Al-A'raf

See ayat 3 for tafseer.

See ayat 3 for tafseer.

At the beginning of this sūrah we once again encounter the disconnected letters (ḥurūf al‑muqaṭṭaʿāt) of the Qur’an. Here there are four letters: alif, lām, mīm, ṣād. We have already discussed these letters in detail at the beginning of Sūrat al‑Baqarah and Āl ʿImrān. At this point, in order to complete that discussion, another noteworthy interpretation of these letters is mentioned. It is possible that one of their purposes is to attract the attention of those listening to the Qur’anic recitation and to invite them to remain silent, for the mention of these letters at the opening of discourse appeared strange and novel to the Arabs, arousing their curiosity. It was likely that upon hearing these letters, they would then listen attentively to what followed. Support for this view is also found in the fact that most sūrahs that begin with the disconnected letters are Makkan, and it is known that at that time the Muslims in Mecca were few in number while the enemies were numerous and obstinate, unwilling out of sheer stubbornness to listen to the Prophet’s words. At times, when the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny wished to recite a divine message to them, they would deliberately raise such noise and clamor that his voice was drowned out, as alluded to in certain Qur’anic verses (see Sūrat Fuṣṣilat, verse 26). In addition, some traditions from the Ahl al‑Bayt (peace be upon them) state that these letters function as symbols and allusions to the Most Beautiful Names of God; for example, (المص) in this sūrah is said to allude to أنا الله المقتدر الصادق (“I am God, the All‑Powerful, the Truthful”), meaning that God is true and mighty. Thus, each of these letters represents an abbreviated reference to one of the divine names. The use of abbreviated expressions in place of fuller formulations is an ancient practice, although in the modern age its scope has expanded considerably, as lengthy expressions, institutions, or associations are frequently condensed into short acronyms. It should also be noted that the various interpretations offered for the disconnected letters are not mutually contradictory, since it is possible that all of them are intended simultaneously, each corresponding to a different level of meaning within the multiple layers (buṭūn) of the Qur’an. In the following verse it is stated: this is a Book that has been sent down to you; therefore, let there be no distress or constraint in your chest on account of it (كِتَابٌ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ فَلَا يَكُنْ فِي صَدْرِكَ حَرَجٌ مِنْهُ). The word ḥaraj in the lexicon denotes constriction, hardship, and every kind of discomfort. Its original meaning refers to a dense cluster of trees whose interwoven branches create narrow passages; later the usage expanded to signify any form of distress or unease. This statement is meant to console the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny: since these verses are from God, there is no need for anxiety—neither concern over bearing the heavy burden of this mission, nor fear of the reactions and countermeasures that might come from ignorant and obstinate enemies, nor worry about the ultimate outcome of conveying the message. In short, there is no need for distress, because this Book has been revealed by God, and He Himself is responsible for bringing it to fruition. As this is a Makkan sūrah, one can clearly observe within it the difficulties that the Prophet Muḥammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny faced in the course of propagating the divine message. Although it is difficult for us today fully to imagine the hardships and trials endured by the Messenger PBUH & His Pure Progeny and his devoted companions in the early stages of spreading Islam, some sense of these challenges can be gained by remembering that the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny sought, within a short span of time, to breathe a revolutionary spirit into a society sunk in degradation and decline, so that the withered and lifeless body of humanity might suddenly rise and set out upon the paths of progress. Accordingly, it is entirely appropriate that God, the Most Generous, reassured the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny: do not be distressed, do not be constricted of heart; remain fully hopeful of the correct and ultimate outcome of your mission. The next phrase further clarifies the purpose of this revelation: the Book has been sent down so that, by means of it, you may warn people of the consequences of their beliefs and actions, and so that it may serve as a reminder and admonition for the believers (لِتُنْذِرَ بِهِ وَذِكْرَى لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ). Based on what has been stated above, li‑tundhira is related to unzila, not to fa‑lā yakun, and its placement after the phrase fa‑lā yakun fī ṣadrika ḥaraj appears to be for the reason that the Prophet should first be spiritually prepared for the call to truth, after which the objective of warning (indhār) is presented to him. In this verse, we observe that the act of warning is mentioned in a general sense, whereas remembrance (dhikrā) is specified for the believers. This is because inviting people to the truth and confronting deviation is a collective responsibility, encompassing all, yet it is evident that only those who have faith truly benefit from such reminders—those whose minds are prepared to accept the truth, who have set aside stubbornness and obstinacy, and who have submitted before the truth. This same formulation appears at the beginning of Sūrat al‑Baqarah, where it states: ذَٰلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ هُدًى لِلْمُتَّقِينَ (“This is the Book in which there is no doubt; it is guidance for the God‑conscious”). Thereafter, addressing humanity in general, the Qur’an declares: “Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord” (اتَّبِعُوا مَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكُمْ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ). In this way, the discourse moves from the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and his mission to the duties incumbent upon all people. For further emphasis it adds: “Do not follow, apart from Him, any other protectors or guardians” (وَلَا تَتَّبِعُوا مِنْ دُونِهِ أَوْلِيَاءَ). But since those who submit fully to the truth and take heed of reminders are few, the verse concludes by stating: “Little do you take admonition” (قَلِيلًا مَا تَذَكَّرُونَ). Incidentally, this verse also conveys that the human being stands at a crossroads: one path is that of God’s guardianship and leadership, and the other is that of entering under the guardianship of others. If the first path is chosen, God alone is one’s Protector and Guardian; if the second is chosen, one must continually carry the burden of submission to someone or something else, selecting a new master and patron each day. The plural term awliyāʾ (protectors), the plural of walī, points precisely to this reality.

