresses this as follows: We turn their hearts and their eyes about, just as they did not believe in it the first time (وَنُقَلِّبُ اٴَفْئِدَتَہُمْ وَاٴَبْصَارَہُمْ کَمَا لَمْ یُؤْمِنُوا بِہِ اٴَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ). Here again, the attribution of this effect to God is of the same kind as that found in earlier verses: in reality, it is the consequence and reaction of their own deeds. It is attributed to God insofar as He is the ultimate cause and source of existence, and every property and effect in the universe proceeds by His will. In other words, God has placed in obstinacy, deviation, and blind fanaticism the inherent effect that they gradually disable a person’s perception and rational vision. At the end of the verse it states: We leave them in their rebellion, wandering blindly (وَنَذَرُہُمْ فِی طُغْیَانِہِمْ یَعْمَہُونَ). The term “یَعْمَہُونَ”, from the root “عَمَهَ”, signifies wandering and perplexity. May God protect us all from this kind of bewilderment that arises from our unreflective actions, and grant us sound perception and complete vision, so that we may behold the face of truth in its true and proper form.

Why do obstinate people not come to the straight path? This verse is connected with the preceding verses; all of these verses expound a single reality. The purport of these few verses is that many among those who demand extraordinary miracles are not sincere in their demands, nor is their aim to accept the truth; therefore, some of their requests (such as God appearing before them) are fundamentally impossible. In their own estimation, what they seek through demanding such extraordinary miracles is to destabilize the thinking of believers, to confuse the perspectives of truth‑seeking people, and to keep them preoccupied. The Qur’an states explicitly in the verse under discussion: even if We were to send down angels to them (as they demanded), even if the dead were to speak to them, and, in brief, even if We were to gather before them all that they request, they would still not believe (وَ لَوۡ اَنَّنَا نَزَّلۡنَاۤ اِلَیۡہِمُ الۡمَلٰٓئِکَۃَ وَ کَلَّمَہُمُ الۡمَوۡتٰی وَ حَشَرۡنَا عَلَیۡہِمۡ کُلَّ شَیۡءٍ قُبُلًا مَّا کَانُوۡا لِیُؤۡمِنُوۡۤا)۔ The expression “حَشَرۡنَا عَلَیۡہِمۡ کُلَّ شَیۡءٍ” signifies that all things, and all their demands, were to be fulfilled, because “حشر” in its original sense denotes gathering and bringing together. The term “قُبُلًا” means face‑to‑face or directly present; it is also possible that “قُبُلًا” is the plural of “قبیل,” meaning that groups upon groups of angels, the dead, and others would appear before them. The verse then adds in reinforcement of the argument: they would believe only in one circumstance, namely, if God were to compel them to accept faith by His coercive will; and it is evident that such faith would have no educational, developmental, or evolutionary value (اِلَّاۤ اَنۡ یَّشَآءَ اللّٰہُ). At the end of the verse it further states that most of them are ignorant and unaware (وَ لٰکِنَّ اَکۡثَرَہُمۡ یَجۡہَلُوۡنَ)۔ Exegetes differ concerning the referent of the pronoun “ہُم” in this statement. It may refer to those believers who were insisting that the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny should fulfill the demands of this group of disbelievers and present whatever miracles they were requesting. Many of these believers were unaware of the reality and did not realize that the claimants were insincere in their demands, whereas God knew that they were lying; therefore, their demands were not fulfilled. Yet, since the prophetic mission cannot be devoid of miracles, at particular occasions various miracles were manifested at the hands of the Prophet. Another possibility is that the pronoun “ہُم” refers to the demanding disbelievers themselves; that is, most of them are unaware of the fact that God has power over all extraordinary acts, but it appears that they regarded His power as limited. Hence, whenever the Prophet showed a miracle, they explained it away as magic or optical illusion, as stated in another verse: “وَلَوْ فَتَحْنَا عَلَیْھِمْ بَابًا مِنَ السَّمَاءِ فَظَلُّوا فِیہِ یَعْرُجُونَ لَقَالُوا إِنَّمَا سُکِّرَتْ اٴَبْصَارُنَا بَلْ نَحْنُ قَوْمٌ مَسْحُورُونَ” (al‑Ḥijr: 14–15). Thus, they constitute an ignorant and obstinate group, and neither they nor their statements deserve consideration.

See ayat 113 for tafseer.

This verse clarifies that the presence of such harsh and obstinate opponents against the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny, mentioned in the preceding verses, was not confined exclusively to his person alone; rather, all prophets faced enemies from among the devils of humankind and jinn (وَ كَذَٰلِكَ جَعَلۡنَا لِكُلِّ نَبِيٍّ عَدُوًّا شَيَاطِينَ الْاِنْسِ وَالْجِنِّ). Their function was to whisper to one another, in deceptive and alluring ways—both covertly and overtly—ornate speech with the aim of misleading and deluding others (يُوْحِي بَعْضُهُمْ إِلٰى بَعْضٍ زُخْرُفَ الْقَوْلِ غُرُوْرًا). There should be no misunderstanding that if God had so willed, He could have forcibly restrained all of them, such that no devil or devil‑like individual would have been able to place even the slightest obstacle in the path of the prophets and their call (وَ لَوْ شَاءَ رَبُّكَ مَا فَعَلُوْهُ). However, God did not will this, because He intended human beings to remain free so that a field would exist for their trial, moral development, and cultivation; compulsion and the removal of freedom are incompatible with this objective. Moreover, the existence of such severe and obstinate opponents—although their actions are under their own volition and desire—not only poses no real harm to true believers, but indirectly assists their moral and spiritual advancement. This is because growth and progress are often found amid oppositions and contrasts, and the presence of a powerful adversary is effective in consolidating human capacities and strengthening resolve. Therefore, at the end of the verse, God commands the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny to pay no attention whatsoever to their satanic tactics, and to leave them and their fabrications to themselves (فَذَرْهُمْ وَ مَا يَفْتَرُونَ).

1. In the above verse, God the Exalted attributes the existence of the devils of jinn and humankind to Himself and says: “وَکَذٰلِکَ جَعَلْنَا” (“and thus We made it”). There has been disagreement regarding the meaning of this expression; however, as has already been indicated, all human actions can, in one respect, be attributed to God as well, because whatever any person possesses ultimately comes from God: his power is from Him, just as his choice and freedom are from Him. Yet the meaning of such expressions is by no means compulsion or the negation of free will, as if God had created certain people in such a way that they must stand in enmity against the prophets. Had that been the case, it would have entailed that they bear no responsibility or accountability for their hostility, and that their deeds be regarded as the fulfillment of a mission, whereas it is known that this is not so. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that the existence of such enemies—though arising from their own choice—has a directly reformative effect for believers. More precisely, true believers can derive positive benefit from the existence of every kind of enemy and can use it as a means to elevate their awareness, preparedness, and resistance, because the presence of an enemy leads to the consolidation of human capacities. 2. The term “شیاطین” is the plural of “شیطان” and has a broad meaning, referring to every rebellious, obstinate, and harmful being. Accordingly, in the Qur’an the word “شیطان” is also applied to lowly, corrupt, and defiant human beings, as in the verse above, where it is used both for human devils and for non-human devils who are hidden from our sight. Among them, there is one who stands as the leader and chief of all devils; hence “شیطان” is a generic noun, whereas “ابلیس” is a proper name referring to the one who confronted Adam (peace be upon him). This matter has also been discussed earlier. 3. The phrase “زخرف القول” refers to deceptive speech whose outward appearance is attractive but whose inner reality is vile and evil. “غرور” means to keep someone in a state of heedlessness. It should be noted that “زخرف” originally meant “adornment” and also “gold,” which is a means of adornment; later it came to be used for deceptive words whose outward form is beautiful and appealing. 4. The use of the term “وحی” in the present verse contains a subtle indication of the fact that, in their satanic words and deeds, they follow programs that are mysterious and secretive, conveying them to each other in concealed ways so that people do not become aware of their schemes and so that their plots may succeed fully. This is because one of the lexical meanings of “وحی” is to speak quietly or privately into the ear. In the following verse, the result of the devils’ deceptive suggestions and propaganda is described as follows: the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter will incline toward them and listen attentively to their words (وَ لِتَصْغٰی إِلَيْهِ أَفْئِدَةُ الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْآخِرَةِ). Exegetes differ regarding the syntactic connection of this phrase and the attachment of “وَلِتَصْغٰی.” The interpretation most consistent with the meaning of the verse is that it is connected to “يُوحِي,” and that the “لام” is a lām of consequence; that is, the outcome of the devils’ actions will be that they exchange deceptive words with one another and that the unbelievers’ hearts incline toward them. It is also possible that it is connected to “غرور,” which functions as a causal object, in the sense that a person is first deceived and then develops inclination. The verb “تَصْغٰی” derives from “صغو” and means to incline toward something, most often the inclination produced through hearing; when someone listens to another’s words with approval or consent, this is called “صغو” or “إصغاء.” The verse then states that the end of this inclination is complete satisfaction with the satanic programs (وَلِيَرْضَوْهُ), and the final outcome of all this is the commission of various sins and vile and reprehensible deeds (وَلِيَقْتَرِفُوا مَا هُمْ مُقْتَرِفُونَ).

See ayat 115 for tafseer.

This verse is in reality a conclusion drawn from the preceding verses. It states that, despite those clear signs that have already been presented concerning tawḥīd, is it possible to accept anyone as an arbiter and judge? Should I seek a judge other than God (اَفَغَیۡرَ اللّٰہِ اَبۡتَغِیۡ حَکَمًا)? The term “حَكَم” (on the pattern of qalam) means one who gives judgment, a judge, or a ruler. Some have regarded it, in meaning, as equivalent to a sovereign or governor. However, a group of exegetes, among them Shaykh al-Ṭūsī in his book Tibyān, have proposed that “حَكَم” refers specifically to one who judges only according to the truth, whereas the term may be applied to both meanings. Others, including the author of al-Manār, are of the view that “حَكَم” denotes a person chosen by the disputing parties, while “ḥākim” refers to any kind of judge. This is while He is the One who has sent down to you this great heavenly Book, in which all of humanity’s educational needs have been set forth, and which has distinguished between truth and falsehood, light and darkness, and disbelief and faith (وَ هُوَ الَّذِیۤ اَنۡزَلَ اِلَیۡکُمُ الۡکِتٰبَ مُفَصَّلًا). It then states that not only you and all Muslims know that this Book has been revealed by God, but even the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), who have seen the signs of the heavenly scriptures in their own books, know that it has been sent down from your Lord in truth (وَ الَّذِیۡنَ اٰتَیۡنٰہُمُ الۡکِتٰبَ یَعۡلَمُوۡنَ اَنَّہٗ مُنَزَّلٌ مِّنۡ رَّبِّکَ بِالۡحَقِّ). Therefore, there is no room for any doubt or uncertainty in it, and, O Prophet, you should never be among those who harbor doubts (فَلَا تَکُوۡنَنَّ مِنَ الۡمُمۡتَرِیۡنَ). Here the question arises: did the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny himself have any doubt in this matter, such that this address is directed to him? The answer is the same as that given in similar contexts: in reality the general public is the intended audience, but God addresses His Prophet in order to emphasize and reinforce the point, so that others may take heed. In the following verse it is said: the word of your Lord has been completed in truthfulness and justice; no one can alter His words, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing (وَ تَمَّتۡ کَلِمَتُ رَبِّکَ صِدۡقًا وَّ عَدۡلًا ؕ لَا مُبَدِّلَ لِکَلِمٰتِہٖ ۚ وَ ہُوَ السَّمِیۡعُ الۡعَلِیۡمُ). The term “كلمة” in Arabic denotes speech and every kind of statement, even extended and detailed discourse. It is also used at times in the sense of a promise, as in the verse: “وَتَمَّتْ کَلِمَةُ رَبِّکَ الْحُسْنَی عَلیٰ بَنِی إِسْرَائِیلَ بِمَا صَبَرُوا” (Sūrah al-Aʿrāf: 137), where it refers to the fulfillment of God’s promise to the Children of Israel in recompense for their patience. This usage arises because a promise is expressed through a statement that contains the pledge within it. At times, “كلمة” is also used to signify religion, a religious system, or law and ordinance—all of which return to this same root meaning. As for what is meant by “كلمة” in the present verse—whether it refers to the Qur’an, to God’s religion and law, or to the promises of victory given to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny—these are different possibilities which, though distinct, do not contradict one another. It is also possible that all of them are intended. However, since the preceding verses are concerned with the Qur’an, this meaning appears more appropriate here. In essence, the verse declares that there can be no doubt or uncertainty with respect to the Qur’an, because it is complete and flawless in every regard: all its historical accounts and reports are true, and all its laws and commands are just. It is also possible that “كلمة” here refers to “promise,” as in the subsequent phrase “لَا مُبَدِّلَ لِکَلِمٰتِہٖ” (“no one can change His words”), which finds parallels elsewhere in the Qur’an, such as: “وَتَمَّتْ کَلِمَتُ رَبِّکَ لَاٴَمْلَاٴَنَّ جَھَنَّمَ مِنَ الْجِنَّةِ وَالنَّاسِ اٴَجْمَعِینَ” (Hūd: 119), or: “وَلَقَدْ سَبَقَتْ کَلِمَتُنَا لِعِبَادِنَا الْمُرْسَلِینَ إِنَّھُمْ لَھُمُ الْمَنصُورُونَ” (Sūrah al-Ṣāffāt: 171–172). In such verses, the latter clause explains the promise alluded to by the word “كلمة” in the preceding statement. Accordingly, the meaning of the verse would be that God’s promise has been fulfilled with truth and justice, and no one has the power to alter the commands and decrees of the Lord. As already noted, it is also possible that the verse encompasses all of these meanings simultaneously. It should also be mentioned that if the verse refers to the Qur’an, this does not conflict with the fact that the entire Qur’an had not yet been revealed at that time. Completion here means that whatever had been revealed up to that point was perfect, without flaw or deficiency, and complete in every respect. Some exegetes have inferred from this verse the impossibility of distortion or alteration in the Qur’an, for the phrase “لَا مُبَدِّلَ لِکَلِمٰتِہٖ” indicates that no one can effect change in its wording, its reports, or its rulings, and that this heavenly Book—which must remain a guide for all peoples until the end of the world—will be safeguarded from the interference of those who would distort or betray it.

We know that the verses of this sūrah were revealed in Mecca, and at that time the Muslims were an extreme minority. It was possible that this minority status, together with the overwhelming numerical majority of idolaters and opponents of Islam, might give rise in some minds to the misconception that if their religion and system were false and baseless, why were its adherents so numerous, and if we are upon the truth, why are we so few in number. In order to dispel this misconception—which might have arisen after the mention of the truthfulness of the Qur’an in the preceding verses—God addresses His Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and says: if you obey most of those who dwell on the earth, they will lead you astray from the path of God (وَ اِنۡ تُطِعۡ اَکۡثَرَ مَنۡ فِی الۡاَرۡضِ یُضِلُّوۡکَ عَنۡ سَبِیۡلِ اللّٰہِ). In the following clause, the reason for this is explained: they do not act on the basis of sound reasoning and correct thought; rather, their guides are conjecture mixed with desire, and sheer falsehood, deception, and guesswork (اِنۡ یَّتَّبِعُوۡنَ اِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَ اِنۡ ہُمۡ اِلَّا یَخۡرُصُوۡنَ). The term “خرص” (on the pattern of “ترس”) originally means estimation or conjecture. Initially, it was used for estimating the quantity of fruit on trees when leasing orchards and the like; later it came to be used for every kind of conjecture and guesswork. Since such estimation sometimes corresponds to reality and sometimes contradicts it, the term is also used in the sense of falsehood. In the present verse, it may encompass both meanings. Because the purport of the preceding verse is that mere numerical majority by itself cannot point to the path of truth, it follows that the path of truth must be received from God alone, even if the adherents of the truth are in the minority. Therefore, in the next verse this point is clarified by stating that your Lord—who is fully aware and informed of all things, and in whose infinite knowledge there is not the slightest error—knows best who has strayed from His path and who has attained guidance, and He recognizes both the misguided and the rightly guided better than anyone else (اِنَّ رَبَّکَ ہُوَ اَعۡلَمُ مَنۡ یَّضِلُّ عَنۡ سَبِیۡلِہٖ ۚ وَ ہُوَ اَعۡلَمُ بِالۡمُہۡتَدِیۡنَ). (Ordinarily, the comparative form “اَفْعَلُ تَفْضِیل” becomes transitive by means of the preposition “بـ”, and thus it would be said “اَعْلَمُ بِمَنْ”, but here the preposition has been omitted, and “مَنْ يَضِلّ” is, in technical grammatical terms, in the accusative due to the elision of the governing particle.) Here a question arises: do other people, apart from God, also recognize the paths of guidance and misguidance, such that the verse says God knows better than others? The answer is that there is no doubt that human beings, by means of their intellect, can perceive realities and can understand to some extent the paths of guidance and misguidance. However, it is equally certain that the light of reason and the reach of its illumination are limited, and that many matters may remain hidden from the rational gaze. Moreover, human beings may also fall into error in their knowledge. For this reason, they are in need of divine guides and leaders. Hence the statement that “God knows better” is entirely correct, even though human knowledge, in comparison with God’s knowledge, is in reality nothing at all.

See ayat 117 for tafseer.

Some people regard it as an established principle that numerical majorities are always on the correct path; however, the Qur’an repeatedly negates this notion in several verses and assigns no inherent value to numerical majorities. In reality, it considers qualitative majority to be the criterion, not quantitative majority. The reason for this is clear: in contemporary societies, although no alternative has been found for managing social affairs except reliance on majority opinion, it should not be forgotten—as previously noted—that this acceptance is, in a sense, compelled by circumstance. In a materialist society, there exists no system for reform or legislation that is entirely free from defects and flaws. Consequently, many scholars and experts, while acknowledging that the opinion of the majority of society is often erroneous, have nevertheless been compelled to accept it because the deficiencies of alternative methods are even greater. By contrast, a society that believes in the mission of the prophets (peace be upon them) is under no such compulsion to follow majority opinion in the establishment and implementation of laws, because the programs and laws of the true prophets are free from all deficiency, defect, and error, and cannot be compared with laws ratified by a fallible majority. A glance at the face of today’s world, and at governments founded on majority rule, together with observation of misguided and desire‑driven laws that are sometimes approved and endorsed by majorities, clearly shows that numerical majority has cured no fundamental ailment. Many wars were approved by majorities, and many corrupt practices were desired by majorities. Colonialism and exploitation, wars and bloodshed, the legalization of alcohol consumption, gambling, abortion, obscenity and immoral practices—even certain vile and reprehensible acts whose mention is itself shameful—have been approved by the representatives of majorities in many countries commonly described as “developed,” representatives who reflected the views of the majority in their societies. From an intellectual standpoint, does the majority always speak the truth? Is the majority trustworthy? Does the majority refrain from violating the rights of others if it has the power to do so? Does the majority view its own interests and the interests of others with the same lens? The answers to these questions are self‑evident and require no elaboration. Therefore, it must be conceded that reliance upon majority opinion in today’s world is, in fact, a kind of necessity imposed by circumstances—like a bone lodged in the throat of human societies. Yes, if the enlightened thinkers of human societies, the sincere reformers, and those with purposeful and principled thought—who are almost always in the minority—engage in comprehensive and tireless efforts to illuminate the general public, and if societies attain a considerable degree of intellectual, moral, and social maturity, then undoubtedly the views of such a majority will be much closer to the truth. But what difficulty can an immature, unaware, or corrupt, deviant, and misguided majority remove from its own path or from the path of others? Hence, mere majority by itself is not sufficient; rather, only a guided majority can solve the problems of society to the extent possible within human capability. Thus, when the Qur’an criticizes the notion of majority in various verses, there is no doubt that it refers to a majority that is immature and not rightly guided.

See ayat 120 for tafseer.

See ayat 120 for tafseer.