See ayat 5 for tafseer.

In these two verses, reference is made to the admonitory punishments that were inflicted as a consequence of violating the commands mentioned in the preceding verses. In fact, this passage constitutes a concise register of the histories of a number of earlier communities—such as the people of Nūḥ, the people of Pharaoh, the people of ʿĀd, Thamūd, and the people of Lūṭ—whose accounts are mentioned later. At this point, the Qur’an issues a severe warning to those who turn away from the teachings of the divine prophets and, instead of reforming themselves and others, sow the seeds of corruption. They are urged to look to the lives of earlier nations and observe how many towns and settlements We destroyed, and how We eradicated the people who lived in them (وَكَمْ مِنْ قَرْيَةٍ أَهْلَكْنَاهَا). It then describes the manner of their destruction, stating that Our painful punishment came upon them either at night while they were immersed in restful sleep, or during the middle of the day when they were taking repose after their daily labors (فَجَاءَهَا بَأْسُنَا بَيَاتًا أَوْ هُمْ قَائِلُونَ). The subsequent verse continues the narrative by explaining that when those people were seized by the whirlpool of tribulation and the storm of retribution was ravaging the dwellings of their lives, they descended from the heights of arrogance and pride and declared, in admission and confession, that they were indeed wrongdoers and acknowledged that oppression and injustice had encompassed them (فَمَا كَانَ دَعْوَاهُمْ إِذْ جَاءَهُمْ بَأْسُنَا إِلَّا أَنْ قَالُوا إِنَّا كُنَّا ظَالِمِينَ).

1. “Qaryah.” The term qaryah is derived from the root qurā (on the pattern of nuhā), which carries the meaning of “gathering together.” Since a qaryah (settlement) is a place where people congregate, this term came to be applied to it. This indicates that qaryah does not refer exclusively to villages; rather, it denotes any form of inhabited settlement or center of human aggregation, whether village or city. The Qur’an itself employs this term for both rural and urban habitations. The word qāʾilūn is derived from qaylūlah, meaning “midday sleep” or “afternoon rest.” Its original sense is “rest,” and for this reason the term was extended to include reclaiming a commodity after sale, since this brings relief to both parties to the transaction. The word bayāt denotes “night‑time.” 2. The statement in the verse that God’s punishment overtook these people during the middle of the night or at the time of midday rest signifies that they were made to taste fully the recompense of their evil deeds and that their comfort and ease were completely shattered—just as they themselves had destroyed the peace and comfort of others. Thus, the punishment corresponded precisely to the nature of their wrongdoing. 3. This verse also clearly demonstrates that all criminal and sinful nations shared the same characteristic: when their people were seized by divine punishment and the veils of heedlessness and arrogance were lifted from their sins, they all began to confess their wrongdoing. However, such confession was of no benefit to them, because it was a form of compelled and coerced acknowledgment. The circumstances at that time were such that even the most arrogant individual had no alternative but to admit guilt. In other words, this kind of awakening was a false and fleeting awakening, devoid of any transformative effect, carrying no trace of spiritual revolution and producing no lasting impact upon them. Had this confession of sin occurred voluntarily before the onset of punishment, it would have constituted evidence of spiritual transformation and a cause of their salvation. 4. Among exegetes there has also been discussion concerning the fact that the Qur’an first states “ahlaknāhā” (“We destroyed it”) and then, by means of the particle faʾ—which is commonly used for temporal sequence—adds the phrase “fa‑jāʾahā baʾsunā bayātan” (“then Our punishment came upon it at night”), whereas in reality the punishment preceded the destruction, not the reverse. Attention should be paid to the fact that the particle faʾ is not always employed to indicate chronological sequence; at times it introduces an explanation or elaboration of a preceding summary statement. In this instance, the verse first provides a concise account of the outcome by saying “ahlaknāhā”, and then elaborates: Our punishment overtook them at night or at midday while they were immersed in repose, and at the moment when they found themselves at the threshold of destruction they confessed their injustice. Such usage is common in Arabic discourse. 5. Verses of this kind should not be regarded merely as historical accounts of vanished nations, nor should they be confined exclusively to earlier peoples as events that are finished and past. Rather, these verses function as powerful warnings and alarm signals for contemporary humanity and for future generations alike. They are addressed to us as well as to all coming nations, for in the divine norm there is no room for discrimination or favoritism. Modern humanity, often described as industrial and mechanized, despite all the powers and capabilities it has acquired through immense effort, remains as weak and helpless before a single jolt of an earthquake, a gust of a storm, a deluge of rain, or other celestial calamities as it was in prehistoric times. Consequently, the painful punishment and dire fate that befell the oppressive, arrogant, and indulgent peoples of former nations are by no means remote from present‑day humanity. Indeed, given the unprecedented power and capacity now at human disposal, humanity may itself become the cause of its own destruction and punishment. The very knowledge and power it has attained are drawing it toward a great war that threatens the annihilation of the human race. Should humanity not take heed from these events?