These verses are, in fact, among the conclusions drawn from the preceding discussions concerning tawḥīd and shirk; therefore, the first verse appears with the particle of inference (faʾ), which is typically used to introduce a consequence. The explanation is as follows: in the preceding verses, through various modes of exposition, the reality of tawḥīd was established and the falsity of polytheism and idol‑worship was made clear. One of the practical consequences of this is that Muslims should abstain from consuming meat that has been slaughtered in the name of idols, and should make use only of the meat of those animals that are slaughtered in the name of God. This is because one of the ritual practices of the Arab polytheists was to sacrifice animals for idols and then consume their meat as a form of blessing, which itself constituted idol‑worship. Accordingly, it is first stated: eat of that over which the name of God has been mentioned, if you are believers in His signs (فَكُلُوا مِمَّا ذُكِرَ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ إِن كُنتُم بِآيَاتِهِ مُؤْمِنِينَ). That is, faith is not merely a matter of claim, speech, or abstract belief; it must also be manifested in practice. One who believes in the One God consumes only such meat. The command kulū (“eat”) here does not indicate obligation to eat such meat; rather, it signifies the permissibility of this meat and the prohibition of other kinds. Incidentally, it also becomes clear that the prohibition of meat over which God’s name has not been mentioned is not grounded in considerations of physical health such that it might be asked what effect uttering a name has; rather, it is connected to moral and spiritual dimensions and to strengthening the foundations of monotheism. In the following verse, the same matter is expressed in another, even more emphatic, formulation: why should you not eat of that over which the name of God has been mentioned, when He has already detailed to you what He has made unlawful for you (وَ مَا لَكُمْ أَلَّا تَأْكُلُوا مِمَّا ذُكِرَ اسْمُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ وَ قَدْ فَصَّلَ لَكُم مَّا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمْ). We reiterate that this reproach and emphasis is not because of any neglect in eating lawful meat; rather, the intent is that one should eat only such meat and abstain from others. In other words, the focus is on the implied contrast and underlying meaning of the sentence, which is why the argument is supported by the phrase qad faṣṣala lakum mā ḥarrama ʿalaykum (“He has already detailed for you what He has forbidden to you”). With regard to where this clarification of lawful and unlawful meat appears—whether in Sūrat al-Māʾidah or in later verses of this sūrah (such as verse 145)—attention must be paid to the fact that this sūrah was revealed in Mecca, whereas Sūrat al-Māʾidah was revealed in Medina, and the later verses of this sūrah had not yet been revealed at the time of this passage. Therefore, neither of these possibilities is correct. Rather, the reference is either to Sūrat al‑Naḥl, verse 115, where certain categories of prohibited meat are explicitly mentioned—especially animals slaughtered for other than God—or to rulings communicated through the Prophet, since he never issued commandments except on the basis of divine revelation. An exception is then stated: except where you are compelled by necessity (إِلَّا مَا اضْطُرِرْتُمْ إِلَيْهِ), whether such compulsion arises from being stranded in a desert and afflicted by extreme hunger, or from being captured by polytheists and forced into it. The verse then adds: indeed, many lead others astray by their desires, without knowledge (وَ إِنَّ كَثِيرً‌ا لَّيُضِلُّونَ بِأَهْوَائِهِم بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ). Although desire‑following and ignorance often accompany one another, both are mentioned together here for greater emphasis. This phrasing also makes clear that true knowledge can never be compatible with caprice and fanciful speculation; wherever these dominate, what exists is ignorance rather than knowledge. It should also be noted that this clause may allude to a notion prevalent among the Arab polytheists, whereby they attempted to justify the consumption of carrion by arguing: is it reasonable that animals we slaughter ourselves are lawful, while those slain by God are unlawful? Evidently, this is nothing more than a sophistical claim devoid of substance, since God has not slaughtered dead animals or severed their throats in a manner comparable to human slaughter, and for this very reason such animals become a breeding ground for diseases and their flesh is corrupted; hence God has not permitted their consumption. At the end of the verse it is stated: your Lord knows best those who transgress (إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُعْتَدِينَ). Such people not only deviate from the path of truth through frivolous and hollow arguments but also strive to turn others away from it. Since it is possible that some individuals may commit these prohibited acts secretly and covertly, the following verse lays down a general rule: abandon both the outward and the inward forms of sin (وَ ذَرُوا ظَاهِرَ الْإِثْمِ وَ بَاطِنَهُ). It is reported that in the pre‑Islamic period some people believed that acts contrary to chastity (such as fornication) were blameworthy only if committed openly, while if done secretly they entailed no fault. Even today, some people practically adhere to the same ignorant logic: they are disturbed only by manifest and visible sins, yet commit hidden sins without hesitation. The above verse not only condemns this mentality but also conveys a broad meaning that encompasses other interpretations of “outward” and “inward” sin that have been mentioned. Among these is the view that outward sins are those committed through bodily organs, whereas inward sins are those realized through the heart, intentions, and deliberate resolve. Thereafter, by way of admonition and warning, the Qur’an speaks of the wretched fate awaiting sinners: those who commit sins will soon see the consequence of their deeds (إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْسِبُونَ الْإِثْمَ سَيُجْزَوْنَ بِمَا كَانُوا يَقْتَرِفُونَ). The expression “earning sin” (yaksubūn al‑ithm) is a striking and evocative phrase, indicating that human beings enter this world like capitalists entering a vast marketplace with capital comprising intellect, reason, lifespan, youth, and diverse God‑given faculties. How unfortunate, then, are those who, instead of acquiring felicity, honor, rank, piety, and closeness to God, devote themselves to accumulating sin. The wording sayujzawn (“they will soon be recompensed”) may either indicate that, although the Hereafter may appear distant to some, in reality it is very near and the world will quickly pass away, or that most individuals observe the consequences of their evil deeds within this very worldly life, in the form of individual and collective repercussions.

In the preceding verses, the positive aspect of the matter—namely, the consumption of lawful meat—was discussed. In the present verse, however, for stronger emphasis, the negative aspect and its implications are adopted, and it is stated: do not eat of that over which the name of God has not been mentioned at the time of slaughter (وَ لَا تَاۡكُلُوۡا مِمَّا لَمۡ یُذۡكَرِ اسۡمُ اللّٰهِ عَلَیۡهِ). It is then stated once again, in a brief sentence, that this act is a crime: it is fisq and sin, a departure from the path and practice of servitude and obedience to God (وَ إِنَّهُ لَفِسْقٌ). Furthermore, lest some simple‑minded Muslims be influenced by satanic insinuations, it is added that devils secretly inspire their associates with whispering suggestions in order to stand up and argue with you (وَ إِنَّهُ لَفِسْقٌ ؕ وَ إِنَّ الشَّیٰطِیۡنَ لَیُوۡحُوۡنَ اِلٰۤی اَوۡلِیٰٓئِهِمۡ لِیُجَادِلُوۡكُمۡ). But remain alert and conscious, for if you submit to their whispers, you too will be counted among the polytheists (وَ إِنۡ اَطَعۡتُمُوۡهُمۡ إِنَّكُمۡ لَمُشۡرِكُوۡنَ). This disputation and these insinuations perhaps allude to the line of reasoning that the polytheists used to transmit among themselves (and some have said that the Arab polytheists learned it from the Magians): they argued that if we eat the flesh of a dead animal, it is because God caused its death, and therefore it is superior to the animal that we kill ourselves; thus, refraining from carrion is, in a sense, showing disrespect toward God’s act. They were heedless of the fact that an animal that dies a natural death—besides often being diseased—has not had its throat severed, and its filthy and congealed blood remains within its body; consequently, it becomes corrupt and putrid, and its flesh likewise becomes contaminated and spoiled. It is for this reason that God has commanded that only the meat of animals slaughtered under specific conditions, with their blood properly drained, be consumed. Incidentally, these verses also make clear that non‑Islamic slaughter is unlawful, since, besides other considerations, non‑Muslims are not obliged to pronounce the name of God at the time of slaughter.

See ayat 123 for tafseer.

It has been reported concerning the occasion of revelation of the first verse that Abū Jahl, who was among the fiercest enemies of Islam and of the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny, one day caused severe harm to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. The Prophet’s courageous uncle, Ḥamzah, who at that time had not yet embraced Islam and was still studying and reflecting upon the religion, had gone out to the desert for hunting, as was his custom. When he returned from the desert and learned of what had transpired between Abū Jahl and his nephew, he became extremely angry. He immediately set out in search of Abū Jahl, and when he found him, he struck him on the head or nose in such a manner that blood flowed. Despite all the influence and authority Abū Jahl possessed among his tribe and even among the people of Mecca, upon seeing the great bravery of Ḥamzah he showed no reaction. Thereafter, Ḥamzah went in search of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and accepted Islam. From that day until the end of his life, he formally defended and safeguarded this heavenly religion as one of Islam’s distinguished champions. The above verse was revealed with regard to this very incident, and it specifies the faith of Ḥamzah and the persistence of Abū Jahl in disbelief and corruption. Some reports also indicate that this verse was revealed concerning the faith of ʿAmmār b. Yāsir and Abū Jahl’s insistence upon unbelief. In any case, like other verses of the Qur’an, this verse is not confined exclusively to its immediate context of revelation; rather, it carries a broad meaning that applies to every sincere believer and every unbelieving and obstinate individual.

Their connection with the preceding verses lies in the fact that those verses pointed to two groups: the pure believer and the obstinate disbeliever who not only refuses to believe himself but also strives intensely to mislead others. In the present passage as well, two vivid and effective examples are presented in order to concretely portray the condition of these two groups. First, those individuals who were once in misguidance and then accepted the truth and faith, thereby changing their path, are likened to a dead person who is brought to life by God’s will and command (اَوَ مَنۡ کَانَ مَیۡتًا فَاَحۡیَیۡنٰہُ). In the Qur’an, “death” and “life” frequently denote spiritual death and life, or disbelief and faith, and this expression clearly indicates that faith is not a dry or empty creed, nor merely a set of conventional words. Rather, it is like a soul that is breathed into the lifeless body of an unbeliever, penetrating and affecting the entirety of one’s being: it grants sight to the eyes, hearing to the ears, eloquence to the tongue, and the capacity for every kind of positive action to the hands and feet. Faith transforms a person and influences all aspects of life, making the signs of true life manifest in every condition. The phrase “فَاَحۡیَیۡنٰہُ” (“We gave him life”) indicates that although faith must arise through a person’s own effort and striving, such effort does not reach fruition unless accompanied by divine attraction and grace. The Qur’an then states: We have appointed for such a person a light by which he walks among people (وَ جَعَلۡنَا لَہٗ نُوۡرًا یَّمۡشِیۡ بِہٖ فِی النَّاسِ). Although exegetes have mentioned several possibilities regarding the meaning of this “light,” it evidently does not refer solely to the Qur’an or the teachings of the Prophet. Rather, faith in God bestows upon a person an inner light of insight and a new mode of perception, expanding the horizon of vision beyond the narrow confines of material life and the physical world into a vast and encompassing domain. Because faith calls a person toward self‑purification, it removes the veils of egoism, self‑conceit, prejudice, obstinacy, and desire from before the inner eye, enabling perception of realities that were previously entirely inaccessible. In the illumination of this light, one can find the path of life among people and remain protected from many errors into which others fall due to greed, limited material thinking, self‑centeredness, or the dominance of passion. In this sense, the statement found in Islamic traditions that “اَلْمُؤْمِنُ يَنْظُرُ بِنُورِاللّٰهِ” (“the believer sees through the light of God”) points precisely to this reality. Despite all this, the nature of this special light that arises in the believer cannot be fully described by language or pen; it must be tasted and inwardly experienced. Thereafter, in contrasting such living, active, luminous, and effective individuals with obstinate unbelievers, the Qur’an asks: Is such a person like one who is immersed in waves of darkness and can never emerge from them (كَمَنۡ مَّثَلُہٗ فِی الظُّلُمٰتِ لَیۡسَ بِخَارِجٍ مِّنۡہَا)? It is noteworthy that the verse does not say “كَمَنۡ فِي الظُّلُمٰتِ” (“like one who is in darkness”) but rather “كَمَنۡ مَّثَلُہٗ فِی الظُّلُمٰتِ” (“like one whose very likeness is darkness”). Some have said that this expression serves to show that such people are so thoroughly immersed in darkness and misery that their condition has become proverbial and self‑evident to all the discerning. It is also possible that the phrase carries a subtler meaning, namely that nothing remains of such individuals except a mere shell and outward form: they possess a body devoid of spirit and a mind whose thinking faculties have become incapacitated. It should also be noted that the guide of the believer is described as “light” in the singular form, whereas the environment of the unbelievers is described as “darknesses” in the plural, because faith is one single reality and a symbol of unity and oneness, while disbelief and lack of faith are sources of dispersion, fragmentation, and division. At the end of the verse, the Qur’an points to the cause of this misfortune by stating: in this manner, the deeds of the unbelievers have been made attractive to them (كذلك زُيِّـنَ لِلۡكٰفِرِيۡنَ مَا كَانُوۡا يَعۡمَلُوۡنَ). As previously noted, the repeated performance of evil deeds gradually diminishes their perceived ugliness, until they appear good in one’s eyes and become like chains on one’s hands and feet, not allowing escape from their grip. A cursory study of the conditions of ruined individuals clearly illustrates this reality. Since, from the negative side of the narrative, the principal figure was Abū Jahl—one of the chiefs of the Meccan polytheists and Quraysh—the following verse draws attention to the condition of such misguided leaders and the chiefs of disbelief and corruption by saying: thus We have placed in every town great criminals, so that they may plot therein (وَ كَذٰلِكَ جَعَلۡنَا فِيۡ كُلِّ قَرۡيَةٍ اَكٰبِرَ مُجۡرِمِيۡهَا لِيَمۡكُرُوۡا فِيۡهَا). As has been repeatedly explained, the attribution of such actions to God is on the basis that He is the ultimate cause of causes and the source of all powers; whoever performs an act does so using capacities and means granted by God. Some people make good use of these means, while others employ them for evil. The phrase “لِيَمۡكُرُوۡا” (“so that they may scheme”) denotes the outcome and consequence of their actions, not the purpose of their creation. The term “مُجۡرِم” derives from “جرم,” which originally means to cut off; because sinners sever relationships and detach themselves from obedience to God, the word came to be used for sin. This contains a subtle indication that every human being, by nature, is connected to truth, purity, and justice, and that sinfulness is a real separation from the divine nature. Disobedience and persistent sin thus lead such people to become highway robbers on the path of truth, diverting God’s servants from it. The word “مكر” originally means to twist or turn, and later came to denote any secretive, deceptive act carried out covertly. The verse concludes by stating: they do not deceive except themselves, but they are unaware (وَ مَا يَمۡكُرُوۡنَ اِلَّا بِاَنۡفُسِهِمۡ وَ مَا يَشۡعُرُوۡنَ). What deception could be greater than this—that they expend the entire capital of their existence, whether intellect, awareness, reason, lifetime, time, or wealth, on a path that not only brings them no benefit but also burdens them with the weight of responsibility and sin, while they imagine themselves to have achieved success? Incidentally, this verse also clearly shows that the sources of social corruption and widespread misfortune lie primarily with the elites and leaders of nations; it is they who, through various stratagems and deceptions, distort the path of truth and conceal its true face from the people.

The late Ṭabarsī writes in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān that this verse was revealed concerning al‑Walīd b. al‑Mughīrah, who was among the well‑known leaders of the idolaters and was regarded, in common parlance, as one of their principal minds. He used to say to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny that if prophethood were a true matter, he would be more entitled to it than the Prophet, because, first, he was older than him, and second, he possessed greater wealth and property. Some have said that this verse was revealed concerning Abū Jahl, because he imagined that the affair of prophethood would also become a field of rivalry. He would say that he and the clan of Banū ʿAbd Manāf (the clan of the Prophet) had been rivals in all matters, proceeding side by side like two horses in a race, until they claimed that one among them had been raised as a Prophet upon whom revelation descends. He argued that it was impossible for them to believe in him unless revelation were also sent down upon them in the same manner as it was sent down upon him. In technical grammatical terms, the “lām” here is the lām of consequence (lām al‑ʿāqibah), not the lām of purpose, of which the Qur’an contains numerous examples.

The choice of a Prophet lies in God’s hands. In this verse, with a brief yet meaningful reference to the mindset and absurd claims of those false claimants to leadership and the chiefs of wrongdoing, the Qur’an states: whenever a sign from God came to them, they said, “We will never believe unless we are given the same things that were given to the messengers of God” (وَ اِذَا جَآءَتۡهُمۡ اٰيَةٌ قَالُوۡا لَنۡ نُّؤۡمِنَ حَتّٰی نُؤۡتٰی مِثۡلَ مَاۤ اُوۡتِیَ رُسُلُ اللّٰهِ). In their imagination, the station of messengership and leadership of creation is something to be attained on the basis of age and wealth, or through childish tribal rivalries, as though God Himself were obliged to take such baseless and ridiculous competitions into account and to validate them. These rivalries arise from intellectual decline and are entirely divorced from an understanding of prophethood and the guidance of humanity. The Qur’an responds to them clearly and decisively, saying that there is no need for you to instruct God as to how He should appoint His prophets and messengers or among whom He should choose them, because “God knows best where He places His message” (اَللّٰهُ اَعۡلَمُ حَيۡثُ يَجۡعَلُ رِسَالَتَهُ). It is self‑evident and entirely clear that messengership has no connection with age, wealth, or tribal status. Rather, before all else, it requires preparedness of the soul, purity of conscience, genuine human virtues and attributes, elevated thought, strength of insight, and ultimately an exceptional level of piety culminating in the station of infallibility. The presence of these qualities—especially the readiness for infallibility—is something known to none but God. How vast is the difference between these criteria and the way of thinking of such people. The successor of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, apart from the reception of revelation and legislation, likewise possesses all the attributes and functions of prophethood: he is the guardian of the divine law, the protector of its system, and the spiritual and worldly guide of the people. Therefore, he too must occupy the station of infallibility and be protected from error and sin, so that he may convey the message reliably and serve as an obeyed and trustworthy leader. For this very reason, his selection also lies solely in God’s authority; God alone knows where to place this station, not the people, nor is it to be established by popular choice or consultation. At the end of the verse, the fate awaiting such criminals and false claimants to leadership is mentioned. It is stated that these wrongdoers will soon be overtaken by humiliation and abasement before God, and by a severe punishment, on account of the plots and schemes they devised to mislead people (سَيُصِيبُ الَّذِينَ أَجۡرَمُوۡا صَغَارٌ عِنۡدَ اللّٰهِ وَ عَذَابٌ شَدِيدٌۢ بِمَا كَانُوۡا يَمۡكُرُوۡنَ). These self‑seeking individuals sought, through their wrongful actions, to safeguard their own status, position, and prestige, but God will debase them in such a manner that they will experience a painful spiritual humiliation. Moreover, since their zeal and striving in the path of falsehood were intense and persistent, their punishment and chastisement will likewise be “severe” and grievous.

See ayat 127 for tafseer.

See ayat 127 for tafseer.

Following the previous verses, which were discussing the true believers and the stubborn disbelievers, these verses explain in detail the great blessings for the first group and the lack of divine grace that will befall the second group. First, it is stated: Whomever Allah wishes to guide, He expands his chest to accept the truth, and whomever He wishes to lead astray, He makes his chest tight for it, as if he wishes to ascend towards the sky (فَمَنۡ یُّرِدِ اللّٰہُ اَنۡ یَّہْدِیَہٗ یَشۡرَحۡ صَدۡرَہٗ لِلۡاِسۡلَامِ ۚ وَ مَنۡ یُّرِدۡ اَنۡ یُّضِلَّہٗ یَجۡعَلۡ صَدۡرَہٗ ضَیِّقًا حَرَجًا کَاَنَّمَا یَصَّعَّدُ فِی السَّمَآءِ). To emphasize this matter, it is further stated: In this way, Allah places filth and impurity upon the disbelieving individuals, and misfortune and the removal of divine grace will encompass their entire being (کَذٰلِکَ یَجۡعَلُ اللّٰہُ الرِّجۡسَ عَلَی الَّذِیۡنَ لَا یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ).

1. We have repeatedly explained that what is meant by divine “guidance” (hidāyah) and “misguidance” (ḍalālah), with respect to those individuals who through their deeds and conduct have demonstrated either preparedness or lack of preparedness to accept the truth, is the provision of the foundations of guidance, or the removal of the already‑provided foundations of guidance. Those who proceed along the path of truth and who are seekers and thirsty for the pure water of faith—God lights illuminating lamps along their paths, so that they do not lose their way in the darkness while seeking this water of life. But those who have demonstrated indifference toward these realities are deprived of this divine assistance; they encounter accumulations of difficulties along their path, and the enabling grace (tawfīq) of guidance is withdrawn from them. 2. Here, “ṣadr” (chest) refers to the spirit and the intellect, and this is a metaphor that is frequently employed. Likewise, “yashraḥ” (to open, to expand) signifies breadth of spirit, elevation of thought, and the widening of the horizon of the human intellect. This is because accepting the truth often requires relinquishing many personal interests, for which only those endowed with expansiveness of spirit and lofty thinking are prepared. 3. “Ḥaraj” (on the pattern of ḥaram) means extreme constriction and severe limitation. This describes the state of obstinate and unbelieving individuals, whose thinking is very narrow and whose spirit is exceedingly small and weak, leaving no room even for minimal openness in life. 4. A scientific sign of the Qurʾān: The comparison of such individuals to one who seeks to climb into the sky is based on the fact that ascending toward the sky is an extremely difficult task, and similarly, accepting the truth is exceedingly difficult for them. Just as in everyday speech we say that a certain task is so difficult for someone that it is as if he wishes to climb into the sky, or we say that climbing into the sky would be easier than performing that task. At the time, flight toward the sky was no more than a conceivability for human beings, but even today—despite air travel having become a practical reality—it remains among the most arduous undertakings, and aviators constantly face intense difficulties. Yet a subtler meaning is also apparent in this verse, which completes the foregoing discussion: it has now been established that the air surrounding the earth, near its surface, is sufficiently dense and suitable for human respiration; but the higher one ascends, the more rarefied the air becomes and the lower its oxygen content grows, to the point that if one ascends several kilometers above the earth’s surface (without an oxygen mask), breathing becomes progressively more difficult, and continued ascent leads to shortness of breath and loss of consciousness due to oxygen deficiency. When this scientific reality had not yet been established, presenting this simile is, in fact, among the scientific signs of the Qurʾān. 5. What is sharḥ al‑ṣadr? In the verse, sharḥ al‑ṣadr (expansion of the chest) is regarded as a great blessing, whereas constriction of the chest is considered a divine punishment. Just as God the Exalted expresses a great blessing to His Prophet when He says: “اَلَمْ نَشْرَحْ لَکَ صَدْرَکَ” — “Have We not expanded your chest?” (Sūrat al‑Sharḥ, verse 1). This is a reality that becomes evident through observing people’s conditions. Some individuals possess spirits so elevated and expansive that they are ready to accept every truth, no matter how great, whereas others have spirits so narrow and limited that there is no space within them for any truth to penetrate. Their intellectual vision is confined to everyday subsistence and eating and drinking; if they possess these, all is well, but if even slight change occurs, it is as though everything is finished and the world has collapsed. When the above verse was revealed, people asked the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny what sharḥ al‑ṣadr meant. He replied: “نور یقذفہ اللّٰہ فی قلب من یشاء فینشرح لہ صدرہ وینفسح” “It is a light that God casts into the heart of whom He wills, by which his spirit becomes expanded and open.” They then asked whether there was a sign by which it could be recognized. He said: “نعم الانابة الی دار الخلود والتجافی عن دارالغرور والاستعداد للموت قبل نزول الموت” “Yes: turning toward the abode of permanence, withdrawing from the glitter of the world, and preparing for death—through faith, righteous action, and striving on the path of truth—before death arrives.” (reported in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, vol. 4, p. 36) In the following verse, by way of reinforcing the preceding discussion, it is stated that the principle whereby divine assistance accompanies seekers of truth, and withdrawal of enabling grace follows the enemies of truth, is a straight, firm, and immutable divine norm (وَ هٰذَا صِرَاطُ رَبِّکَ مُسۡتَقِیۡمًا). It is also possible that “hādhā” refers to Islam and the Qurʾān, since they themselves constitute the straight and balanced path. At the end of the verse, emphasis is renewed: We have set forth Our signs and verses in detail for a people who take heed (قَدۡ فَصَّلۡنَا الۡاٰیٰتِ لِقَوۡمٍ یَّذَّکَّرُوۡنَ). In the subsequent verse, God the Exalted mentions two great aspects of His blessings bestowed upon awakened individuals and seekers of truth. First, that for them there is, with their Lord, the abode of peace and security (لَہُمۡ دَارُ السَّلٰمِ عِنۡدَ رَبِّہِمۡ). Second, that God Himself is their patron, protector, and helper (وَ ہُوَ وَلِیُّہُمۡ). “And all of this is because of the righteous deeds they used to perform” (بِمَا کَانُوۡا یَعۡمَلُوۡنَ). What greater honor could there be than that God the Exalted assumes responsibility for a person’s guardianship, becoming his protector, friend, and helper? And what blessing could be greater than Dār al‑Salām—the abode of peace—where there is no war or bloodshed, no dispute or conflict, no violence or harshness, no exhausting rivalries or struggles for power, no clash of interests, no lies, slander, accusations, envy, or malice, and no grief or sorrow; an abode that is, in every respect, a place of comfort and serenity awaiting the human being. Yet the verse makes it clear that such gifts are not granted through empty verbal claims, but in return for deeds—yes, indeed, in return for deeds alone.

See ayat 129 for tafseer.

In these verses, the Qur’an once again returns to the fate of those criminals who themselves went astray and who also led others astray, thereby completing the discussions of the preceding verses. It reminds them of the Day on which they will stand face to face with those satans from whom they used to take inspiration, and when both the followers and the leaders will be questioned—a questioning to which they will have no answer and from which they will gain nothing but regret and sorrow. These admonitions are intended to ensure that they do not confine their outlook to this fleeting life alone, but also reflect upon the final outcome. The Qur’an first says: on the Day when He will gather all of them together, He will initially say, “O assembly of jinn, you have led many human beings astray” (وَ یَوۡمَ یَحۡشُرُہُمۡ جَمِیۡعًا ۚ یٰمَعۡشَرَ الۡجِنِّ قَدِ اسۡتَکۡثَرۡتُمۡ مِّنَ الۡاِنۡسِ). The word “yawm” is an adverb related to an omitted verb, “yaqūl,” and the original construction is: “yawm yaḥshuruhum jamīʿan yaqūl.” The word “jinn” here refers to the satans, for “jinn” in its original lexical sense, as noted earlier, applies to every hidden being. In Sūrat al-Kahf, verse 50, we read concerning Iblīs, the chief of the satans: “kāna mina al-jinn,” meaning he was of the jinn. The earlier verses that spoke about the subtle whisperings of the satans—“inna al-shayāṭīn la-yūḥūna ilā awliyāʾihim”—and the subsequent verse, which refers to the leadership of certain wrongdoers over others, may also point to this same reality. The misleading satans have no response to this address and fall silent. But their human followers will say: “Our Lord, some of us benefited from others, and we benefited from them, until we reached the term which You appointed for us” (وَ قَالَ اَوۡلِیٰٓؤُہُمۡ مِّنَ الۡاِنۡسِ رَبَّنَا اسۡتَمۡتَعَ بَعۡضُنَا بِبَعۡضٍ وَّ بَلَغۡنَاۤ اَجَلَنَا الَّذِیۡۤ اَجَّلۡتَ لَنَا). They were pleased that they had found obedient followers over whom they exercised authority, and the followers were pleased with the glitter and deceptive attractions of the world and its unrestrained, transient pleasures, which, through satanic whisperings, appeared alluring and enjoyable. Regarding what is meant by “ajal” in this verse—whether it refers to the end of worldly life or to the Day of Resurrection—exegetes have differed; however, the apparent meaning is the end of life, since the word “ajal” is used in this sense in many Qur’anic verses. God then addresses all these corrupt leaders and followers and says: “The Fire is your dwelling; you will abide in it forever, except as God wills” (قَالَ النَّارُ مَثۡوٰىکُمۡ خٰلِدِیۡنَ فِیۡہَاۤ اِلَّا مَا شَآءَ اللّٰہُ). The exception “illā mā shāʾa Allāh” may indicate either that the eternality of punishment does not negate God’s absolute power, for He may change it whenever He wills, even though He allows it to endure for a group; or it may refer to those who are not deserving of eternal punishment; or it may allude to those upon whom divine pardon may be bestowed, and who should therefore be excluded from the ruling of perpetual punishment. The verse ends by stating: “Indeed, your Lord is Wise, Knowing” (اِنَّ رَبَّکَ حَکِیۡمٌ عَلِیۡمٌ). Both His punishment and His forgiveness are governed by wisdom and knowledge, and He knows well the occasions for each. In the next verse, pointing to a permanent divine law concerning such people, it is stated: just as oppressive and tyrannical individuals supported and assisted one another in this world, acting as leaders and guides for each other and as close collaborators in treading false paths, “so too in the Hereafter We shall set some of the wrongdoers over others, in accordance with what they used to earn” (وَکَذٰلِکَ نُوَلِّی بَعْضَ الظَّالِمِینَ بَعْضًا بِمَا کَانُوا یَکْسِبُون). As explained in discussions concerning the Resurrection, the scene of the Hereafter is, on a vast scale, a scene of action and reaction, wherein what appears is the reflection and echo of one’s deeds. It is also reported in the Tafsīr of ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm al-Qummī that the Imam said: “On the Day of Resurrection, every person will be with those whom he took as his allies.” It is noteworthy that the verse characterizes all these groups under the designation “wrongdoers” (ẓālimīn), and there is no doubt that “ẓulm,” in its broad sense, encompasses all of them. For what injustice could be greater than that a human being accepts the leadership of satanic humans like himself, thereby removing himself from the guardianship of God, and then, in the Hereafter as well, remains under the same false authority.

See ayat 132 for tafseer.

See ayat 132 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, the fate of satanic oppressors on the Day of Resurrection was described. Lest it be imagined that they committed these deeds in a state of ignorance or unawareness, these verses now make it clear that they were given ample warning and that the proof was fully established against them. Thus, on the Day of Resurrection God will say to them: “O assembly of jinn and humankind, did there not come to you messengers from among yourselves who recited to you My signs and warned you of the meeting of this Day of yours?” (یٰمَعۡشَرَ الۡجِنِّ وَ الۡاِنۡسِ اَلَمۡ یَاۡتِکُمۡ رُسُلٌ مِّنۡکُمۡ یَقُصُّوۡنَ عَلَیۡکُمۡ اٰیَتِیۡ وَ یُنۡذِرُوۡنَکُمۡ لِقَآءَ یَوۡمِکُمۡ ہٰذَا). The word maʿshar is derived from ʿasharah, meaning the number ten; since ten is regarded as a complete number, the term came to be used for a complete group or community comprising various kinds and classes. Concerning whether the guides sent to the jinn were from their own kind or from humankind, there is disagreement among exegetes; however, what can be clearly derived from the verses of Sūrat al‑Jinn is that the Qurʾān and Islam are universal and were revealed for all, including the jinn, and that the Prophet of Islam was sent to all. At most it may be said that there is nothing unreasonable in supposing that representatives or messengers from among the jinn themselves were appointed to convey the Prophet’s call to them. Further clarification of this matter, and of the scholarly meaning of “jinn,” will, God willing, be discussed in the commentary on Sūrat al‑Jinn in the twenty‑ninth part of the Qurʾān. It should be noted, however, that the expression minkum (“from among you”) is not proof that the messengers sent to every group were necessarily from the same group, nor that all groups had messengers from their own kind. The verse then indicates that on the Day of Resurrection nothing can be concealed; all realities will become manifest and no one will be able to hide anything. Faced with this divine questioning, they will all openly confess, saying that they bear witness against themselves and acknowledge that messengers did indeed come to them and conveyed God’s message, but that they opposed them (قَالُوۡا شَہِدۡنَا عَلٰۤی اَنۡفُسِنَا). Indeed, they had sufficient proofs from their Lord and were able to distinguish truth from falsehood; but “the deceptive life of this world and its alluring splendor beguiled them” (وَ غَرَّتۡہُمُ الۡحَیٰوۃُ الدُّنۡیَا). This phrase clearly indicates that the greatest obstacle to human felicity is unrestrained surrender to material manifestations and excessive attachment to worldly attractions—attachments that draw a person into the chains of servitude and invite every form of injustice, transgression, deviation, self‑destruction, and rebellion. The Qurʾān reiterates that they will openly testify against themselves, admitting that they followed the path of disbelief and belonged to the ranks of those who denied the truth (وَ شَہِدُوۡا عَلٰۤی اَنۡفُسِہِمۡ اَنَّہُمۡ کَانُوۡا کٰفِرِیۡنَ). The following verse restates the same meaning, but now in the form of a universal and enduring divine law: this is because your Lord never destroys towns or communities for their wrongdoing while they are unaware, unless He first sends messengers to them, directs their attention to the evil of their deeds, and declares to them what must be declared (ذٰلِکَ اَنۡ لَّمۡ یَکُنۡ رَّبُّکَ مُہۡلِکَ الۡقُرٰی بِظُلۡمٍ وَّ اَہۡلُہَا غٰفِلُوۡنَ). The phrase bi‑ẓulmin may be understood in two ways: either that God does not punish people for their wrongdoing while they are in a state of heedlessness, before sending messengers to them; or that punishing heedless people themselves would be an act of injustice, from which God is exalted and far removed. In either case, the principle affirms that punishment follows clear warning and the establishment of proof. The outcome of their condition is summarized in the next verse as follows: for each group—whether righteous or wicked, obedient or defiant, seekers of truth or oppressors—there will be degrees and ranks corresponding to what they have done; and your Lord is never heedless of what they do (وَ لِکُلٍّ دَرَجٰتٌ مِّمَّا عَمِلُوۡا ؕ وَ مَا رَبُّکَ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا یَعۡمَلُوۡنَ). This verse once again emphasizes the truth that all ranks, levels, elevations, and depths are themselves the direct consequence of a person’s own deeds, and of nothing else.

See ayat 135 for tafseer.

See ayat 135 for tafseer.

The first verse is, in fact, an argument supporting what was stated in the preceding verses concerning the fact that the Lord does not commit injustice. The verse declares that your Lord is both Self‑Sufficient and Possessor of mercy; therefore, there is no reason for Him to perpetrate even the slightest injustice, for injustice is committed only by one who is needy, harsh‑tempered, or hard‑hearted (وَ رَبُّکَ الۡغَنِیُّ ذُو الرَّحۡمَۃِ). Moreover, He is neither in need of your obedience nor apprehensive of your sins, because if He so willed, He could remove all of you and place after you whomever He wishes as your successors, just as He brought you forth from the progeny of another people who differed from you in many respects (اِنۡ یَّشَاۡ یُذۡہِبۡکُمۡ وَ یَسۡتَخۡلِفۡ مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِکُمۡ مَّا یَشَآءُ کَمَاۤ اَنۡشَاَکُمۡ مِّنۡ ذُرِّیَّۃِ قَوۡمٍ اٰخَرِیۡنَ). Thus, He is Self‑Sufficient, Merciful, and All‑Powerful; in such a state, conceiving injustice with respect to Him is impossible. By attending to His infinite power, it also becomes clear that what He has promised you concerning the Resurrection and recompense will indeed come to pass, without the slightest failure (اِنَّ مَا تُوۡعَدُوۡنَ لَاٰتٍ). And you can never escape His dominion or flee from the grasp of His justice (وَّ مَاۤ اَنۡتُمۡ بِمُعۡجِزِیۡنَ). Thereafter, the Prophet is commanded to address them with warning and challenge, saying: O my people, do whatever lies within your capacity; I too shall act in accordance with what God has commanded me. Soon you will come to know who attains the final and praiseworthy end, but it is certain that the wrongdoers shall not prosper and will never attain felicity and true success (قُلۡ یٰقَوۡمِ اعۡمَلُوۡا عَلٰی مَکَانَتِکُمۡ اِنِّیۡ عَامِلٌ ۚ فَسَوۡفَ تَعۡلَمُوۡنَ ۙ مَنۡ تَکُوۡنُ لَہٗ عَاقِبَۃُ الدَّارِ ؕ اِنَّہٗ لَا یُفۡلِحُ الظّٰلِمُوۡنَ). Here once again we observe that instead of the term “disbelief,” the word “injustice” (ẓulm) is employed. This indicates that disbelief and the denial of truth constitute a manifest form of injustice—an injustice toward oneself, an injustice toward society, and an injustice toward the order of existence. Because injustice stands in opposition to the universal justice governing creation, it is destined ultimately to be defeated.

In this verse, in order to uproot idol‑worshipping notions from their minds, the futile beliefs, customs, rites, and acts of worship of the polytheists are once again mentioned, and their absurdity is made clear through a forceful mode of expression. The Qurʾān first states that the disbelievers of Mecca, and all the polytheists, would allocate a portion of their crops and livestock to God and another portion to their idols, saying: “This is for God” and “this is for our partners,” according to their false claim (وَ جَعَلُوۡا لِلّٰہِ مِمَّا ذَرَاَ مِنَ الۡحَرۡثِ وَ الۡاَنۡعَامِ نَصِیۡبًا فَقَالُوۡا ہٰذَا لِلّٰہِ بِزَعۡمِہِمۡ وَ ہٰذَا لِشُرَکَآئِنَا). Although the verse explicitly refers only to the portion assigned to God, the subsequent clauses show that they in fact divided their produce into two portions, one for God and one for the idols. Reports indicate that the portion assigned to God was distributed among children and guests, while the portion assigned to the idols was reserved for the idols themselves, the temple custodians and attendants, sacrificial rites, and even for the idol‑worshippers’ own use (cf. Tafsīr al‑Manār, vol. 8, p. 122). The expression “our partners” (شُرَکَاؤُنَا) was used for the idols because they regarded them as partners in their wealth, assets, and lives. The phrase “from what He has created” (مِمَّا ذَرَاَ) in fact points to the invalidity of their belief, since all of this property was God’s creation; how, then, could they assign part of it to God and another part to idols? The verse then points to a strange judgment of theirs, stating that what had been assigned to the idols could not reach God, but what had been assigned to God would reach the idols (فَمَا کَانَ لِشُرَکَآئِہِمۡ فَلَا یَصِلُ اِلَی اللّٰہِ وَ مَا کَانَ لِلّٰہِ فَہُوَ یَصِلُ اِلٰی شُرَکَآئِہِمۡ). Exegetes differ in their explanations of this clause, but nearly all interpretations converge on one point: when some portion of the produce or livestock set aside for God was lost through accident or damage, they would say it did not matter, since God is self‑sufficient; but if something from the idols’ portion was lost, they would compensate it from God’s share, saying the idols were more in need. Likewise, if water from the field assigned to God flowed into the field assigned to the idols, they raised no objection, saying God is self‑sufficient; but if the reverse occurred, they would prevent it, claiming the idols were more entitled to it. At the end of the verse, God condemns this absurd belief in a concise statement, saying: “How evil is what they judge” (سَآءَ مَا یَحۡکُمُوۡنَ). Beyond the intrinsic falsity and baselessness of idolatry, their conduct contains additional reprehensible aspects: first, although all things are God’s creation and absolute property, and He alone is the ruler, disposer, and protector of all existence, they assigned only a portion to God, as though they themselves were the true owners and thus entitled to divide as they pleased (as indicated by the phrase “مِمَّا ذَرَاَ”). Second, they showed partiality toward the idols in this division, disregarding any loss incurred in God’s share while compensating losses in the idols’ share from God’s portion, thereby granting the idols a kind of superiority over God. Third, some reports indicate that they attached special importance to the idols’ share: idol custodians, attendants, and the idol‑worshippers themselves consumed it, whereas God’s share was given only to children and guests. The indications suggest that the finest livestock and best produce were allocated to the idols, so that, as they imagined, they might eat their fill thereafter. All of this shows that, in their division, they did not even accord God the same value as idols. What could be more corrupt and grievous than imagining a worthless piece of stone or wood to be superior to the Creator and Owner of the entire universe? Is any deeper intellectual degradation conceivable?

The Qurʾān, in this verse, points to one of the grave moral corruptions and shameful crimes of the idolaters and states that, just as their division between God and idols appeared pleasing to them—and they regarded this evil, senseless, and ridiculous practice as commendable—so too their “partners” made the killing of children appear attractive in the eyes of many idolaters, to the extent that they came to regard the killing of their children as a kind of merit or even an act of worship (وَ كَذَٰلِكَ زَيَّنَ لِكَثِيرٍ مِّنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ قَتْلَ أَوْلَادِهِمْ شُرَكَاؤُهُمْ). Here, the term “partners” (shurakāʾ) refers to the idols, for whose sake they would at times even sacrifice their sons, or vow that if a son were granted to them, they would offer him as a sacrifice to an idol. This has been reported in accounts of ancient idol‑worshipping societies. Accordingly, the attribution of “adornment” to the idols arises from the fact that attachment and devotion to idols impelled them toward this criminal act. On the basis of this interpretation, the verse under discussion is not directly connected to the issue of burying daughters alive or killing sons out of fear of poverty. Another possible interpretation is that the adorning of this crime through idols means that the custodians and attendants of the idol temples would encourage people to perform such acts, presenting themselves as the mouthpieces of the idols. It is reported that the Arabs of the Age of Ignorance would seek permission from Hubal (their principal idol) before undertaking major journeys or actions. Their method was to shake a bag containing special arrows placed near Hubal, some inscribed with “do it” and others with “do not do it”; whichever arrow was drawn was taken as Hubal’s message. This practice indicates that they sought to ascertain the will of the idols in this manner, and it is not improbable that the practice of sacrificing a child to an idol was likewise presented by the custodians as a directive from the idol. It is also possible that the burying alive of daughters—an act that, according to historical accounts, was prevalent among certain tribes such as Banū Tamīm under the pretext of erasing disgrace and shame—was similarly introduced as a mandate of the idols. Historical sources recount that al‑Nuʿmān b. al‑Mundhir once attacked an Arab group and took their women captive, among whom was a daughter of Qays b. ʿĀṣim. After reconciliation, the women returned to their tribes, except for Qays’s daughter, who chose to remain among the enemy tribe, possibly intending to marry one of their men. This deeply distressed Qays, and he swore by the idols that if another daughter were born to him, he would bury her alive. Not much time passed before this practice became customary among them, and under the pretext of defending honor they began to commit a grave crime: the killing of innocent children. Some may think that the term awlād (children) in the present verse does not accord with this interpretation; however, it should be noted that awlād is a broad term that applies to both sons and daughters, as in Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 223: وَالْوَالِدَاتُ يُرْضِعْنَ أَوْلَادَهُنَّ حَوْلَيْنِ كَامِلَيْنِ (“Mothers shall nurse their children for two complete years”). Accordingly, the burying alive of daughters may also be encompassed by this verse. Another interpretation—though not explicitly mentioned by exegetes—may also be considered. It is that the Arabs of the Age of Ignorance attached such exaggerated importance to idols that they would expend their finest and most valuable wealth on idols and on their powerful and affluent custodians, thereby impoverishing themselves. This could lead them, at times, due to hunger and destitution, to slaughter their own children. Their infatuation with idols thus made such heinous acts appear attractive in their eyes. Nonetheless, the first interpretation—namely, sacrificing children for idols—appears most consistent with the wording of the verse. The Qurʾān then states that the outcome of such vile practices was that the custodians of idols led the polytheists to ruin and obscured from them the true religion, depriving them of access to a pure and upright faith (لِيُرْدُوهُمْ وَلِيَلْبِسُوا عَلَيْهِمْ دِينَهُمْ). The Qurʾān adds that had God willed, He could have prevented them by coercion from committing such acts, but compulsion runs contrary to the divine norm. God wills that human beings remain free, so that the path of moral training, perfection, and growth remains open, for coercion yields neither genuine moral education nor true spiritual development (وَلَوْ شَاءَ اللّٰهُ مَا فَعَلُوهُ). Finally, it states: since they are immersed in such senseless, base, and shameful acts to the point that they no longer even perceive their ugliness—and worst of all, they attribute them to God—leave them to their fabrications and devote yourself instead to the moral cultivation of receptive and ready hearts (فَذَرْهُمْ وَمَا يَفْتَرُونَ).