See ayat 9 for tafseer.

See ayat 9 for tafseer.

See ayat 9 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, reference was made to God‑consciousness and the revelation of the Qur’an, whereas the verses under consideration, which discuss the Hereafter (maʿād), in reality complete those earlier verses. Moreover, the preceding verses addressed the consequences of oppression committed by wrongdoers in this world, while these verses set forth the punishments awaiting such people in the Hereafter. In this manner, a clear and coherent connection exists among all these verses. At the outset, a general principle is stated: all those to whom messengers were sent will most certainly be questioned on the Day of Resurrection (فَلَنَسْئَلَنَّ الَّذِینَ أُرْسِلَ إِلَیْهِمْ). Not only will those people be questioned; the messengers themselves will also be questioned as to how they conveyed the divine message (وَلَنَسْئَلَنَّ الْمُرْسَلِینَ). Accordingly, leaders are accountable and followers are accountable; guides are answerable and disciples are answerable, although the nature of accountability for each group is distinct. In this regard, a narration is reported from Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (peace be upon him) which confirms this meaning. He states that the prophets will be halted on the Day of Resurrection and questioned concerning their delivery of the messages entrusted to them for their communities, and they will respond that they indeed conveyed those messages. A similar narration is also reported in Tafsīr ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm, which further supports this understanding. One might imagine that God will ask such questions on the Day of Resurrection because certain matters are concealed from His knowledge. In order to dispel this misconception, the following verse affirms with emphatic certainty that God will recount all their deeds to them on the basis of His all‑encompassing knowledge, because He was never absent from them; rather, He was with them everywhere and at all times (فَلَنَقُصَّنَّ عَلَیْهِمْ بِعِلْمٍ وَمَا كُنَّا غَائِبِینَ). The verb lanquṣṣanna, derived from qaṣṣa, originally signifies “to follow closely in sequence,” and since in narrating an account events and details appear successively, such narration is called qiṣṣah. Likewise, retributive punishments that follow crimes are termed qiṣāṣ, because they proceed in due sequence; scissors are called miqaṣṣ because they cut hair successively; and investigation is termed qaṣṣ because the investigator follows events one after another. Given that this verse contains multiple layers of emphasis—the particle of oath, the emphatic nūn, the mention of knowledge in an indefinite form indicating the magnitude of divine awareness, and the statement “We were never absent”—it is clear that the intent is to affirm that every detail of deeds will be presented to them “word by word” and “in ordered succession,” so that they may realize that even the smallest intention or act was never hidden from divine knowledge.