See ayat 139 for tafseer.

In these verses, reference is made to certain aspects of the absurd rulings of the idolaters that reflect and express their intellectual impoverishment, and that complete the discussion of the preceding verses. The Qur’an states that the idolaters used to say: “This portion of livestock and crops is consecrated and forbidden; no one may eat of it except those whom we choose,” according to their own unfounded claim (وَ قَالُوۡا ہٰذِہٖۤ اَنۡعَامٌ وَّ حَرۡثٌ حِجۡرٌ ٭ۖ لَّا یَطۡعَمُہَاۤ اِلَّا مَنۡ نَّشَآءُ بِزَعۡمِہِمۡ). By this, they meant the idols and the custodians and servants of the idol‑temples; this group alone, in their view, was entitled to consume what was allotted to the idols. From this statement it follows that this part of the verse, in reality, points to the manner in which they disposed of the shares they had set aside for idols from their crops and livestock, as already explained in the preceding verses. The word “حِجْر” (on the pattern of “شِعْر”) originally conveys the sense of declaring something forbidden. As noted by Rāghib in al‑Mufradāt, it may not be improbable that it is also connected to “حِجَارَة” (stone), since when people wished to prohibit entry into an enclosure they would arrange stones around it; similarly, the term “حِجْرِ إِسْمَاعِيل” is used because it is separated from the rest of the Sacred Mosque by a stone wall. By the same association, the intellect (ʿaql) is at times called “حِجْر,” because it restrains a person from evil acts; likewise, when someone comes under another’s protection, it is said that he is in his “حِجْر,” and a person prevented from disposing of his wealth is called “مَحْجُور.” It should be noted that in the present verse “حِجْر” is used in a descriptive sense. Then reference is made to another thing that they had declared unlawful: they held that there were certain animals whose backs were forbidden to ride (وَ أَنْعَامٌ حُرِّمَتْ ظُهُورُهَا). Apparently, these were the same animals described elsewhere, in Sūrat al‑Māʾidah (5:103), as sāʾibah, baḥīrah, and ḥām. Next, in stating a third type of their wrongful rulings, it is said: there were animals over which they did not pronounce the name of God (وَ أَنْعَامٌ لَّا یَذْکُرُونَ اسْمَ اللّٰهِ عَلَیْهَا). This phrase may refer either to animals slaughtered while invoking only the names of idols, or to those animals which they considered forbidden to ride for pilgrimage purposes; both interpretations are reported by various exegetes, including those cited in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, al‑Tafsīr al‑Kabīr, al‑Manār, and al‑Qurṭubī. In either case, it was a baseless and absurd ruling. What is even more astonishing is that they did not stop at inventing such rulings, but went so far as to fabricate lies against God and ascribe these prohibitions to Him (افْتِرَاءً عَلَیْهِ). At the end of the verse, after mentioning these fabricated laws, the Qur’an declares: God will soon recompense them for what they used to fabricate (سَیَجْزِیْهِمْ بِمَا کَانُوا یَفْتَرُونَ). Indeed, when a human being undertakes to legislate by means of his deficient intellect, it is entirely possible that every group will invent laws in accordance with its own caprice, declaring God’s blessings unlawfully prohibited or, conversely, permitting reprehensible and false practices. Hence we say that legislation belongs solely to God, who knows all things, is aware of the true purposes of every ruling, and is free from all caprice and desire. In the following verse, another of their absurd rulings concerning animal flesh is mentioned. They used to say: “What is in the wombs of these animals is reserved exclusively for our men and is forbidden to our wives; but if it is born dead, then all may share in it” (وَ قَالُوا مَا فِی بُطُونِ هٰذِهِ الْأَنْعَامِ خَالِصَةٌ لِذُکُورِنَا وَ مُحَرَّمٌ عَلَی أَزْوَاجِنَا ۚ وَ إِنْ یَکُنْ مَیْتَةً فَهُمْ فِیهِ شُرَکَاءُ). Here, “هٰذِهِ الْأَنْعَامِ” refers to the very animals mentioned in the previous verse. Some exegetes have suggested that “مَا فِی بُطُونِ هٰذِهِ الْأَنْعَامِ” refers to their milk, but attention to the phrase “وَ إِنْ یَکُنْ مَیْتَةً” makes it clear that the discussion concerns the fetus: if it was born alive, it was reserved for men alone; if it was stillborn—something that aroused less desire—then all were deemed equal in consuming it. This ruling had no philosophical or rational basis; moreover, with respect to stillborn fetuses it was particularly repugnant, since such flesh is often spoiled and harmful. Third, it entailed a blatant discrimination between men and women: what was considered good was restricted to men, while what was deemed inferior was shared with women. After recounting this ignorant practice, the Qur’an concludes with the statement: God will soon recompense them for the descriptions they have fabricated (سَیَجْزِیْهِمْ وَصْفَهُمْ). The expression “وَصْف” alludes to the descriptions they forged for God, ascribing to Him the prohibition of such foods; it may also refer to the state and trait that, through repeated sinful conduct, attaches to the sinner and renders him deserving of punishment. At the end of the verse it is said: He is All‑Wise, All‑Knowing (إِنَّهُ حَکِیمٌ عَلِیمٌ)—fully aware of their deeds, words, and false accusations, and He will punish them accordingly.

In the preceding few verses, discussion concerned the frivolous rulings and reprehensible and shameful customs of the Arabs of the Age of Ignorance. Among these were the killing of their children as sacrifices for idols, the burying alive of their daughters in the name of preserving tribal and familial honor, and the declaration of certain lawful blessings as unlawful. In this verse, all of these practices and rulings are condemned with great severity and declared crimes, through seven different expressions—phrased in concise sentences that are nevertheless highly forceful and arresting—in which their true nature is made clear. It is first stated that those who killed their children out of foolishness, ignorance, and lack of understanding have surely suffered loss; they have incurred loss from the human and moral perspective, from the standpoint of feeling and conscience, from the social and communal viewpoint, and, above all, they have suffered the greatest spiritual loss in the Hereafter (قَدْ خَسِرَ الَّذِیْنَ قَتَلُوا أَوْلَادَهُمْ سَفَهًا بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ). In this sentence their act is characterized, first, as loss and ruin, then as foolishness and lack of reason, and finally as ignorance. Each one of these descriptions, taken alone, is sufficient to show the enormity of their wrongdoing. What kind of reason permits a man to kill his own child with his own hands? And is it not the height of folly and stupidity that a person should feel no shame at such an act, but rather take pride in it and count it as worship? What kind of knowledge allows such an act to be accepted as a custom or as a law within a society? It is at this point that the statement of Ibn ʿAbbās comes to mind, who used to say: whoever wishes to know the measure of the backwardness of the peoples of the Age of Ignorance should read the verses of Sūrat al‑Anʿām (that is, the verses under discussion). The Qurʾān then states that they declared unlawful for themselves what God had provided for them as sustenance and had made lawful for them, and they fabricated a lie against God by claiming that God Himself had forbidden it (وَ حَرَّمُوا مَا رَزَقَهُمُ اللّٰهُ افْتِرَاءً عَلَى اللّٰهِ). In this clause, their act is condemned as criminal through two additional expressions: first, they declared unlawful a blessing that God had granted them as provision—indeed, something essential for their very survival—thereby trampling underfoot God’s law; second, they forged a lie against God by attributing this prohibition to Him, whereas this was never so. At the end of the verse, they are condemned through two further descriptions. It is first said: they have indeed gone astray (قَدْ ضَلُّوا). Then it is added: and they were never rightly guided (وَ مَا كَانُوا مُهْتَدِينَ). In this way, the verse presents a comprehensive portrayal of their deviation, both in thought and in practice, and of the profound misguidance and loss in which they were entangled.

In this noble verse several matters are alluded to, each of which is in reality the consequence of the preceding one. First it is stated: God is that Being who created gardens, crops, and trees of various kinds — some of which spread over wooden trellises and draw the gaze toward themselves with their captivating appearance, and delight the human being with their delicious and blessed fruits. Some trees have no need of a trellis and, standing upon their own trunks, cast their shade over human beings and serve them with their various fruits (وَهُوَ الَّذِي أَنشَأَ جَنَّاتٍ مَّعْرُوشَاتٍ وَغَيْرَ مَعْرُوشَاتٍ). Exegetes have mentioned three possibilities regarding the words "ma'rush" and "ghayr ma'rush": First — as alluded to above — trees that cannot stand on their own and require trellises, and trees that have the capacity to stand without one. (For "arsh" lexically means to spread and refers to every spread-out thing — which is why a roof or a raised throne is also called "'arsh.") Second — by "ma'rush" are meant cultivated garden trees that are protected with walls, and by "ghayr ma'rush" wild and mountain trees. Third — "ma'rush" is a tree that stands upright or is raised off the ground, while "ghayr ma'rush" spreads along the ground. The first meaning, however, appears most appropriate. The mention of "ma'rushat" at the opening of the discourse is perhaps on account of the remarkable and astonishing structure of such trees — a brief glance at a grapevine, its trunk, and its spiral branches that fasten themselves to surrounding supports through specialised tendrils in order to keep themselves upright confirms our claim. Two further types of produce are then alluded to: "He likewise created date palms and crops" (وَالنَّخْلَ وَالزَّرْعَ). The specific mention of these two is because both are integral to human life and sustenance. (Note that "jannat" refers both to gardens and to land covered with cultivation.) It is then further stated: these trees differ from one another in fruit and taste — meaning despite growing from the same earth, each possesses a distinct flavour, fragrance, and quality not found in the others (مُخْتَلِفًا أُكُلُهُ). ("Ukul" — with a damm on the alif and sukun or damm on the kaf — refers to that which is eaten, from the root "akl" meaning eating.) Two further varieties of fruit are then alluded to — both exceptionally beneficial and life-giving: "likewise there are olive and pomegranate" (وَالزَّيْتُونَ وَالرُّمَّانَ). The selection of these two is apparently because these two trees, though resembling one another in outward appearance, are completely different from one another in fruit and nutritional properties. Hence immediately thereafter it states: "they are both similar and dissimilar" (مُتَشَابِهًا وَغَيْرَ مُتَشَابِهٍ). After the mention of all these various blessings the Lord Almighty states: when their fruits ripen, eat from them — but do not forget to discharge their right at the time of harvesting (كُلُوا مِن ثَمَرِهِ إِذَا أَثْمَرَ وَآتُوا حَقَّهُ يَوْمَ حَصَادِهِ). Finally God Most High has given this command: do not be extravagant, for God does not love the extravagant (وَلَا تُسْرِفُوا إِنَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُسْرِفِينَ). "Israf" means to exceed the limit of moderation. By this word reference may be made either to extravagance in eating or to extravagance in giving — for some people are so open-handed that they squander their wealth here and there and reduce themselves and their children to poverty.

The connection of this verse to the preceding verses: in the preceding verses of this surah, discourse had taken place regarding the superstitious rulings and customs of the idol-worshippers — that those people would designate a portion of their crops and livestock for God, and held the belief that these portions must be utilised in a particular specified manner. They also considered riding certain animals to be forbidden, and would sacrifice their children for certain idols. The verse mentioned above and the verse that follows it are in reality an answer to all these superstitious rulings — for it is stated therein with full clarity: the Creator of all these blessings is God; it is He who created all the trees, livestock, and fields; and it is He who has commanded that benefit be taken from them and that there be no excess and waste. Accordingly, no one other than Him has the right to declare any thing forbidden or permissible.

The mention of "when it bears fruit" coming after the word "thamarah" — fruit — is a matter the exegetes have discussed. What is apparently intended is that as soon as fruit appears on trees and ears appear in crops, it becomes permissible and lawful to benefit from them — even if their due right has not yet been discharged. This right is to be discharged on the day of harvesting — Yawm al-Hasad. (Reflect carefully.) An elaboration on this has already appeared in the commentary on verse 99 of this same surah — please refer to it. For the traditions related to this subject see Wasa'il al-Shi'ah, Kitab al-Zakah, Abwab Zakah al-Ghallat, chapter on the undesirability of harvesting grain and cutting dates by night — Vol. 6, p. 136. As for what is meant by this right, its details are forthcoming.

As for what must be discharged on the "Yawm al-Hasad" — the day of harvest — and what is meant by it: some exegetes hold that what is intended is the obligatory zakat, namely one-tenth and one-twentieth. However, in view of the fact that this surah was revealed in Makkah and the injunction of zakat was revealed in Madinah in the second year of the Hijrah or thereafter, this view appears remote. Many traditions that have reached us from the pure Ahl al-Bayt — peace be upon them — as well as numerous traditions from the Sunni tradition as well, indicate that this is something other than zakat and refers to what should be given to those deserving persons who are present at the time of harvesting the grain or fruit, and that it has no specified quantity or minimum threshold. Accordingly, the question arises whether this injunction is obligatory or recommended. Some hold that it is obligatory — that it was incumbent upon Muslims prior to the legislation of zakat, but when the verse of zakat was revealed the former injunction was abrogated and the ruling of zakat with all its details and particulars was established in its place. However, from the traditions of the Ahl al-Bayt it is understood that this injunction has not been abrogated and remains in force to this day as a recommended — mustahabb — ruling.

This expression may be intended to indicate that the work of threshing and obtaining the agricultural produce should preferably be carried out during the day, even if this causes the needy to gather. It should not be the case that some miserly individuals, out of fear that people may find out, perform this work at night. The aḥādīth that have reached us through the Ahl al-Bayt (ʿalayhim al-salām) also emphasize and confirm this point.

See ayat 144 for tafseer.

See ayat 144 for tafseer.

This verse, as was previously indicated in brief, concerns agriculture and livestock, and serves to negate the superstitious regulations of the polytheists. In the verse preceding it, various types of crops and God‑given provisions had been discussed, and now in this verse mention is made of lawful livestock and the benefits derived from them. It first states: God is the One who has created for you, from among the cattle, animals for bearing loads and animals closer to the ground (وَمِنَ الْاٴَنْعَامِ حَمُولَةً وَفَرْشًا). (At the beginning of the verse, the conjunction wāw is for coordination, and the term jannāt mentioned in the previous verse is coordinated to it.) As lexicographers have stated, ḥamūlah is a collective noun, whose singular is not of the same morphological pattern; it is used for large load‑bearing animals such as camels and horses. The word farsh carries its usual meaning, but here it has been interpreted as referring to sheep and similar smaller animals. Apparently, the point is that such animals are closer to the ground and, in comparison with larger animals, resemble something spread out like a carpet. If sheep are grazing in a pasture and viewed from a distance, they appear as if the ground is covered with a spread, whereas a herd of camels never gives such an impression. The juxtaposition of ḥamūlah with farsh supports this interpretation. Some exegetes have also suggested another possibility: that farsh refers to spreadable items made from the wool and hair of animals, meaning that from many animals not only is load‑bearing work taken, but also household furnishings are produced from their hair. However, the first interpretation appears closer to the meaning of the verse. Thereafter, a conclusion is drawn: since all these things are God’s creation and their command rests in His power, He instructs you to eat from what He has provided for you (كُلُوا مِمَّا رَزَقَكُمُ اللهُ). He does not say “eat from these animals,” but rather “eat from whatever He has provided for you,” because lawful meat is not confined only to cattle; there are other lawful animals as well, as mentioned elsewhere. To reinforce this point and to refute the superstitious rulings of the polytheists, it is stated: do not follow the footsteps of Satan, for he is a clear enemy to you (وَلَاتَتَّبِعُوا خُطُوَاتِ الشَّيْطَانِ إِنَّهُ لَكُمْ عَدُوٌّ مُبِينٌ). This indicates that such baseless rules and customs—born of imagination, desire, and ignorance—are nothing but satanic whisperings that lead you step by step away from the truth and cause you to wander in misguidance. A noteworthy explanation of this point also appears in Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 168. In the following verse, by way of clarification, some lawful animals are enumerated—animals that serve both as beasts of burden and as sources of human food. It states: God has created for you eight pairs from among the cattle: two of sheep (male and female) and two of goats (male and female) (ثَمَانِيَةَ اَزْوَاجٍ مِنَ الضَّاْنِ اثْنَيْنِ وَمِنَ الْمَعْزِ اثْنَيْنِ). (Azواج is the plural of زوج and means pairs. It should be noted that it can apply either to a male‑female pair or to two such pairs together. The word زوج is not specific to animals; the Qur’an also states: فِيهِمَا مِن كُلِّ فَاكِهَةٍ زَوْجَانِ (Sūrat al‑Raḥmān). Accordingly, the reference here to eight pairs means four types of male animals and four corresponding types of female animals. Another interpretation mentioned is that it might refer to domestic and wild counterparts, such as domestic sheep and wild sheep, and similarly for the others.) After mentioning these four pairs, the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny is immediately instructed to ask them clearly: has God forbidden the two males, or the two females, or what the wombs of the females contain? (قُلْ اَالذَّكَرَيْنِ حَرَّمَ اَمْ الْاُٴنْثَيَيْنِ اَمَّا اشْتَمَلَتْ عَلَيْهِ اَرْحَامُ الْاُٴنْثَيَيْنِ). It then adds: inform me, with knowledge, if you are truthful (نَبِّـئُونِي بِعِلْمٍ إِنْ كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ). In the following verse, another pair is mentioned: two of camels and two of cattle. Say: which of them has He forbidden—the two males, the two females, or what the wombs of the females contain? (وَمِنَ الْإِبِلِ اثْنَيْنِ وَمِنَ الْبَقَرِ اثْنَيْنِ قُلْ اَالذَّكَرَيْنِ حَرَّمَ اَمْ الْاُٴنْثَيَيْنِ اَمَّا اشْتَمَلَتْ عَلَيْهِ اَرْحَامُ الْاُٴنْثَيَيْنِ) Since the authority to declare these animals lawful or unlawful belongs exclusively to the One who created them, as well as humanity and indeed the entire order of existence, anyone who claims their prohibition must either provide rational and definitive proof, or claim direct revelation, or demonstrate that they were personally present and witness when the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny announced such a ruling. The previous verse established that the polytheists possess no rational or revelatory evidence for the prohibition of these animals, and since they do not claim prophethood or revelation, only one possibility remains—that they were present as witnesses at the time the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny delivered the ruling. Thus it is said: or were you witnesses when God enjoined this upon you? (اَمْ كُنتُمْ شُهَدَاءَ إِذْ وَصَّاكُمُ اللهُ بِهٰذَا) Because the answer to this question is also negative, it becomes clear that they possess nothing but fabrication and slander. Hence, the verse concludes: who is more unjust than one who fabricates a lie against God in order to mislead people without knowledge? Surely God does not guide wrongdoing people (فَمَنْ اَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَىٰ عَلَى اللهِ كَذِبًا لِيُضِلَّ النَّاسَ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ إِنَّ اللهَ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ). The phrase بغير علم (“without knowledge”), in grammatical terms, may plausibly be connected to ليضلّ—that is, they were misleading people due to their ignorance. From this verse it becomes evident that attributing falsehood to God is among the gravest of injustices: injustice toward the Divine, injustice toward God’s servants, and injustice toward one’s own self. As previously explained, the expression “most unjust” indicates that a person himself chooses the causes and preliminaries of such wrongdoing; when one begins to commit injustice, God withdraws His support and guidance, and as a result the person continues to stray along the wrong path.

After this, God the Exalted, in order to distinguish the genuinely divine prohibitions from the innovations that the polytheists had inserted into the true law, commands the Prophet in this verse to say to these people plainly: in what has been revealed to me, I do not find any food prohibited for any consumer—whether male or female, young or old—except for a few items (قُلۡ لَّاۤ اَجِدُ فِیۡ مَاۤ اُوۡحِیَ اِلَیَّ مُحَرَّمًا عَلٰی طَاعِمٍ یَّطۡعَمُہٗۤ). These exceptions are, first, carrion (اِلَّاۤ اَنۡ یَّکُوۡنَ مَیۡتَۃً); second, blood that flows out of a living creature’s body (اَوۡ دَمًا مَّسۡفُوۡحًا). This excludes the blood that remains in the fine veins of the flesh after the main vessels have been cut and a large quantity of blood has drained away. Third, the flesh of swine (اَوۡ لَحۡمَ خِنۡزِیۡرٍ). This is because all of these are filth and impurity and are repugnant to the sound and healthy human disposition; they are sources of various kinds of contamination and causes of multiple harms (فَاِنَّہٗ رِجۡسٌ). Although the pronoun in اِنَّہُ is singular, many exegetes hold that it refers collectively to these three kinds of impurities (carrion, blood, and the flesh of swine), so that the meaning of the statement is: all that has been mentioned is filth. This understanding also accords best with the apparent meaning of the verse, for there is no doubt that carrion and blood, like the flesh of swine, are impure. Thereafter, pointing to a fourth type of prohibition, the verse says: or that which is sinful, over which a name other than God’s has been pronounced at the time of slaughter (اَوۡ فِسۡقًا اُہِلَّ لِغَیۡرِ اللّٰہِ بِہٖ). It is noteworthy that here the term fisq is used instead of explicitly mentioning “animal,” as was previously indicated: fisq means “departure from the path of servitude and obedience to the divine command,” and thus every sin is described as fisq. In contrast to rijs, which was used for the first three categories of unlawful foods, the use of fisq here may point to the distinction that unlawful meats are of two basic kinds. The first are those whose prohibition is based on their inherent filth, repugnance to natural human disposition, or physical harm, and to which the term rijs applies. The second are those that are neither inherently impure nor harmful from a health perspective, but are proscribed because, from a moral and spiritual standpoint, they represent separation from God and distance from the monotheistic worldview, and are therefore declared unlawful. Accordingly, one should not expect that all prohibited foods are necessarily physically harmful; at times, things are rendered unlawful because of moral or spiritual considerations. From this perspective it becomes clear that the conditions of Islamic slaughter are of two types. Some, such as the requirement that the main blood vessels be cut and that the animal’s blood be drained, incorporate considerations of physical well‑being. Others, such as facing the direction of the qiblah, pronouncing bismillāh, and the requirement that the slaughterer be a Muslim, pertain to moral and spiritual dimensions. At the end of the verse, an exception is once again made for those who are compelled by necessity and cannot find any permissible food by which to preserve their lives. In such cases, they may consume (to the extent necessary) these foods. The verse states that those who are truly compelled incur no sin, on the condition that the consumption is solely for preserving life, not for enjoyment; that it is not done while regarding the unlawful as lawful; and that they do not exceed the limit of necessity. Under such circumstances, God, the Forgiving and Merciful, will pardon them (فَمَنِ اضۡطُرَّ غَیۡرَ بَاغٍ وَّ لَا عَادٍ فَاِنَّ رَبَّکَ غَفُوۡرٌ رَّحِیۡمٌ). In reality, these two conditions—being in a state of compulsion and not exceeding the limit—exist so that some individuals do not misconstrue necessity as a license to break divine laws and use need as a pretext to step outside the bounds set by God. However, according to some reports from the Pure Household (Ahlū’l‑Bayt), additional nuances are attached to these expressions. For example, in Tafsīr al‑ʿAyyāshī, it is reported from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him): “al‑bāghī al‑ẓālim wa‑l‑ʿādī al‑ghāṣib”—“the bāghī is the oppressor and the ʿādī is the usurper.” In another report, the Imām said: “al‑bāghī al‑khārij ʿalā al‑imām wa‑l‑ʿādī al‑liṣṣ”—“the bāghī is one who rebels against the just Imam and the Islamic authority, and the ʿādī is the thief.” Reports of this nature seem to point to the fact that the need to consume unlawful meat usually arises during travel; therefore, if a person undertakes a journey for purposes of oppression, aggression, or theft, and lawful food becomes scarce, then consumption of unlawful meat would not be permitted as an exemption, insofar as such a person has himself created the circumstances that led to this predicament. Nevertheless, these reports remain fully compatible with the general meaning of the verse.

Here a question arises: why is it that, with regard to foods, all divine prohibitions appear to be confined to four categories, whereas it is well known that unlawful foods are not limited to these four alone? The flesh of predatory animals, the flesh of aquatic creatures (other than fish with scales), and the flesh of various other harmful animals are also unlawful; yet none of these are mentioned in the verse under discussion, and the prohibitions are restricted to only four items. Some have responded to this question by saying that this verse is Meccan, and that at that time the other items had not yet been declared unlawful. This answer does not appear convincing, however, because virtually the same wording, or wording very close to it, is also found in some Medinan sūrahs, such as al‑Baqarah, verse 173. Apparently, the correct explanation is that this verse is directed specifically at the superstitious and groundless prohibitions invented by the polytheists. In technical terms, the confinement here is an “additional” or “relative” restriction (ḥaṣr iḍāfī). In other words, the meaning of the verse is that the divine prohibitions are these items, not the ones that you have fabricated on your own. To clarify this point further, it is not inappropriate to give an example. Suppose someone asks us whether both Ḥasan and Ḥusayn came. We reply: no, only Ḥasan came. Our intention here is merely to negate the coming of the second person (Ḥusayn); we are not concerned with whether other individuals, who fall outside the scope of the question, came or not. Even if others did come, our answer would still be correct. This is what is meant by an additional (or relative) restriction. It should be noted, however, that restriction is usually real and absolute, unless there exists an indicator to the contrary, as in the verse under discussion.

See ayat 147 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses only four categories of prohibited animals were mentioned, but in these verses attention is drawn to some of the things that were made unlawful for the Jews, in order to make it clear that the absurd and superstitious rulings of the idolaters were not compatible either with the Islamic dispensation or with the Jewish law (nor with the Christian law, which largely followed the Jewish dispensation). Moreover, these verses explicitly state that such prohibitions for the Jews carried the character of punishment and retribution; had they not violated the divine commands, these things would not have been made unlawful for them. Accordingly, it is entirely justified to ask the idolaters: from where did you derive such rulings? Thus it first says: We made unlawful for the Jews every animal possessing claws or undivided hoofs (وَ عَلَی الَّذِیۡنَ ہَادُوۡا حَرَّمۡنَا کُلَّ ذِیۡ ظُفُرٍ). The term ẓufur (on the pattern of “shatar”) originally means claw, but it is also used for the hoofs of animals whose hoofs are not split, unlike sheep and cattle whose hoofs are cloven in the middle. Likewise, the foot of the camel has a single, solid tip without a split, and for this reason the term ẓufur is applied to it as well. From the above verse it is therefore understood that all animals whose hoofs are not cloven, or which possess claws—whether quadrupeds or birds—were forbidden to the Jews. From the present Torah as well, specifically Leviticus chapter 11, a similar meaning is obtained in summary, as it states that among animals, those that have cloven hoofs entirely split and that chew the cud may be eaten, but those that chew the cud while their hoofs are not fully split should not be eaten; the camel, although it chews the cud, is unclean because its hoof is not fully cloven. From the subsequent phrase of the verse (in which only cattle and sheep are mentioned) it is also evident that the camel was completely forbidden to the Jews (reflect on this). It then states: and from cattle and sheep We made unlawful for them their fats (وَ مِنَ الۡبَقَرِ وَ الۡغَنَمِ حَرَّمۡنَا عَلَیۡہِمۡ شُحُوۡمَہُمَاۤ). Immediately thereafter, three exceptions are mentioned: first, the fat carried on their backs (اِلَّا مَا حَمَلَتۡ ظُہُوۡرُہُمَاۤ); second, the fat found in the flanks and within the folds around the intestines (اَوِ الۡحَوَایَاۤ). The word ḥawāyā is the plural of ḥāwiyah (on the pattern of “zāwiyah”) and refers to that cavity which contains all the contents of the belly in a rounded form, with the intestines inside it; third, the fat that is attached to the bones (اَوۡ مَا اخۡتَلَطَ بِعَظۡمٍ). At the end of the verse it is explicitly stated that these things were not intrinsically unlawful for the Jews, but because they committed oppression and wrongdoing, God deprived them—by His command—of such meats and fats that they found desirable (ذٰلِکَ جَزَیۡنٰہُمۡ بِبَغۡیِہِمۡ). For further emphasis it is added: this is indeed the truth, and We speak the truth (وَ اِنَّا لَصٰدِقُوۡنَ).

Several important points 1. The Children of Israel committed acts of oppression and injustice for which God, as a punishment, declared unlawful for them some of the blessings that had previously been permitted to them. There has been discussion among exegetes on this matter, but what is apparent from Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ, verses 160 and 161, is that this prohibition resulted from several factors: oppression of the weak classes and preventing them from the guidance of the divine prophets, the practice of usury, and the unlawful consumption of people’s wealth. As it is stated: فَبِظُلْمٍ مِّنَ الَّذِینَ هَادُوا۟ حَرَّمۡنَا عَلَیۡهِمۡ طَیِّبَٰتٍ أُحِلَّتۡ لَهُمۡ وَبِصَدِّهِمۡ عَن سَبِیلِ ٱللَّهِ كَثِیرًا وَأَخۡذِهِمُ ٱلرِّبَوٰا۟ وَقَدۡ نُهُوا۟ عَنۡهُ وَأَكۡلِهِمۡ أَمۡوَٰلَ ٱلنَّاسِ بِٱلۡبَٰطِلِ (al‑Nisāʾ 4:160). 2. The phrase وَإِنَّا لَصَادِقُونَ that appears at the end of the verse may indicate that what We have stated regarding the prohibition of those foods is the reality, not what the Jews claim when they attribute those prohibitions to Jacob (Yaʿqūb). It has already been mentioned in Āl ʿImrān, verse 93, that Jacob never commanded those items to be unlawful; rather, this is a false attribution that the Jews make against him. (For further clarification, see Tafsīr‑e Namūnah, vol. 3, under Āl ʿImrān 3:93.) Because stubbornness was prominent among the Jews and the polytheists, and there was the possibility that they would persist in their position and deny the Prophet, the following verse commands God’s Messenger: if they deny you, then say to them that your Lord possesses vast mercy and does not hasten to punish you; rather, He grants respite so that perhaps you may turn back from your errors, feel remorse for what you have done, and return to God (فَاِنۡ كَذَّبُوكَ فَقُلۡ رَبُّكُمۡ ذُو رَحۡمَةٍ وَاسِعَةٍ). But if, despite the respite granted by God, you continue to exploit it unjustly and persist in your false accusations, then know that God will surely bring you to recompense, because His punishment is not turned away from a people of criminals (وَلَا يُرَدُّ بَأۡسُهُ عَنِ ٱلۡقَوۡمِ ٱلۡمُجۡرِمِينَ). This verse clearly demonstrates the grandeur of Qurʾānic teachings: even after explaining so many acts of disobedience on the part of the Jews and the polytheists, God does not immediately threaten them with punishment; rather, with compassionate expressions such as رَبُّكُم (“your Lord”) and ذُو رَحۡمَةٍ وَاسِعَةٍ (“possessor of vast mercy”), He opens the door of return for them, so that if even a small capacity for remorse remains within them, they may be encouraged and return to the truth. At the same time, He also warns them of His decisive punishment, lest God’s boundless mercy become a cause for their audacity and rebellion. Provide your feedback on BizChat

See ayat 150 for tafseer.

See ayat 150 for tafseer.

“Evading responsibility by invoking determinism (jabr)” In the preceding verses, the statements of the polytheists are cited, and in that context attention is drawn to the weakness of their arguments and to the responses to them. It first states: in reply to the objections raised against the polytheists regarding shirk and the prohibition of lawful sustenance, they will soon say to you that if God had so willed, neither we nor our forefathers would have been idol‑worshippers, and we would not have declared anything unlawful; therefore, whatever we say or do is by God’s will, and this is what He Himself desires (سَیَقُوۡلُ الَّذِیۡنَ اَشۡرَکُوۡا لَوۡ شَآءَ اللّٰہُ مَاۤ اَشۡرَکۡنَا وَ لَاۤ اٰبَآؤُنَا وَ لَا حَرَّمۡنَا مِنۡ شَیۡءٍ). Similar expressions are also found elsewhere in the Qur’an, such as in Sūrah al‑Naḥl, verse 35, and in Sūrah al‑Zukhruf, verse 20. From these verses it becomes clear that the polytheists, like many other sinners, sought to evade their responsibilities by resorting to the doctrine of determinism and were unwilling to accept accountability for their acts of disobedience. In reality, they held a deterministic view and said that whatever they did was by God’s will and in accordance with His decree; had He not willed it, such actions would not have issued from them. By asserting this, they intended to absolve themselves of all sins. Otherwise, every person’s own conscience testifies that human beings are free in their actions and not compelled. This is why, if injustice is done to them, they become distressed, hold the wrongdoer accountable, and, if they possess power, may even exact retribution. All of this demonstrates that they regard the offender as acting freely and by choice, and therefore deserving of punishment (this point merits reflection). Another possible meaning of the verse is that they claimed God’s silence in the face of idol‑worship and the prohibition of certain animals signified His approval, for had He not been pleased He could have prevented them from such reprehensible acts in some way. By adding “وَ لَاۤ اٰبَآؤُنَا,” they sought to give their erroneous beliefs an appearance of antiquity and continuity, suggesting that this was not a new matter but one adopted by earlier peoples as well. But what was the outcome? Those earlier peoples were ultimately seized by the consequences of their misdeeds and tasted divine punishment: “کَذٰلِکَ کَذَّبَ الَّذِیۡنَ مِنۡ قَبۡلِہِمۡ حَتّٰی ذَاقُوۡا بَاۡسَنَا”. In truth, by these claims they were both lying and denying the prophets, for the divine messengers explicitly forbade humankind in every era to engage in idol‑worship, shirk, and the declaration of God’s lawful things as unlawful. Neither their forefathers nor they themselves paid heed. Under such circumstances, how could it be imagined that God was pleased with their practices? Had He been pleased, why would He have sent His prophets to call people to tawḥīd? Indeed, the very mission of the prophets constitutes a decisive proof that human beings possess free will and choice. Thereafter it is said: say to them, do you in fact possess any definite and certain knowledge to support this claim of yours? If so, why do you not produce it for us? (قُلۡ ہَلۡ عِنۡدَکُمۡ مِّنۡ عِلۡمٍ فَتُخۡرِجُوۡہُ لَنَا). Finally, it adds: you possess no proof whatsoever to substantiate this claim; you follow nothing but conjecture, and you are merely fabricating (اِنۡ تَتَّبِعُوۡنَ اِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَ اِنۡ اَنۡتُمۡ اِلَّا تَخۡرُصُوۡنَ). In the following verse, another argument is presented to invalidate the polytheists’ claim: say that God has established, through His prophets and also through human reason, clear and correct proofs concerning tawḥīd and divine unity, as well as regarding the rulings of lawful and unlawful, such that after these proofs no excuse remains for anyone (قُلۡ فَلِلّٰہِ الۡحُجَّۃُ الۡبَالِغَۃُ). Therefore, they cannot claim that God, through His silence, has endorsed their illegitimate beliefs and practices, nor can they claim compulsion in their actions; for if they were compelled, then the establishment of proof, the sending of prophets, and their calls and preaching would all be rendered futile. The very establishment of proof is itself evidence of free will. It should also be noted that the word ḥujjah is linguistically derived from ḥajj, meaning intention or setting out; the clear road on which one intends to walk is called maḥajjah. For this reason, proof and argument are also called ḥujjah, because the one who presents such evidence intends thereby to establish his claim over others. Reflecting on the adjective bālighah (“conclusive, reaching to the end”) makes it clear that God has presented to all human beings—through reason and transmission, through intellect and understanding, and through the messengers—proofs that are clear in every respect and penetrating to every mind, so that no room for denial remains. Accordingly, God rendered His prophets immune from every form of sin and error, so that the messages they brought would remove every kind of doubt and uncertainty. At the end of the verse it is stated: if God had so willed, He could have guided all of you by force (فَلَوۡ شَآءَ لَهَدٰىكُمۡ اَجۡمَعِیۡنَ). In reality, this sentence points out that it is entirely possible for God to guide all human beings coercively, such that no servant would possess the power to oppose Him; yet it is evident that in such a case neither faith nor deeds nurtured under the shadow of compelled belief would retain any value. Rather, the secret of excellence and human development lies in walking the path of guidance and piety by one’s own steps, and traversing this journey through one’s own choice and free will. Hence, there is no contradiction between this statement and the preceding verses that negate compulsion; the statement simply means that compelling servants in their actions—as the polytheists claimed—lies within God’s power, but God will never do so because it would be contrary to divine wisdom and to human welfare. The truth is that these people made divine power and will a pretext for adopting the doctrine of determinism, whereas God’s will and power are both true but do not necessitate compulsion. He wills that we remain free and traverse the path of truth by our own choice. In Kitāb al‑Kāfī, it is reported from Imām Mūsā al‑Kāẓim (peace be upon him) that he said: “اِنَّ اللّٰہَ عَلَی النَّاسِ حُجَّتَیۡنِ حُجَّۃً ظَاہِرَۃً وَ حُجَّۃً بَاطِنَۃً، فَاَمَّا الظَّاہِرَۃُ فَالرُّسُلُ وَ الاَنۡبِیَآءُ وَ الاَئِمَّۃُ، وَ اَمَّا الۡبَاطِنَۃُ فَالۡعُقُوۡلُ”. This report does not mean that al‑ḥujjah al‑bālighah refers only to discourse on the Day of Resurrection; rather, God has many conclusive proofs, in this world and in the Hereafter, one instance of which is mentioned in the above tradition, for God’s conclusive proof is vast in scope in both realms. Thereafter, in order to further clarify the claims of the polytheists and to judge them according to proper principles, they are invited to present reliable witnesses, if any, to testify that God has indeed rendered unlawful those animals and crops whose prohibition they claim. Thus it is said: say, O Prophet, bring forward your witnesses who testify that God has prohibited this (قُلۡ ہَلُمَّ شُہَدَآءَکُمُ الَّذِیۡنَ یَشۡہَدُوۡنَ اَنَّ اللّٰہَ حَرَّمَ ہٰذَا). It is then added: if they claim to testify (which they will never be able to do legitimately) and rely only on their own assertions, then never join them in their testimony nor testify in accordance with their claims (فَاِنۡ شَہِدُوۡا فَلَا تَشۡہَدۡ مَعَہُمۡ). From what has been explained, it should be evident that there is no inconsistency or contradiction within the verse: the initial request for witnesses, followed by the command not to accept their testimony, is unobjectionable. The purpose is to demonstrate that they are incapable of producing definitive and reliable witnesses, since they possess no evidence from divine prophets or revealed scriptures; instead, they merely testify on their own behalf, and such testimony is plainly inadmissible. Moreover, other indications clearly show that all these self‑fabricated rulings were concocted solely under the sway of caprice and blind imitation, and therefore possess no validity whatsoever. Hence, the following statement declares: do not follow the desires of those who deny Our signs, who do not believe in the Hereafter, and who set up equals with their Lord (وَ لَا تَتَّبِعۡ اَہۡوَآءَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَذَّبُوۡا بِاٰیٰتِنَا وَ الَّذِیۡنَ لَا یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ بِالۡاٰخِرَۃِ وَ ہُمۡ بِرَبِّہِمۡ یَعۡدِلُوۡنَ). That is, their idol‑worship, denial of the Hereafter, superstitious customs, and indulgence in desires stand as vivid testimony that these rulings are self‑made, and that the prohibitions they ascribe to God are entirely baseless and devoid of significance.

See ayat 153 for tafseer.

See ayat 153 for tafseer.