The first issue that confronts us here is that we know God is aware of all things and, in principle, is present and observing everywhere. In that case, what need is there for Him to question all the prophets and all the communities without exception? The answer to this question is clear: if questioning were for the purpose of acquiring information or discovering facts, then such questioning by One who already possesses knowledge would indeed be superfluous. However, if the purpose of questioning is to draw the attention of the addressee, to establish proof against him (itmām al‑ḥujjah), or to serve some other objective, then such questioning is entirely appropriate. A fitting analogy is that of a person who is extremely forgetful, to whom we have rendered many services, but who, instead of repaying those services, has responded with various acts of betrayal. All of this may be fully known to us, yet we still take him to task and ask: did we not render you numerous services? Did you fulfill the obligation owed to those services?

It may occur to some that the emphatic and solemn assertion in the verse under consideration—that on the Day of Resurrection everyone will be questioned—appears to conflict with certain other verses. For example, in Sūrat al‑Raḥmān it is stated: “فَیَوْمَئِذٍ لَا یُسْأَلُ عَنْ ذَنْبِهِ إِنسٌ وَلَا جَانٌّ … یُعْرَفُ الْمُجْرِمُونَ بِسِیمَاهُمْ …” (“On that Day neither human nor jinn will be asked about his sin; rather, the guilty will be recognized by their marks”) (Sūrat al‑Raḥmān, verses 39–41). Similar verses also negate questioning on the Day of Resurrection. The question, then, is how such verses can be reconciled with verses that affirm questioning, such as the present one. If, however, these verses are examined carefully, all ambiguity is removed. When all the verses that speak of questioning on the Day of Resurrection are considered together, it becomes apparent that people will pass through several stages on that Day. At certain stages, there will be no questioning at all; rather, their mouths will be sealed, and only their limbs and organs—having preserved the traces of their deeds—will testify to the details of their actions as speaking, irrefutable witnesses. In a subsequent stage, the seal will be removed from their mouths, enabling them to speak again, and they will then be questioned. Having already observed the testimony of their own limbs, they will be compelled to confess their deeds, much like criminals who, upon seeing the manifest evidence of their crimes, have no alternative but to admit guilt. Some exegetes have also suggested that the verses negating questioning refer specifically to verbal questioning, whereas verses affirming questioning may refer to interrogation through the limbs and organs. Just as the complexion of a face reveals inner secrets, human limbs and organs will expose realities. In any of these interpretations, there is no contradiction between the two sets of verses. In the verse that follows, in order to complete the discussion of resurrection, attention is drawn to the issue of weighing good and evil deeds, a theme likewise found elsewhere in the Qur’an, such as in Sūrat al‑Muʾminūn (102–103) and Sūrat al‑Qāriʿah (6–8). It is first declared that the weighing of deeds on that Day is true and certain (وَالْوَزْنُ یَوْمَئِذٍ الْحَقُّ). Accordingly, al‑wazn functions here as a verbal noun meaning “the act of weighing,” serving as the subject, while al‑ḥaqq is its predicate—although other grammatical possibilities exist, the interpretation given here is the most reasonable.

On the Day of Resurrection, the manner in which deeds are weighed has been the subject of extensive debate among exegetes and theologians. Some have imagined that the weighing and balance in the Hereafter will be exactly like the scales and measures of this world. On the other hand, since human actions themselves have no material weight, others were compelled to resolve this difficulty either by appealing to the doctrine of the embodiment of deeds (tajas sum al‑aʿmāl) or by suggesting that human beings themselves will be weighed on that Day. In this connection, a statement is attributed to ʿUbayd ibn ʿUmayr, who is reported to have said: “يؤتى بالرجل الطويل العظيم فلا يزن جناح بعوضة” That is, on the Day of Resurrection tall and physically imposing individuals will be brought forth who will not even weigh as much as the wing of a mosquito. This report, cited in Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān and Tafsīr al‑Ṭabarī from ʿUbayd ibn ʿUmayr, appears to be his own statement rather than a prophetic ḥadīth. The intent is to indicate that such people may appear significant in outward form, yet in reality possess no true worth. If we compare the life of the Hereafter with life in this world, and observe that everything there is fundamentally different from what exists here—just as the life of a fetus within the womb differs from worldly life—and if we also bear in mind that in grasping the meaning of a term one should not limit oneself to present‑day physical manifestations but should instead evaluate it in light of its purpose and outcome, then the meaning of the “balance” (mīzān) set up on the Day of Resurrection becomes clear. By way of illustration, in earlier times when the word “lamp” (chirāgh) was used, it evoked the image of a vessel containing oil, with a wick inside and perhaps a glass cover to protect the flame from the wind. In our own age, however, the same word refers to something entirely different—an object containing neither oil nor wick nor the earlier type of enclosure. Yet what unites the modern lamp with the ancient one is its effect and function: something that dispels darkness. The case of the mīzān is precisely analogous. Even in this world, as time advances, the forms of scales continually change, to the extent that the term mīzān is now applied to instruments for measuring other things as well, such as mīzān al‑ḥarārah (thermometer) and mīzān al‑hawāʾ (anemometer), and so forth. What is certain, therefore, is that on the Day of Resurrection people’s deeds will be assessed by means of a particular criterion or instrument; it is not necessary that this be identical to worldly scales. It is possible that this measure may consist in the very persons of the prophets, the Imams, and the righteous. This understanding is corroborated by traditions transmitted from the Pure Household (peace be upon them). For example, in Biḥār al‑Anwār it is reported that when Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) was asked about the verse “وَنَضَعُ الْمَوَازِينَ الْقِسْطَ” (al‑Anbiyāʾ 21:47), he replied: “والموازين الأنبياء والأوصياء ومن الخلق من يدخل الجنة بغير حساب” That is, on the Day of Resurrection the “balances” are the noble prophets and their appointed successors, and among creatures there are those who will enter Paradise without reckoning, meaning those in whose records of deeds no darkness or blemish will be found. In another narration it is stated: “إن أمير المؤمنين والأئمة من ذريته هم الموازين” That is, Amīr al‑Muʾminīn (peace be upon him) and the Imams from his progeny are the balances by which deeds are weighed. Likewise, in the general visitation (ziyārat al‑muṭlaqah) of Amīr al‑Muʾminīn it is said: “السلام على ميزان الأعمال” “Peace be upon the scale of deeds.” In reality, those men and women who, in this world, serve as exemplars for others are themselves the measures by which others’ actions are evaluated. To the extent that a person resembles them, he carries weight; and those who resemble them less, or not at all, are “light” or altogether “weightless.” Even in this world, the friends of God function as criteria for evaluating deeds. However, because many realities remain concealed here, whereas on the Day of Resurrection—by virtue of the verse “وَبَرَزُوا لِلّٰهِ الْوَاحِدِ الْقَهَّارِ” (Ibrāhīm 14:48)—all things will become manifest and unveiled, this truth will then be fully revealed. From this perspective, it also becomes clear why the plural form “māwāzīn” is used, for the true measures of deeds—the friends of God—are multiple. It is also possible that each of them excelled in a particular attribute; hence, each functions as a criterion for a specific quality, while human deeds and attributes themselves are diverse, requiring multiple standards of assessment. This also explains why some narrations define the mīzān as “justice” (ʿadl). It is reported from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) that when he was asked, “What is the meaning of the balance?” he replied: “Justice.” (Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 2, p. 5). This interpretation does not contradict what has been stated above, because the friends of God and exemplary men and women are themselves manifestations of justice—justice in thought, justice in belief, and justice in character and action. The subsequent clause states: those whose scales are heavy are the successful ones, while those whose scales are light are those who have lost their own selves because of the injustice they committed regarding Our signs (فَمَنْ ثَقُلَتْ مَوَازِينُهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ، وَمَنْ خَفَّتْ مَوَازِينُهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ الَّذِينَ خَسِرُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ بِمَا كَانُوا بِآيَاتِنَا يَظْلِمُونَ). It is evident that the heaviness or lightness of the balance does not refer to the physical pans of a scale, but rather to the deeds placed within those measures. In the phrase “خَسِرُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ” (“they lost their own selves”), there is a subtle allusion to the fact that such individuals incur the greatest possible loss. Sometimes a person suffers loss by forfeiting wealth or status, but at other times he loses the very capital of his existence, receiving nothing in return. Undoubtedly, this is the most grievous loss of all. Finally, the expression “كَانُوا بِآيَاتِنَا يَظْلِمُونَ” (“they were unjust toward Our signs”) indicates that such people do not merely wrong themselves; they also wrong the divinely instituted systems established for the guidance of humanity. These systems were meant to serve as instruments of guidance and salvation, but when people neglect and disregard them, they fail to yield their intended results, and thus injustice is done to them. Some traditions also state that in this context “āyāt” refers to the great religious leaders and the Imams of guidance; as has been repeatedly noted, such interpretations do not restrict the verse exclusively to this meaning but rather present one of its clear and illuminating instances. Some exegetes have further interpreted injustice toward the signs as denial or disbelief in them, a meaning that is likewise consistent with the broader Qur’anic usage of ẓulm.