After rejecting the self‑fabricated prohibitions of the polytheists that were mentioned in the preceding verses, these three verses point to the foundational prohibitions of Islam and to the foremost category of major sins. These matters are presented in ten points, using concise, weighty, and appealing language, and the polytheists are invited to come and listen to the true divine prohibitions and to abandon the false ones. It first states: say to them, “Come, so that I may recite to you what your Lord has prohibited for you and enumerate them” (قُلۡ تَعَالَوۡا اَتۡلُ مَا حَرَّمَ رَبُّکُمۡ عَلَیۡکُمۡ). And they are as follows: 1. That you associate nothing with God (اَلَّا تُشۡرِکُوۡا بِہٖ شَیۡئًا). 2. That you show kindness to parents (وَّ بِالۡوَالِدَیۡنِ اِحۡسَانًا). 3. That you do not kill your children because of poverty (وَ لَا تَقۡتُلُوۡۤا اَوۡلَادَکُمۡ مِّنۡ اِمۡلَاقٍ), because the provision of both you and them lies with Us, and it is We who provide sustenance for all (نَحۡنُ نَرۡزُقُکُمۡ وَ اِیَّاہُمۡ). 4. That you do not approach indecent acts, whether they are outward or hidden—in other words, not only must evil deeds themselves be avoided, but even approaching them is forbidden (وَ لَا تَقۡرَبُوا الۡفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَہَرَ مِنۡہَا وَ مَا بَطَنَ). 5. That you do not stain your hands with the blood of the innocent, and that you do not kill any soul which God has declared inviolable, except by right, that is, in accordance with divine law (for example, in the case of a proven murderer) (وَلَا تَقۡتُلُوا النَّفۡسَ الَّتِی حَرَّمَ اللّٰہُ اِلَّا بِالۡحَقِّ). After stating these five prohibitions, further emphasis is added by saying: these are the matters which God has enjoined upon you, so that you may understand them well and refrain from committing them (ذَلِکُمۡ وَصَّاکُمۡ بِہِ لَعَلَّکُمۡ تَعۡقِلُوۡنَ). 6. That you do not approach the property of the orphan, except with the intention of reform and in the best manner, until he reaches maturity (وَلَا تَقۡرَبُوا مَالَ الۡیَتِیۡمِ اِلَّا بِالَّتِیۡ ہِیَ اَحۡسَنُ حَتّٰی یَبۡلُغَ اَشُدَّہٗ). 7. That you do not engage in fraud by giving short measure or weight, and that you give full measure and weight with justice (وَاَوۡفُوا الۡکَیۡلَ وَ الۡمِیۡزَانَ بِالۡقِسۡطِ). Since there is the concern that even after taking precautions a slight discrepancy may still remain—something that sometimes cannot be detected by ordinary scales and measures—it is immediately added: We do not burden any soul beyond its capacity (لَا نُکَلِّفُ نَفۡسًا اِلَّا وُسۡعَہَا). 8. That whenever you speak—whether when passing judgment, giving testimony, or saying anything at all—you uphold truth and justice and do not deviate from the path of fairness, even if it concerns your own relatives and even if speaking the truth brings them harm (وَاِذَا قُلۡتُمۡ فَاعۡدِلُوۡا وَ لَوۡ کَانَ ذَا قُرۡبٰی). 9. That you fulfill the covenant of God and do not break it (وَبِعَہۡدِ اللّٰہِ اَوۡفُوۡا). With regard to what is meant by the covenant of God, exegetes have mentioned multiple possibilities, but the meaning of the verse is general and encompasses all divine covenants, whether creational or legislative, as well as divine obligations and every kind of pledge, vow, or oath. For further emphasis, after mentioning these four commandments, it is said: these are the matters which God enjoins upon you, so that you may remember (ذَلِکُمۡ وَصَّاکُمۡ بِہِ لَعَلَّکُمۡ تَذَکَّرُوۡنَ). 10. And that this is My straight path—the path of monotheism, the path of truth and justice, the path of purity and piety—so follow it, and do not follow crooked and divergent paths, for they will lead you away from God’s path and will sow the seeds of discord and division among you (وَاَنَّ ہٰذَا صِرَاطِیۡ مُسۡتَقِیۡمًا فَاتَّبِعُوۡہُ ۚ وَ لَا تَتَّبِعُوا السُّبُلَ فَتَفَرَّقَ بِکُمۡ عَنۡ سَبِیۡلِہٖ). At the end of all this, a third emphatic statement is made: these are the matters which God enjoins upon you, so that you may become God‑fearing (ذَلِکُمۡ وَصَّاکُمۡ بِہِ لَعَلَّکُمۡ تَتَّقُوۡنَ).

It is noteworthy that among these ten injunctions the sequence begins with the prohibition of shirk, which is the root of all divine prohibitions and of all social evils, and it concludes with the negation of division and schism, which may be regarded as a form of practical shirk. This indicates that the issue of tawḥīd occupies a position of fundamental importance in all the principles and subsidiary rulings of Islam, because tawḥīd is not merely a single doctrinal principle but rather the living spirit that animates and governs all Islamic teachings.

At the end of each of these three verses, by way of emphasis, the expression ذٰلِكُمۡ وَصَّىٰكُم بِهِ (“this is that which God enjoins upon you”) appears. The only difference is that the first verse concludes with لَعَلَّكُمۡ تَعۡقِلُوۡنَ, the second with لَعَلَّكُمۡ تَذَكَّرُوۡنَ, and the third with a different closing expression. Each of these formulations is meaningful in its own place and seems to point to the fact that, at certain stages, the first requirement for accepting a command is taʿaqqul (rational understanding and comprehension), while at another stage it is tadhakkur (remembrance and mindful reflection). Indeed, principles of eloquence and rhetoric required that these emphatic clauses be distributed and interwoven among the ten commandments in this manner.

Perhaps it hardly needs to be emphasized that the ten injunctions mentioned above are not exclusive to the Islamic dispensation alone; rather, they were present in all revealed religions, although Islam has discussed them in greater detail. In reality, these are precepts whose benefit is fully apprehended by reason and rational reflection. In technical terms, they can be described as belonging to the category of “independent rational principles” (al‑mustaqillāt al‑ʿaqliyyah). Accordingly, when the Qurʾān mentions certain ordinances of earlier prophets, reference to these very injunctions is also found there (al‑Shūrā, verse 13).

It is haram, even though it is fully consistent with the other prohibitions mentioned in this verse; rather, it has been expressed under the heading of iḥsān (benevolence). That is, not only is causing them harm forbidden, but beyond that, showing kindness to them is obligatory and necessary. A noteworthy linguistic point here is that the word iḥsān has been made transitive with the preposition bi- and it is stated “وَّ بِالۡوَالِدَیۡنِ اِحۡسَانًا”, not with ilā. This is because when iḥsān is made transitive with ilā, it merely means to do good, even indirectly; whereas when iḥsān is made transitive with bi-, it signifies doing good directly and personally. Accordingly, the verse emphasizes that kindness toward one’s parents is a matter of such importance that it should be carried out personally and without intermediaries.

From this verse it is understood that, in the Age of Ignorance, the Arabs not only buried their daughters alive out of misguided notions of honor and pride, but even killed their sons—who in that era were regarded as symbols of dignity and prestige—out of fear of poverty and hardship. In this verse, by calling attention to God’s vast table of provision, from which even the weakest of creatures benefit, God the Exalted forbade this heinous act. It must be said with deep regret that this “practice of the Age of Ignorance” is also found in our own time, albeit in another form, for some people, out of fear of scarcity of food, destroy innocent children while they are still in the state of a fetus, killing them in the womb of the mother. Although in contemporary times other baseless arguments are also advanced for permitting abortion, fear of poverty and lack of sustenance is among the most prominent. This fact, and other similar phenomena, are clear manifestations of the recurrence of the Age of Ignorance in our own era; indeed, the “ignorance of the twentieth century” is even more horrific and far more extensive than the pre‑Islamic ignorance. Provide your feedback on BizChat

- What is meant by fawāḥish? - "Fawāḥish" is the plural of "fāḥishah." It means a sin that is extraordinary and abominable. Therefore, although breaking a covenant, giving short measure, shirk, and other similar sins are from among the major sins, their mention in comparison to fawāḥish is with regard to this same difference in meaning.

In the aforementioned verses, the expression *lā taqrabū* (do not go near) has been used in two places. This is also repeated in the Holy Quran for certain other sins. It appears that this expression is used for those sins that incite passions and entice common individuals. Such as "adultery and indecency" and devouring the wealth of weak orphans. Similarly, there are other such sins. Therefore, Allah the Exalted has warned people not to go near these sins, so that you do not fall under the sway of their alluring effects.

There is no doubt that the words "apparent and hidden" include every type of sin, but in some hadiths, it is narrated from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (peace be upon him) that he said: "ما ظہر ہوالزنا و ما بطن ہو المحالة" "'Apparent sin' means fornication, and 'hidden sin' means that a person secretly keeps a mistress." It is clear that the mention of such instances is as a specific example, not that the aforementioned category is exclusively limited to this.

In the Torah, Chapter 20, "Book of Exodus," one encounters the Ten Commandments for the Jews, which are famous among the Jews as the "Ten Commandments." They begin from the second verse of this chapter and end at the seventh. If these ten commandments and the ten commandments mentioned above from the Quran are compared, it becomes clear that there is a considerable difference between the two. However, it cannot be ascertained with certainty that this portion of the Torah has remained safe from alteration and that no change or modification has been made to it, as has been done to some of its other parts. But what is certain is that these ten commandments that are present in the Torah today, although they contain necessary matters, are much lower than the level of the aforementioned verses in terms of scope, and morally, socially, and from the perspective of creed.

10. How these few verses changed the condition of Madinah How these few verses changed the condition of Madinah: In the book "Bihar al-Anwar" and similarly in the book "A'lam al-Wara", an interesting story is found in this regard, which shows how deeply the aforementioned verses influenced people's hearts! We also narrate this incident in summary, as it is present in Bihar al-Anwar from the narration of Ali bin Ibrahim: Two men from the Khazraj tribe, As'ad bin Zurarah and Dhakwan bin Abd al-Qays, once came to Makkah. At that time, a prolonged war was raging between the Aws and Khazraj, such that they would not unfasten their weapons from their waists at any time, day or night. Their last battle was known as the "Day of Bu'ath". They had come to form a treaty against the Aws tribe. When both of them reached the house of 'Utbah bin Rahbah and stated the purpose of their visit, 'Utbah said in reply to them: Our city is located quite far from your city (Madinah), so it is difficult for us to help you. Moreover, a new problem has arisen for us which has completely preoccupied us. As'ad asked: What problem is that? You live in the sanctuary of the Ka'bah, which is a place of peace and security! 'Utbah replied: A man has appeared among us who says: I am God's messenger. He belittles our intellects and speaks ill of our gods. He has corrupted our youth and shattered our unity. As'ad inquired: What is this person's relation to you? He said: He is the son of Abdullah bin Abd al-Muttalib and a distinguished individual from our noble families. Hearing this, As'ad and Dhakwan fell into thought and recalled that they had been hearing from the Jews of Madinah that a prophet was soon to appear from Makkah and would migrate to Madinah. As'ad said to himself, "Could it be that this is the same prophet whose coming the Jews had foretold?" After that, he asked: Where is he? 'Utbah said: He is currently sitting near the House of God in the Hijr Isma'il. These days, his followers are besieged in a mountain pass. They are only given freedom in the month of Rajab, which is the time for Hajj and 'Umrah, so that they can perform 'Umrah and come among the people. But I advise you not to fall for his words and not to speak to him at all, because he is also a strange magician. This was at a time when the polytheists of Makkah had confined the Muslims in the valley of Abu Talib, laying a siege and not letting them come out. As'ad said to 'Utbah: What should I do now? I have entered the state of ihram to circumambulate the Ka'bah, so it is necessary to perform the tawaf, and you are telling me not to even go near him? 'Utbah replied: Block your ears with a little cotton so that you cannot hear anything that person says. As'ad reached the Masjid al-Haram. He had blocked his ears with cotton. In this state, he began to circumambulate the Ka'bah. At that time, the Noble Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, was sitting with people from the Banu Hashim in the Hijr Isma'il near the Ka'bah. As'ad cast a furtive glance at the Prophet (PBUH) and quickly passed by him. When he reached the second round of the tawaf, he said to himself: There can be no one more foolish than I. Is it possible that such a major event could occur in Makkah, be on the tongues of the people of Makkah, and I remain unaware of it and, upon returning to Madinah, be unable to tell my people anything about it? As soon as this thought came to him, he took the cotton out of his ears, threw it away, and went and stood before the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny. Then he asked: To what do you invite us? The Prophet replied: I invite to the fact that God is One, with no partner, and that I am His Messenger. I also invite people to these matters... After that, he recited the three aforementioned verses, which contain ten commandments. When As'ad heard these meaningful and soul-nourishing words, which resonated with his heart and soul, his state was transformed. The words spontaneously flowed from his tongue: ”اشہد ان لا الٰہ الّا اللّٰہ و انّک رسول اللّٰہ“. O Messenger of Allah! May my mother and father be sacrificed for you. I am an inhabitant of Yathrib and belong to the "Khazraj" tribe. Our relationship with our brothers, the "Aws" tribe, has been broken due to prolonged wars. Perhaps the Gracious Lord will mend this broken bond again through your blessing. O Prophet of God! We had heard of your attributes from the Jewish people. They always used to give news of your appearance. It is our wish that our city, "Madinah", becomes your place of migration, because this is what the Jews have told us after looking in their heavenly books. I thank Allah for giving me the opportunity to come into your presence. By God! I had come with the intention of seeking help from the people of Makkah in the war against our brothers, but the Gracious Lord has granted me a success greater than that. After that, his companion Dhakwan also became a Muslim, and both of them requested the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny, that a person...and send him with them to Madinah so that he may teach the people the Quran and invite them towards Islam; perhaps in this way, this raging fire of war might be extinguished. Accordingly, the Holy Prophet sent Mus'ab ibn 'Umayr with them to Madinah, and from that time, the foundation of Islam was laid in Madinah, which changed the face of Madinah. This entire incident occurred due to the blessing of the three aforementioned verses. (Reference: Bihar al-Anwar, new edition, vol. 15, pp. 900-910)

See ayat 157 for tafseer.

See ayat 157 for tafseer.

See ayat 157 for tafseer.

The preceding verses discussed the ten fundamental commandments of Islam, which are, in fact, the root principles of many Islamic injunctions. And from an expression such as: “انَّ ہٰذَا صِرَاطِی مُستَقِیماً فَاتَّبِعُوہُ” (This is My straight path, so follow it), it emerges that these commandments were not specific to any particular religion. This is especially so because they are all foundational commandments that are well-supported by the human intellect. Therefore, the purpose of the preceding verses is to state those commandments that were prevalent and included not only in Islam but also in previous religions. In connection with these, in these verses, Allah states that "Then We gave Musa the heavenly Book," and for those who were doers of good, obedient to Our command, and followers of the truth, We perfected Our favor (ثُمَّ اٰتَیۡنَا مُوۡسَی الۡکِتٰبَ تَمَامًا عَلَی الَّذِیۡۤ اَحۡسَنَ). From what we have stated, the meaning of the word "Thumma" (which in the Arabic language is generally used for conjunction or sequence) should have become clear. The meaning of the verse will now be: First, We delivered these universal commandments to the preceding prophets, and after that, We bestowed the heavenly Book upon Musa and clarified in it the code of conduct and other necessary laws. In this way, there remains no need for the various weak interpretations that some commentators have mentioned in the context of "Thumma." Incidentally, the point has also become clear that "الَّذِیۡۤ اَحۡسَنَ" is intended to refer to all individuals who are doers of good and are ready to accept the word of truth and the divine command. And in it (the Torah), everything that they needed and that could be useful in the path of human progress was detailed (وَ تَفۡصِیۡلًا لِّکُلِّ شَیۡءٍ). Furthermore, this book that was revealed to Musa was a source of guidance and mercy (وَّ ہُدًی وَّ رَحۡمَۃً). All these matters were so that these people might believe in the Day of Judgment and the day of meeting the Lord, and so that by believing in the Day of Resurrection, their speech and conduct might become pure (لَّعَلَّہُمۡ بِلِقَآءِ رَبِّہِمۡ یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ). It is possible that a question may be raised here: if the law of Prophet Musa was complete in every way (as the word "tamāman" indicates), then what was the need for the law of Prophet Isa after it, and then the law of Islam after that? However, attention should be paid to the fact that every law is comprehensive and complete within the limits of its own era, and it is impossible for an imperfect law to be revealed by the Gracious Lord. But this very law, which was complete for its time, may be incomplete and imperfect for subsequent eras, just as a curriculum that is completely perfect for primary school is imperfect for secondary school. This is the secret behind why different prophets with their books were sent gradually in different eras until this chain ended with the final Prophet and the final Book. Indeed, when humanity developed the capacity to accept the final law and that law was revealed by God, then there remains no need for any other law. This is just like individuals who have graduated can make further academic progress through study based on their knowledge. Therefore, the followers of such a religion will not need a new law because they will find sufficient paths for action and advancement through this final law itself. It is also understood from this verse that matters related to the Resurrection were present to a great extent in the original Torah, whereas we now see that in the present Torah and its other books, these matters are next to nothing. It seems that in this matter as well, those worldly Jews, who were inclined to speak and hear little about the Resurrection, have made significant distortions. Yes, in the current versions of the Torah, a few brief references to the Resurrection exist, but they are so few that it has given some individuals the opportunity to say that Jews, in principle, do not believe in the Day of Judgment. However, from a knowledgeable perspective, this claim is closer to an exaggeration. Finally, we wish to draw attention to one more matter, which is that previously, in the first volume (with reference to Tafsir-e-Namoona, Vol. 1, (Urdu translation) p. 183), we have clearly explained that the "meeting" with the Lord that is repeatedly mentioned in the Holy Quran does not mean a "sensory meeting," nor does it mean being seen with the eyes. Rather, it refers to a kind of "inner vision and spiritual meeting" that one will face in the Hereafter in return for one's deeds. The subsequent verse points to the revelation of the Quran and its teachings, completes the discussion of the preceding verse, and states: This is a Book that We have revealed, a Book that is magnificent and blessed, and a source of various virtues and goodness (وَ ہٰذَا کِتٰبٌ اَنۡزَلۡنٰہُ مُبٰرَکٌ). And since this Book is such, then follow it, adopt piety as your way, and refrain from opposing it, so that [perhaps]... (Wherever in the Holy Quran the word "la'alla," which generally means "perhaps," is used by Allah in relation to Himself, it is in the sense of "so that," meaning a purpose...).is because "perhaps" is used for expressing hope, and expressing hope is impossible for the Knower of the Unseen (translator), may the mercy of God be upon us (فَاتَّبِعُوۡہُ وَ اتَّقُوۡا لَعَلَّکُمۡ تُرۡحَمُوۡنَ). In the verse that follows, the paths for the polytheists to make excuses and escape have been closed. First, it was said to them: We have revealed this heavenly Book with these characteristics so that you may not say that the heavenly Book was revealed only to two communities (Jews and Christians) and we were heedless of pondering over it. Therefore, if we disobeyed Your command, it was because we could not study it, as Your command was in the hands of others and did not reach us (اَنۡ تَقُوۡلُوۡۤا اِنَّمَاۤ اُنۡزِلَ الۡکِتٰبُ عَلٰی طَآئِفَتَیۡنِ مِنۡ قَبۡلِنَا ۪ وَ اِنۡ کُنَّا عَنۡ دِرَاسَتِہِمۡ لَغٰفِلِیۡنَ). (The phrase "أَنْ تَقُولُوا" is in the meaning of "لِئَلَّا تَقُولُوا," "so that you may not say," and its parallels in the Quran or other expressions in Arabic literature are numerous.) In the subsequent verse, the same excuse from these disbelievers is quoted, but this time it is repeated with a bit more detail, which also has a mixture of self-display and greater arrogance. And it is this: if the Quran had not been revealed to them, it was possible that they would have claimed that they were more prepared to obey the divine command than other communities could be; if the heavenly Book had been revealed to us, we would have been the most accepting and the most guided (اَوۡ تَقُوۡلُوۡا لَوۡ اَنَّاۤ اُنۡزِلَ عَلَیۡنَا الۡکِتٰبُ لَکُنَّاۤ اَہۡدٰی مِنۡہُمۡ). In fact, the first verse intends to state their excuse that if we do not come to the straight path, it is because we remained unaware of the heavenly Books, and this unawareness is because the Books were revealed to others. But this verse narrates their (the Arabs') sense of superiority and that baseless assumption which was ingrained in their minds that the Arab race holds a distinction over other nations. Verse 42 of Surah Fatir also has the same meaning, in which this point is stated as a definite matter (not as a conditional proposition), where it is said: "The polytheists have sworn a most emphatic oath that if a prophet were to come to them, they would be more guided than all other nations." In any case, the Holy Quran says in response to all these claims: God has closed all paths of excuse-making for you, because: numerous proofs and clear verses have come to you from your Lord, which encompass divine guidance and the mercy of the Lord (فَقَدۡ جَآءَکُمۡ بَیِّنَۃٌ مِّنۡ رَّبِّکُمۡ وَ ہُدًی وَّ رَحۡمَۃٌ). It is noteworthy that instead of "heavenly Book," the word "Bayyinah" (clear proof) has been used, which is an indication that this heavenly Book is in every respect well-reasoned and satisfying, containing conclusive proofs within it. Even in these circumstances, if they deny the signs of God, then who can be more unjust than them? (فَمَنۡ اَظۡلَمُ مِمَّنۡ کَذَّبَ بِاٰیٰتِ اللّٰہِ وَ صَدَفَ عَنۡہَا). "Sadafa" is derived from the root "sadf" (on the pattern of "hadhf"), which means to turn away severely from something without reflection. This is an indication that they (the disbelievers) not only turned away from the divine signs but also distanced themselves from them with great intensity, without any reflection. Sometimes (sadf) also comes in the meaning of preventing others from doing something. Finally, God has stated the punishment for such stubborn individuals who do not use their understanding, who deny the truths harshly without thinking and flee from them, to the extent that they even become an obstacle for others, in a brief but very eloquent sentence. It is stated: Soon We will inflict upon those who turn away from Our signs a severe punishment, and this is because of their baseless and unthinking turning away (سَنَجۡزِی الَّذِیۡنَ یَصۡدِفُوۡنَ عَنۡ اٰیٰتِنَا سُوۡٓءَ الۡعَذَابِ بِمَا کَانُوۡا یَصۡدِفُوۡنَ). Although the meaning of the term "su' al-'adhab" is "evil punishment," since an evil punishment is one that is severe, more than usual, and painful in its nature, many commentators have stated its meaning as "severe punishment." In the context of stating the punishment for such people, the repetition of the word "yasdifun" is for the purpose of clarifying that all their calamities and misfortunes are because they turned away from the truths without reflection and without examination. And if they had at least studied these verses like a person who is searching for the truth in a state of doubt, they would not have met their painful end.

In the previous verses, the reality was stated that We have completed the argument against the polytheists and have sent the heavenly book, i.e., the Quran, for the guidance of all, so that people may not have the opportunity for any excuse to justify their opposition. This verse says: But these stubborn people are so rigid in their ways that even this clear code of conduct (the Quran) does not affect them, as if they are waiting for their own destruction, or the loss of their final opportunity, or for impossible things. First, it is stated: They are not waiting for anything except that the angels of death should come to take them (ہَلۡ یَنۡظُرُوۡنَ اِلَّاۤ اَنۡ تَاۡتِیَہُمُ الۡمَلٰٓئِکَۃُ). Or that your Lord should come to them so that they may see Him with their own eyes and then believe (اَوۡ یَاۡتِیَ رَبُّکَ). In reality, these people are expecting an impossible matter; it is not that the coming of God or seeing Him is a possible thing. Its example is just like an obstinate murderer to whom sufficient evidence is presented to prove his crime, but he is still not convinced. We would say to him that if you are not prepared to accept all this evidence, then perhaps you are waiting for the victim himself to come back to life, appear in court, and testify that you killed him. After that, He says: Or are you waiting for some of those signs to appear that will manifest shortly before the Day of Resurrection, after the appearance of which the doors of repentance will be closed and this world will come to an end (اَوۡ یَاۡتِیَ بَعۡضُ اٰیٰتِ رَبِّکَ). Here, although the words "آیات ربّک" (signs of your Lord) have been used in a general and veiled manner, from the context of the subsequent sentences, which will be explained later, these signs can be taken in the sense of "signs of the Day of Gathering," such as terrifying earthquakes, the sun, moon, and stars losing their light, and other similar signs that are to appear before the Day of Resurrection. Or it could refer to their unreasonable demands that they used to make of the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him and his progeny!), among which was a demand that stones rain down on their heads from the sky, or that the dry desert of Arabia be filled with flowing springs and green oases. In this context, it is further added that: On the day when these signs appear, the belief of the disbelievers and the belief of those who had not done any good deeds will not be accepted, and the doors of repentance will also be closed for them, because repenting and believing in those circumstances will be of a compulsory and constrained nature, which is not on par with voluntary repentance and belief (یَوۡمَ یَاۡتِیۡ بَعۡضُ اٰیٰتِ رَبِّکَ لَا یَنۡفَعُ نَفۡسًا اِیۡمَانُہَا لَمۡ تَکُنۡ اٰمَنَتۡ مِنۡ قَبۡلُ اَوۡ کَسَبَتۡ فِیۡۤ اِیۡمَانِہَا خَیۡرًا). From what we have stated, it becomes clear that the meaning of the phrase "اٴَوْ کَسَبَتْ فِی إِیمَانِھَا خَیْرًا" is that on that day, not only will faith be of no benefit, but also for those who had believed but had not done any good deeds, doing any good deed on that day will not benefit them either. This is because the circumstances at that time will be such that every person will involuntarily want to abandon evil deeds and perform righteous acts. At the end of the verse, in a threatening tone, He says to these stubborn individuals: "Alright, since you have this kind of expectation, then keep on waiting; We too shall wait (for your painful end)" (قُلِ انۡتَظِرُوۡۤا اِنَّا مُنۡتَظِرُوۡنَ).

A few noteworthy points can be understood from the aforementioned verse. One of these points is that this verse indicates a path to salvation that is under the shade of faith—and a faith in whose light a servant performs righteous deeds. Someone might ask: is faith alone not sufficient, even if one's whole life is devoid of good deeds? In response to this question, we would say: We concede that there may be some faithful individuals who slip and commit sins, and then feel remorseful and ashamed of their sins and turn towards their own reformation. However, for a person of faith who, despite having ample opportunities in his life, has not performed a single good deed—but on the contrary, has remained engaged in all sorts of evil acts and has committed every kind of wrongdoing—it seems highly improbable that such a person would attain salvation and that his faith, devoid of action, would benefit him. This is because, as a matter of principle, it is unbelievable that a person could have faith in an ideology and yet, throughout his entire life, not act upon the principles of that ideology even once; but on the contrary, reject all its principles. Such behavior would be clear proof that he never had faith or conviction in that ideology to begin with. Thus, it becomes clear that faith is that which is accompanied by action—even if the good action is minor—so that it can be known that faith exists in the heart.

See ayat 160 for tafseer.

Command to dissociate from those who spread schism and discord Following the ten directives mentioned in the preceding verses—at the conclusion of which came the command to follow God’s straight path and to confront every form of hypocrisy and division—this verse, in fact, serves as an explanation and clarification of that very meaning. It first states: those who have fragmented their religion and split into various factions—(O Messenger) you have nothing to do with them in any matter, nor do they have anything to do with you, because your creed is tawḥīd and your religion is the straight path, and the straight path is always one and singular (اِنَّ الَّذِیۡنَ فَرَّقُوۡا دِیۡنَہُمۡ وَ کَانُوۡا شِیَعًا لَّسۡتَ مِنۡہُمۡ فِیۡ شَیۡءٍ). Thereafter, in order to threaten and censure such divisive people, it says: their affair rests with God; He will inform them of the consequences of their deeds (اِنَّمَاۤ اَمۡرُہُمۡ اِلَی اللّٰہِ ثُمَّ یُنَبِّئُہُمۡ بِمَا کَانُوۡا یَفۡعَلُوۡنَ). In lexicography, the word shiʿan means factions, groups, or followers; accordingly, its singular form (shīʿah) refers to a group that follows a particular doctrine or person. This is the lexical meaning of the term. In its technical sense, however, Shīʿah has a specific meaning and refers to those who, after the Prophet, follow the school of Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. Therefore, no confusion should arise between its lexical and technical meanings. (Author) Accordingly, in this verse the word shiʿan is used in its lexical, not its technical, sense; hence no reasonable person can employ this verse against the Shīʿah as a religious school. (Translator)

Some Important Points 1. Who are the people meant by this verse? Some of the exegetes are of the opinion that this verse was revealed concerning the Jews and Christians who had split into different groups and arrayed themselves against one another. Some other exegetes believe that it is pointing towards the schismatics of this very Ummah of Muhammad, who, due to various prejudices and the desire for superiority and status, have sown the seeds of hypocrisy and discord within this Muslim Ummah. But the fact is that this noble verse generally states the ruling concerning all schismatic individuals who, by inventing various innovations (bid'ah), have spread hypocrisy and disagreement among the servants of God, whether they were from previous ummahs or belong to this ummah. Therefore, if we find in the narrations of the pure Ahl al-Bayt `alayhim al-salam` and similarly in the narrations of the Ahl al-Sunnah that this verse refers to the schismatics and innovators of this ummah (Reference: Nur al-Thaqalayn, Volume 1, p. 683), then this is a statement of an instance (and does not imply exclusivity), because if this instance were not mentioned, some might think that this verse only refers to the previous ummahs, and thus they would consider themselves exempt from the condemnation of this verse. In Tafsir Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi, it is narrated from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir `alayhi al-salam` regarding this verse: ”faraqu Amir al-Mu'minin `alayhi al-salam` wa saru ahzaba“ Meaning, this verse refers to those who abandoned Amir al-Mu'minin `alayhi al-salam` and became divided into different groups (Reference: Tafsir Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi). Furthermore, those narrations also point to this meaning in which the Holy Prophet `sallallahu `alayhi wa alihi wa sallam` prophesied, saying: "After me, this ummah will be divided into different groups."

This verse strongly reiterates that Islam is a religion of unity and oneness, and that it is utterly averse to every form of hypocrisy, division, and fragmentation. Accordingly, with great emphasis, the Divine address to the Prophet Muḥammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny declares that his mission bears no resemblance whatsoever to those who create division; God the Subduer and Avenger will exact retribution from them and will lay bare their evil end before them. Tawḥīd is not merely one principle among others in Islam; rather, all the foundational principles and subsidiary rulings of Islam, and the entirety of its laws and commands, revolve around the محور of tawḥīd. Within the body of Islamic teachings, tawḥīd occupies the position of the soul; it is the animating spirit infused into the body of Islam itself. Yet it must be said with deep regret that the very religion of Islam—whose principles are entirely enlivened by unity and oneness—has today fallen into such a plight at the hands of faction‑makers and sowers of discord that its original form and authentic image have been obscured. Each day, an ominous cry rises from some corner, like the hooting of an owl in a desolate ruin. One finds individuals—whether driven by a desire for personal prominence, afflicted by intellectual imbalance, or inclined toward deviation—raising the banner of opposition against some established Islamic ruling. A handful of ignorant individuals then gather around them, and in this way the door to yet another division is opened. The unawareness of the general body of Muslims and their ignorance of the true teachings of Islam play precisely the same role in fostering disunity as does the vigilance of external enemies and their expertise in the art of dividing communities. Both factors are highly effective in producing discord and schism. At times, issues that have been debated for centuries are deliberately revived and thrust back into controversy by certain individuals with the aim of fomenting division and stirring agitation, so as to draw public attention to themselves. However, as the above‑mentioned verse makes clear, Islam disassociates itself from such people, and they, in turn, are estranged from Islam. In the end, all the efforts of these divisive elements will prove futile and come to nothing.

The author of Tafsīr al‑Manār, who is deeply prejudiced against the Shīʿī community, is at the same time well informed about Shīʿī beliefs and Shīʿī history. Under this verse, under the guise of a call for unity and harmony, he has launched an attack on the Shīʿah and accused them of having introduced division into Islam, of being opposed to Islam, and of engaging in un‑Islamic practices in the name of religion. It appears that he has taken the word “شِیَعًا” occurring in the verse—which has no connection whatsoever with the concept of tashayyuʿ or the Shīʿah—and employed it as a pretext to support his baseless claims. His own statements and the very words that have come from his pen constitute the clearest refutation of his accusation and stand as powerful evidence that he possesses no real knowledge of Shīʿī history or Shīʿī doctrine. This is because: He first claims that there is a special connection between the Shīʿī community and the Jewish figure ʿAbd Allāh b. Sabāʾ, whereas the very existence of ʿAbd Allāh b. Sabāʾ is itself doubtful. The Egyptian scholar Ṭāhā Ḥusayn, in his book ʿAbd Allāh b. Sabāʾ, has made this question the central theme of his study and has argued that this figure is a fabricated personality invented solely to defame the Shīʿah. Even if one were to assume his existence, he has played no role whatsoever in Shīʿī history or Shīʿī literature. The author then goes on to claim a connection between the Shīʿah and the Bāṭinī sect and other deviant groups, whereas these groups are among the fiercest enemies of the Shīʿah. Even a minimal acquaintance with Shīʿī history suffices to show that such claims are nothing but groundless fantasies and sheer slander. Most astonishing of all is his assertion that the Shīʿah are affiliated with the ghulāt—those who exaggerated concerning ʿAlī (peace be upon him) and regarded him as divine—when in Shīʿī jurisprudence such individuals are explicitly classified among disbelievers whose unbelief is beyond dispute. Despite this, the author writes that the Shīʿah worship the Ahl al‑Bayt (peace be upon them) and other things. It is evident that had the author of al‑Manār refrained from issuing judgments prior to investigation and abandoned unwarranted prejudice, and had he made an effort to learn Shīʿī beliefs from the Shīʿah themselves or from their own books—rather than taking their enemies’ writings as his sources—he would have realized that attributing such views to them is not only false and defamatory but also absurd and laughable. Even more remarkable is his attribution of the origin of Shīʿism to the Iranians, whereas centuries before Iranians became Shīʿah, the doctrine of tashayyuʿ had already spread throughout Iraq, the Ḥijāz, and Egypt. Historical evidence bears living witness to this fact. The renowned scholar Abū Ḥātim Sahl b. ʿUthmān al‑Sijistānī al‑Baṣrī (d. 228 AH), in volume three of his book al‑Zīnah, under the entry “Shīʿah,” writes that in Islam, during the lifetime of the Messenger of God (PBUH & His Pure Progeny), the first term to become widespread was the name “Shīʿah,” which was initially applied exclusively to four Companions: Salmān al‑Fārisī, Abū Dharr al‑Ghifārī, al‑Miqdād b. al‑Aswad, and ʿAmmār b. Yāsir. Until the Battle of Ṣiffīn, only these four were known by the title “Shīʿah,” but after Ṣiffīn the name became well known among all the supporters of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (Taʾsīs al‑Shīʿah, p. 240). Another great “crime” of the Shīʿah is that they have acted upon the unequivocal command of the Messenger of God (PBUH & His Pure Progeny)—a command recorded in the most authoritative Sunnī sources—when he said: “I am leaving among you two weighty things; so long as you hold fast to them, you will never go astray: the Book of God and my progeny.” (See, for example, Ṣaḥīḥ al‑Tirmidhī 3/100; Sunan al‑Bayhaqī 1/13; Sunan al‑Dāramī 2/431; Kanz al‑ʿUmmāl 1/154, 159; Ṭabaqāt Ibn Saʿd 2/2; and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2/326, Lucknow ed.) The “fault” of the Shīʿah is that in matters of Islam they have taken refuge in those personalities who were the most knowledgeable about the religion—namely, the purified members of the Prophet’s Household (peace be upon them). They derived their religious rulings from them. Their “error” is also that, following reason and logic, and under the guidance of the Qurʾān and Sunnah, they regard the door of ijtihād as remaining open, thereby imparting vitality and movement to Islamic jurisprudence. They ask: what evidence exists to confine the ability to understand the Qurʾān and Sunnah to only four individuals, while compelling everyone else to follow them blindly? Were the Qurʾānic addresses not directed to the believers of every age? Did the Companions of the Prophet rely on specific individuals alone to understand the Qurʾān and Sunnah? Why, then, should Islam be enclosed within the rigid and antiquated enclosure known as the “four schools”? The Shīʿah further maintain that the Companions of the Prophet should, like all others, be assessed according to faith and deeds: those whose conduct accords with the Qurʾān and Sunnah are praiseworthy and worthy of affection, while those Companions who acted contrary to the Book and Sunnah during or after the Prophet’s lifetime should be rejected. The mere title of “Companion” should not be used as a shield for sedition‑mongers, nor should figures such as Muʿāwiyah—who trampled Islamic principles underfoot, rebelled against the Imam recognized by the Muslim community of his time, and shed much innocent blood—be venerated, along with those Companions who supported him out of greed and participated in his rebellion. Yes, the Shīʿah acknowledge these positions as their “crimes.” But is there any community more wronged than one whose history and noble legacy are presented in darkness, against whom a torrent of falsehoods and calumnies is unleashed, and which is not even allowed to present its beliefs openly to the Muslim public in its own defense, being told instead that its doctrines must be learned from its enemies rather than from itself? Is a group that adheres to the Prophet’s command in the ḥadīth of the Two Weighty Things—while others did not—truly a source of division and hypocrisy? Is it justifiable to prevent such a group from following its path in the name of unity, or should restraint instead be exercised upon those who have strayed from the destination? The history of the Islamic sciences demonstrates that it was the Shīʿah who were pioneers in these disciplines, to the extent that they are regarded as the founders and primary transmitters of the Islamic sciences. For evidence of this, one may consult Taʾsīs al‑Shīʿah li’l‑ʿUlūm al‑Islāmiyyah and Aṣl al‑Shīʿah wa Uṣūluhā, both of which have been translated into Persian, and the latter into Urdu as well. The countless works authored by Shīʿī scholars in tafsīr, history, ḥadīth, fiqh, uṣūl al‑fiqh, rijāl, and Islamic philosophy are an undeniable reality. These books exist in public libraries worldwide and are studied by people everywhere—with the exception of certain Sunnī libraries where Shīʿī works are generally prohibited, despite the fact that Shīʿī libraries have for centuries freely admitted Sunnī works. These books stand as living proof of our claim. Can those who produced such a vast and invaluable body of scholarship in service of Islam truly be enemies of Islam? Is there any enemy who has shown such devotion and love? Can anyone other than a sincere lover have rendered such services to the Qurʾān and the Messenger of God (PBUH & His Pure Progeny)? In conclusion, we say only this: if the sincere aim is truly the elimination of hypocrisy and division, then let us strive to understand one another instead of fabricating accusations. For such unjust slanders bring no benefit to Islamic unity; rather, they strike a fatal blow at it.

In the following verse, reference is made to God’s mercy and to the abundance of His recompense, which will be bestowed upon His righteous servants. In this way, the warning expressed in the previous verse is completed by an encouragement. It states that whoever comes with a good deed shall receive tenfold its like as a reward (مَنۡ جَآءَ بِالۡحَسَنَۃِ فَلَہٗ عَشۡرُ اَمۡثَالِہَا), whereas whoever comes with an evil deed shall be recompensed only with its equivalent and nothing more (وَ مَنۡ جَآءَ بِالسَّیِّئَۃِ فَلَا یُجۡزٰۤی اِلَّا مِثۡلَہَا). To emphasize this further, it adds that no injustice will be done to them; they will be punished only in proportion to their evil deeds (وَ ہُمۡ لَا یُظۡلَمُوۡنَ). Here a question arises regarding the scope of the terms “ḥasanah” (good deed) and “sayyiʾah” (evil deed) in this verse: do they refer exclusively to tawḥīd and shirk, or are broader meanings intended? Exegetes have discussed this issue at length, but the apparent purport of the verse encompasses every kind of good deed, good intention, and sound belief, as well as every form of evil action, corrupt thought, and false belief. There is no evidence that would justify restricting the meanings of “ḥasanah” and “sayyiʾah” to any narrower sense.

1. “Coming with” (jāʾa bihi). From the context of the preceding sentence it becomes clear that the expression jāʾa bihi means that a servant will bring his good or evil deeds along with him. That is, when a person comes before the court of divine justice, he will not come empty‑handed or alone; rather, he will arrive accompanied either by right belief and righteous deeds or by corrupt belief and evil deeds. In every case, these will not be separated from him; they will remain his constant companions and associates throughout the eternal life of the Hereafter. This expression appears with the same meaning in other Qurʾānic verses as well. For example, in Sūrah Qāf, verse 33, we read: “مَنْ خَشِیَ الرَّحْمٰنَ بِالْغَيْبِ وَجَاءَ بِقَلْبٍ مُنِيبٍ” that is, “Paradise is for those who fear the All‑Merciful without seeing Him and come forth on the Day of Resurrection with a penitent heart filled with a sense of duty.” 2. Different levels of reward. In the verse under discussion, we read that the recompense for a ḥasanah is tenfold, whereas in some other Qurʾānic verses the wording is limited to “اضعافاً کثیرة” (manyfold increase), such as Sūrah al‑Baqarah, verse 245. In yet other verses, the reward for spending one’s wealth in the path of God is described as seven hundredfold, or even more (as in verse 261 of Sūrah al‑Baqarah). In one verse, the reward is declared to be beyond all reckoning, where God says: “اِنَّمَا يُوَفَّى الصَّابِرُونَ أَجْرَهُمْ بِغَيْرِ حِسَابٍ” (Sūrah al‑Zumar: 10), meaning: “Those who remain steadfast shall be given their reward without measure.” There is no contradiction among these verses. In reality, the minimum reward granted to the doer of good is tenfold; beyond that, the importance of the deed, the degree of sincerity, the hardships endured in carrying it out, and the effort invested in it are all taken into account, and the reward increases accordingly, until it may exceed all limits of calculation and be known only to God. For instance, infāq (spending in the way of God), which occupies a highly significant place in Islam, receives a reward greater than the ordinary tenfold recompense of good deeds, being described as “manyfold” or “seven hundredfold,” or even more. Likewise, ṣabr (steadfastness), which is the root of all success and felicity and without which no righteous deed can be fully realized, is said to have a reward “without measure.” Thus, if some traditions mention rewards for good deeds greater than tenfold, this in no way conflicts with the verse “مَنْ جَاءَ بِالْحَسَنَةِ فَلَهُ عَشْرُ أَمْثَالِهَا.” Similarly, the verse in Sūrah al‑Qaṣaṣ (28:84), which states: “مَنْ جَاءَ بِالْحَسَنَةِ فَلَهُ خَيْرٌ مِّنْهَا” (“Whoever brings a good deed shall have better than it”), does not contradict the above verse or suggest abrogation, since the word “better” has a broad meaning that certainly includes a tenfold increase. 3. The meaning of “equivalent punishment.” Some may suppose that the expiation of deliberately breaking the fast of Ramaḍān—namely, fasting for sixty days—and similar multiplied penalties imposed in this world or the next, contradict the verse “وَمَنْ جَاءَ بِالسَّيِّئَةِ فَلَا يُجْزَى إِلَّا مِثْلَهَا.” However, attention to a single point resolves the issue: the “equivalence” mentioned in the verse does not refer to numerical equivalence in the sense of one sin corresponding to one unit of punishment, but rather to proportional equivalence in terms of the gravity and nature of the act. Deliberately abandoning a fast in the month of Ramaḍān, given the immense significance of this obligation, cannot be equated with merely making up a single missed fast; rather, its proportional compensation is achieved by observing consecutive fasts sufficient to correspond in weight to that sanctity. For this reason, some traditions state that sins committed during Ramaḍān entail greater punishment than those committed at other times, just as rewards during Ramaḍān are greater. Indeed, reciting the Qurʾān to completion during Ramaḍān yields a reward said to be seventy times greater than completing it at other times. 4. Supreme grace and generosity. Another striking point in the verse is the manifestation of God’s supreme grace and generosity toward His humble servants. Is there any benefactor who provides a human being with all the instruments and means for action, grants him knowledge and awareness, sends infallible guides to lead him, enables him to perform good deeds by God‑given power and through divinely appointed guidance—and then rewards that very deed tenfold—while, on the other hand, punishing his slips and errors only in proportion and leaving open forever the door of repentance and apology, such that if he repents no punishment remains? Abū Dharr reports that the truthful and trusted one (the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny) said that God the Exalted declared: “اِنَّ اللّٰهَ تَعَالَى قَالَ: الْحَسَنَةُ عَشْرٌ وَأَزِيدُ، وَالسَّيِّئَةُ وَاحِدَةٌ أَوْ أَغْفِرُ، فَالْوَيْلُ لِمَنْ غَلَبَتْ آحَادُهُ أَعْشَارَهُ.” That is, “God the Exalted says: a good deed is tenfold, or even more; an evil deed is one, or I forgive it. Woe, then, to the one whose single units (of evil) outweigh his tens (of good).”

See ayat 163 for tafseer.

See ayat 163 for tafseer.

These few verses—as well as the subsequent verses that we shall examine next, with which Sūrat al‑Anʿām concludes—constitute, in reality, a summary of all the discussions presented in this sūrah concerning polytheism and idol‑worship. In fact, this sūrah begins with the call to tawḥīd and the confrontation with shirk, and it concludes with the very same theme. God, in response to the corrupt beliefs and irrational claims of the polytheists and idol‑worshippers, first commands His Messenger: (O Messenger!) say that my Lord has guided me to the “straight” path, that is, the nearest and most direct path—this straight path being the one that calls to tawḥīd and exclusive worship of God, and commands the eradication of the system of shirk and idol‑worship (قُلۡ اِنَّنِیۡ هَدٰىنِیۡ رَبِّیۡۤ اِلٰی صِرَاطٍ مُّسۡتَقِیۡمٍ). It is noteworthy that this verse, many of the preceding verses, and also the subsequent verses begin with the word “qul” (“say”). Perhaps there is no other sūrah in the Qur’an in which this word is repeated as frequently as it is here. This vividly reflects the intensity of the confrontations that occurred between the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the polytheists. Moreover, the repeated use of “qul” also closes every avenue of pretext and excuse for the disbelievers, because its constant repetition indicates that all these statements are by divine command, without any involvement of the Prophet’s personal opinion. It is also clear that the inclusion of this word in this verse and in similar verses is intended to preserve the authenticity of the Qur’an, so that the very same words that were revealed to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny as revelation remain intact. In other words, revelation would descend upon the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, and he would make no alteration whatsoever in its wording—preserving even the word “qul,” which explicitly indicates God’s address to him. Thereafter, this “straight path” is explained in this verse and in the following two verses. First it is described as a straight and upright law that is completely true and sound, eternal (everlasting), and responsible for all matters of religion and worldly life, body and soul alike (دِیۡنًا قِیَمًا). (The term “qiyaman” carries the meanings of truthfulness and steadfastness; it may also denote firmness and authenticity, and it may also imply guardianship over the affairs of religion and the world—hence, all these meanings are taken into account in the rendering of the verse.) Since the Arabs claimed a special connection with Abraham, to the extent that they even attributed their own religious law to him, God adds that the true tradition of Abraham is precisely this (Islam) to which I am calling, not the system to which you are attached (مِّلَّۃَ اِبۡرٰہِیۡمَ). That very Abraham who turned away from the superstitious systems of his time and environment and embraced the truth, namely the path of monotheism (حَنِیفًا). In lexical usage, “ḥanīf” refers to one who inclines toward a direction, but in Qur’anic terminology it denotes one who turns away from falsehood and directs himself toward the religion of truth. This expression effectively serves as a response to the polytheists who opposed the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny on the grounds that he had opposed the idolatrous religion of their ancestors. The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, in reply, declared that his rejection of their ancient customs and superstitious beliefs was not his own innovation; rather, Abraham عليه السلام—whom all regard with reverence—had himself acted in the same way. It is further emphasized that Abraham was never among the polytheists and idol‑worshippers (وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِینَ). On the contrary, he was a breaker of idols and a demolisher of the system of shirk. The repeated Qur’anic expressions “ḥanīfan wa mā kāna mina al‑mushrikīn,” sometimes accompanied by the word “musliman” and sometimes not, serve precisely to reinforce the point that the noble personality of Abraham عليه السلام—concerning whom the Arabs of the Age of Ignorance boasted—was completely free from their erroneous beliefs and practices (cf. Sūrat al‑Baqarah 2:135; Āl ʿImrān 3:67, 95). In the following verse, God declares: not only am I, in terms of belief, a monotheist and exclusive worshipper of God, but every one of my actions is also for Him. My prayer, all my acts of worship, even my life and my death, are all for God, the Lord of the worlds. For His sake I live, and for His sake I die; and in His path I shall sacrifice whatever I possess. The focus of my hopes, the destination of my love, and the purpose of my existence—all are none but Him (قُلْ إِنَّ صَلَاتِی وَنُسُکِی وَمَحْیَای وَمَمَاتِی لِلّٰہِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِینَ). The primary meaning of “nusuk” is “worship”; hence, a worshipper is called a “nāsik.” This term is commonly used for the rites of pilgrimage, which are known as the “manāsik” of ḥajj. Some have suggested that “nusuk” here might mean sacrifice, but the apparent meaning is that it encompasses every form of worship. This is because prayer (ṣalāh), the most important of all acts of worship, is mentioned first, followed by a general reference to all acts of worship. The meaning, therefore, is that my prayer, indeed all my acts of devotion, my life and my death, are entirely for Allah. In the subsequent verse, further emphasis is added, and every form of shirk and idol‑worship is categorically negated by stating that He is a Lord who has neither likeness nor partner (لَا شَرِیكَ). Finally, it is declared: “This is what I have been commanded, and I am the first of the Muslims” (وَ بِذٰلِكَ اُمِرْتُ وَ اَنَا اَوَّلُ الْمُسْلِمِینَ). Provide your feedback on BizChat

In the above‑mentioned verse, the Messenger is described as “awwal al‑muslimīn” (the first of the Muslims). Exegetes have differed regarding the meaning of this expression, because it is known that if “Islam” is understood in its broad sense, it encompasses all the heavenly religions. For this reason, the term “Muslim” has also been applied to earlier prophets. Concerning Noah, we read: “اُمِرۡتُ وَ اَنَا اَوَّلُ الۡمُسۡلِمِیۡنَ” (“I have been commanded, and I am among the Muslims”) (Yūnus 7:72). Likewise, it is reported: “رَبَّنَا وَاجْعَلْنَا مُسْلِمَیْنِ لَکَ” (“Our Lord, make us both Muslims unto You”) (al‑Baqarah 2:128), and “تَوَفَّنِی مُسْلِمًا” (“Cause me to die as a Muslim”) (Yūsuf 12:101). Similar expressions occur regarding other prophets as well. Undoubtedly, the term “Muslim” denotes one who submits completely to the Divine command, and this meaning applies to all divine prophets and the believers of their respective communities. In this case, the designation of the Messenger as “the first Muslim” may signify either the excellence and perfection of his Islam and submission—since the degree of submission and obedience of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his Family, was the highest—or it may mean that he was the first member of this community to accept the Qur’anic religion of Islam. In the view of this translator, however, the latter interpretation is not appropriate, because it would imply that at the time of his birth or thereafter the Prophet was devoid of Islam, whereas the reality is that from the moment of his birth he was not only a Muslim but also a prophet. As reported from the Prophet himself: “کنت نبیا و آدم بین الماء و الطین” (“I was a prophet while Adam was still between water and clay”). This ḥadīth, recorded in both Sunni and Shiʿi sources, indicates this meaning. Moreover, in the realm of the primordial covenant (ʿālam al‑dharr), he was the first to affirm divine unity, as is evident from subsequent reports; therefore, even from this standpoint he is “the first Muslim.” Some traditions also state that this expression refers to the fact that he was the first to respond affirmatively in the world of spirits when the Lord called His creatures and questioned them regarding His divinity (cf. Tafsīr al‑Ṣāfī, under the relevant verse). In any case, the verse clearly elucidates the spirit of Islam and the true essence of Islamic teachings. It is a call to the straight path, to the Abrahamic tradition of idol‑breaking, and to the negation of every form of shirk, dualism, and multiplicity. This pertains to belief and faith. From the standpoint of practice, however, the verse is a call to sincerity (ikhlāṣ) and purity of intention, and to the principle that every act of the servant should be performed solely for God, the One without partner. One’s living and dying should be for Him alone; the heart should be detached from love of all others besides Him, devoted entirely to Him, and dissociated from whatever is apart from Him. One should reflect on the vast difference between this open and profound teaching of Islam and the conduct of those who merely bear the outward appearance of Muslims, who understand and pursue nothing beyond display and self‑promotion, who think only in terms of external form at every stage and pay no attention to inner substance and essence. For this reason, their lives, their group affiliations, their pride, and even their claims of freedom are nothing more than empty shells, devoid of any true content.

In this sūrah, the repeated emphases and diverse arguments presented concerning tawḥīd and the confrontation with shirk are of great significance. In this verse, the argument of the polytheists is struck in yet another manner. It states: say to them and ask them whether it is appropriate to seek, besides the One God, any other lord, when He is the Lord and Master of all things and His command and authority are operative over every particle of this universe (قُلْ اَغَیْرَ اللّٰہِ اَبْغِی رَبًّا وَھُوَ رَبُّ کُلِّ شَیْءٍ). It then responds to those among the polytheists who had come to the Prophet and said: “اتبعنا و علینا و زرک ان کان خطا” (“O Muḥammad, follow us; even if this turns out to be wrong, your sin will be upon us”). God declares that, O Prophet, say to them: no person performs any deed except for himself, and no sinner bears the burden of another’s sin (وَلَاتَکْسِبُ کُلُّ نَفْسٍ إِلاَّ عَلَیْھَا وَلَاتَزِرُ وَازِرَةٌ وِزْرَ اٴُخْریٰ). And ultimately, all of you shall return to God, and He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ (ثُمَّ اِلٰی رَبِّکُمۡ مَّرۡجِعُکُمۡ فَیُنَبِّئُکُمۡ بِمَا کُنۡتُمۡ فِیۡہِ تَخۡتَلِفُوۡنَ).

Bearing the sins of others It may be thought that the two firmly established and rational principles stated in the above‑mentioned verse—principles that are also accepted by all religions (namely, that no person performs an act for the Hereafter except for himself, and that no one bears the burden of another’s sin)—do not accord with certain other verses of the Qur’an and some narrations. For example, in Sūrat al‑Naḥl, verse 25, it is stated: “لِيَحْمِلُوا أَوْزَارَهُمْ كَامِلَةً يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَمِنْ أَوْزَارِ الَّذِينَ يُضِلُّونَهُمْ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ” — “On the Day of Resurrection they will bear their burdens in full, and also some of the burdens of those whom they misled without knowledge.” If it is correct that no one bears the burden of another, how is it possible that those who mislead others will bear the burden of the sins of those whom they misled? In addition, the well‑known narrations concerning sunnah ḥasanah and sunnah sayyiʾah also appear, at first glance, to conflict with the verse under discussion, because reports transmitted by both Shiʿi and Sunni chains state that the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him and his Family, said: whoever initiates a good practice will receive the reward of all who act upon it (without any diminution of their own rewards), and whoever initiates an evil practice will bear the burden of all who act upon it (without any diminution of their own burdens). The text of the narration is: “من سنّ سنة حسنة كان له أجر من عمل بها من غير أن ينقص من أجورهم شيء، ومن سنّ سنة سيئة كان عليه وزر من عمل بها من غير أن ينقص من أوزارهم شيء.” The response to this objection is clear. The verse under discussion states that, without any causal connection or meaningful relation between two sins, one person’s sin will not be assigned to another. However, the verses and narrations referred to above mean that when a person lays the foundation of another person’s good or evil act— that is, when he shares in that act causally—then it is evident that he also shares in its good or bad consequences. In such a case, that act is regarded as his own act, because he established its basis. Can the good deeds of others benefit us? Another assumption that may arise from the verse under discussion is that it indicates that every person’s action benefits only himself. Consequently, deeds of goodness performed on behalf of another person, or rewards donated to the dead, and even in some cases rewards gifted to a living person, would not benefit anyone else. However, numerous narrations transmitted through both Shiʿi and Sunni sources from the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him and his Family, and from the Pure Imams, clearly state that such acts are beneficial—not only the deeds of children for their parents, but also the deeds of others on behalf of one another. Moreover, it is known that the recompense of an act is connected to the effects that performing a good deed produces in the soul and spirit of the doer, effects that are instrumental in his spiritual growth. Conversely, how could a person who has performed no such deed, and has not even been involved in it at an initial stage, acquire those spiritual and moral effects? Some people raise this objection with great emphasis. Not only laypersons, but even some authors and exegetes appear influenced by it, such as the author of Tafsīr al‑Manār, as a result of which many well‑established narrations have been set aside. Yet, if attention is paid to two points, an answer to such objections becomes evident: First, it is true that every person’s good deed is a cause of his own spiritual advancement, and its philosophy, outcome, and effect are genuinely attributable to its performer, just as the results of physical exercise or education manifest as strength or moral development in one’s own body and soul. However, when a person performs a good deed on behalf of another, this is certainly due to some virtue or commendable quality present in that other person—perhaps he was a good teacher or a good student, a sincere friend, a loyal companion, a faithful neighbor, a devoted scholar, or a true believer. In every case, some luminous aspect existed in his life that attracted the attention of others and moved them to perform good deeds for him. Accordingly, that person has received the recompense of his own distinctive quality, outstanding trait, or brilliant aspect of his life; thus, the good deeds of others on his behalf generally occur as a result of some good act or good intention of his own, and are, in reality, a reflection of his own deeds. Second, God Almighty grants recompense to His servants in two distinct forms. One is the recompense that corresponds to their spiritual ascent and moral refinement: through righteous deeds, their souls attain such an elevated rank that they deserve to dwell in higher and nobler realms and to soar in the heavens of felicity by means of the “wings” they have acquired through sound belief and good works. It is certain that such effects and outcomes are specific and exclusive to the performer of the deed and cannot be transferred to another. The other form of recompense, however, is that which accrues by virtue of obedience to the Divine command. Since obedience entitles the servant to a reward, it is within his right to bestow that reward, by his own consent, upon another. This can be illustrated by an example. Suppose a teacher teaches in an important and constructive field at a university. As a result of this teaching, he undoubtedly attains two kinds of benefit: first, by teaching daily he becomes increasingly proficient in his discipline; second, he receives a salary from the university. The first benefit cannot be transferred to anyone else, as it is exclusive to his own person; but the second benefit he may give to whomever he wishes, for he has full authority over it. The gifting of the reward of an act, whether to a deceased or a living person, is analogous to this. In this manner, every doubt concerning such narrations is resolved. Nevertheless, it should also be noted that such gifted rewards do not possess sufficient power to bring about complete felicity for the recipient; their effect is limited, because the principal cause of human salvation is one’s own faith and deeds.

In this noble verse, which is the final verse of Sūrat al‑Anʿām, attention is drawn to the importance of the human station and to humanity’s position within the order of existence, so that the preceding discussions—through which the pillars of tawḥīd were strengthened and confrontation with the doctrine of shirk and idol‑worship was undertaken—may be brought to completion. The point is that the human being, as the noblest of creatures, should recognize his true worth and value, so that he does not bow his forehead before stones, wood, and various kinds of idols, nor become their servant; rather, he should become their master and exercise authority over them. Accordingly, in the first sentence of this verse it is stated: He is the One who has made you successors upon the earth (and His representatives) (وَهُوَ الَّذِي جَعَلَكُمْ خَلَائِفَ الْأَرْضِ). According to what al‑Rāghib al‑Iṣfahānī has written in his work al‑Mufradāt, khalāʾif is the plural of khalīfah, and khulafāʾ is the plural of khalīf; both convey the meaning of deputy or successor. It is also said that the tāʾ in khalīfah carries a sense of emphasis. Some lexicographers consider khalāʾif to be the plural of both khalīfah and khalīf. The human being, then, is one who is placed as a representative upon the surface of the earth. There is, however, disagreement concerning the interpretation of the term khalāʾif in this verse. One view is that God has made all human beings His representatives upon the earth. In the view of this writer, however, this interpretation is not sound, because how could a non‑infallible being be designated as khalīfat Allāh? Regarding Adam, peace be upon him, it is said: إِنِّي جَاعِلٌ فِي الْأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةً; regarding David, peace be upon him, it is said: يَا دَاوُودُ إِنَّا جَعَلْنَاكَ فِي الْأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةً. In the same way, all prophets were God’s representatives, and they were infallible. If ordinary human beings were to be regarded as God’s deputies, what distinction would then remain between prophet and non‑prophet? Moreover, if all human beings were deputies, over whom would their authority extend? Over animals, trees, and stones—despite the fact that these are not completely subject to human command? One in whose hands have been placed all nations and treasures of the earth, and for whom a divine decree of authority over all beings has been issued, should not degrade himself to the extent of becoming lower than inanimate objects and prostrating before them. Next, God points to the diversity of human capacities, both spiritual and physical, and explains the wisdom underlying this disparity, saying: He has raised some of you above others in degrees, so that He may test you by means of what He has given you (وَرَفَعَ بَعْضَكُمْ فَوْقَ بَعْضٍ دَرَجَاتٍ لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ فِي مَا آتَاكُمْ). A second view, which accords more closely with sound principles of investigation, holds that khalāʾif al‑arḍ means that each succeeding generation is the successor of the previous one, and each later nation the successor of the earlier nation; for the primary meaning of khalf is “coming after.” ʿAllāmah Ṭabarsī, in his well‑known commentary Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, states under this verse: “Its meaning is that the people of each era succeed the people of the preceding era; whenever one generation passes, another comes after it. This succession proceeds in an orderly and consistent manner until the Hour is established, and this can only occur through a knowledgeable and managing agent.” A similar interpretation is also found in Tafsīr al‑Ṣāfī. At the end of the verse, after affirming that each human being has been granted choice in selecting the paths of felicity or wretchedness, the outcome of these trials is set forth as follows: your Lord is, for those who fail these trials, sarīʿ al‑ʿiqāb—swift in punishment—and for those who remain engaged in correcting their faults, Forgiving and Merciful (إِنَّ رَبَّكَ سَرِيعُ الْعِقَابِ وَإِنَّهُ لَغَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ).

There is no doubt that among human beings there exist certain hierarchical differences that are human‑made, because human beings have inflicted injustice upon one another. For example, some people possess immense wealth, while others remain destitute; some remain ignorant and uneducated due to lack of resources, whereas others, by virtue of access to means, reach the highest levels of learning. Likewise, one group appears weak and ill due to lack of adequate nutrition and the absence of basic health requirements, while, by contrast, another group enjoys all kinds of facilities and thus lives in health and security. Such disparities—between wealth and poverty, knowledge and ignorance, health and illness—are for the most part the product of colonialism, exploitation, the enslavement of others, and manifest or hidden injustice. It is self‑evident that such differences cannot be attributed to God, nor is there any justification for legitimizing them and refraining from opposing them. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that even if principles of justice are observed to the greatest possible extent, human beings still cannot all be equal, because differences in aptitude, intelligence, perception, taste, and disposition will remain; at the very least, they will not be identical in their physical constitution. The question thus arises: are such intellectual and natural differences contrary to divine justice, or, on the contrary, does true justice (that is, placing everything in its proper position) require that all human beings not be identical? If all members of human society were uniform and equal—like clothes or utensils produced identically in a factory—if all human beings were of the same form and capacities, then human society would become entirely lifeless and devoid of spirit; there would be neither movement nor any visible advance along the paths of progress. Consider a plant: its roots are strong and firm; its trunk is delicate, yet firmer than its branches; then its leaves, flowers, and buds become progressively more delicate. Through their mutual cooperation and collective integration, they give rise to a beautiful plant, in which each part, and indeed each cell, differs from the others in accordance with its function. Precisely the same condition is observable in the world of humankind. Human beings together resemble a great and fruitful tree, in which every class—and indeed every individual—has a specific position in the formation of the whole, corresponding to his particular constitution. For this reason, the Qur’an states that such differences are a means of trial, as was previously noted. Wherever the term “trial” appears in divine discourse, its meaning is cultivation and nurturing. In this manner, the response is provided to the person who seeks to derive an erroneous conclusion from the aforementioned verse.

Another noteworthy point is that the Qur’an repeatedly presents the human being as God’s “khalīfah” and “representative” on the earth. Through this expression, while the human station is implicitly clarified, another fundamental truth is also affirmed: wealth and possessions, capacities, and all favors and endowments granted to human beings are, in reality, owned by God alone. The human being is merely a representative, an authorized agent, and a trustee appointed on God’s behalf. It is self‑evident that a representative is never independent in his disposition; rather, all his actions must remain within the bounds and permissions set by the true Owner. From this point, it also becomes clear that, in matters of ownership, Islam has deliberately distanced itself from both capitalism and communism. The former restricts ownership exclusively to the individual, while the latter attributes all ownership to the collective. Islam, by contrast, maintains that ownership belongs neither to the individual nor to society as such; in truth, the ultimate and real Owner of everything is God. All human beings are His representatives and trustees. For this very reason, Islam exercises oversight over both the means of acquiring wealth and the ways in which it is spent, and it has established specific limits and conditions for each. On this basis, Islam has distinguished the Islamic economic order as an independent and unique system, setting it apart from all other schools of thought.