In the verses that refer to the Origin (mabdaʾ) and the Hereafter (maʿād), the present verse and the verses that follow take as their subject the human being—the grandeur and significance of the human station, the nature of the honors and privileges that God has bestowed upon humanity, and the covenant and responsibility that God has taken from humankind with regard to these blessings. This is done so that the foundations of human moral formation may be firmly established and the path of human advancement made clear and accessible. First, all these points are stated concisely in a single verse, and then in the subsequent verses they are explained and elaborated in detail. It begins with the declaration: We have granted you authority, dominion, and establishment upon the earth (وَلَقَدْ مَکَّنَّاكُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ). And We have made therein for you diverse means of livelihood (وَجَعَلْنَا لَكُمْ فِيهَا مَعَايِشَ). Yet your condition is such that you give very little thanks for these blessings (قَلِيلًا مَا تَشْكُرُونَ). The term tamkīn does not merely mean placing someone in a location; rather, it encompasses providing that person with the necessary means to act in that place—granting strength and capacity, furnishing all the tools required for action, and removing obstacles. All these aspects are included in the concept of tamkīn. Concerning Joseph (peace be upon him), the Qur’an states: وَكَذَٰلِكَ مَكَّنَّا لِيُوسُفَ فِي الْأَرْضِ (“Thus did We establish Joseph in the land”), that is, We granted him full authority and power. In this verse, as in many others, after mentioning the divine blessings, people are invited to gratitude and their ingratitude and denial of blessings are censured. It is self‑evident that awakening in people a sense of gratitude and appreciation for God’s blessings is intended solely so that the servant, in accordance with the dictates of human nature, submits before the Giver of those blessings, comes to know Him, and accepts every command of His with heart and soul, thereby paving the way for his guidance and moral cultivation. It is not that gratitude yields any benefit for the Lord of the worlds; whatever effect and benefit there is from gratitude, like all other virtues, returns entirely to the human being himself.

See ayat 18 for tafseer.

See ayat 18 for tafseer.

See ayat 18 for tafseer.

See ayat 18 for tafseer.

See ayat 18 for tafseer.

See ayat 18 for tafseer.

See ayat 18 for tafseer.

The Qur’an mentions the creation of the human being and the manner of his origination in seven sūrahs. As noted previously, the purpose of addressing this subject is to clarify the human personality and his rank among all created beings, and to awaken within him a sense of gratitude. In this sūrah, through different expressions, reference is made to the creation of the human being from earth, the prostration of the angels before him, the rebellion of Satan, and thereafter Satan’s lying in ambush to destroy the human species. In the first verse under discussion, God the Exalted states: We created you, then We fashioned you, then We said to the angels (and among them was Iblīs, who, although not one of the angels, was present among them): Prostrate before Adam (who was your primordial ancestor) (وَلَقَدْ خَلَقْنَاكُمْ ثُمَّ صَوَّرْنَاكُمْ ثُمَّ قُلْنَا لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ اسْجُدُوا لِآدَمَ). All of them accepted this command wholeheartedly and prostrated before Adam, except for Iblīs, who was not among those who prostrated (فَسَجَدُوا إِلَّا إِبْلِيسَ لَمْ يَكُنْ مِنَ السَّاجِدِينَ). In this verse, “creation” is mentioned prior to “fashioning,” and this may indicate that first the primordial material of human creation was brought into existence, and then it was given human form, as explained earlier in connection with Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 34. It should also be noted here that the angels’ prostration before Adam was not an act of worship, since worship is reserved exclusively for God; rather, it was a prostration of humility and honor, that is, an expression of reverence before Adam, or alternatively a prostration offered to God in thanksgiving for creating a creature so fitting, suitable, and dignified. As previously explained under the same verse, Iblīs was not among the angels; the Qur’anic verses explicitly state that he belonged to another class of beings known as jinn. In the following verse, God questions Iblīs regarding the cause of his rebellion and defiance, saying: What prevented you from prostrating when I commanded you? (قَالَ مَا مَنَعَكَ أَلَّا تَسْجُدَ إِذْ أَمَرْتُكَ). Iblīs responded by resorting to an invalid pretext, saying: I am better than him; You created me from fire and created him from clay (قَالَ أَنَا خَيْرٌ مِنْهُ خَلَقْتَنِي مِنْ نَارٍ وَخَلَقْتَهُ مِنْ طِينٍ). He thus imagined that fire is superior and nobler than earth. This was a grave misconception on the part of Iblīs. Indeed, it may not even have been a genuine misconception, but rather a deliberate falsehood, for it is well known that earth is the source of manifold blessings, the origin of all vital materials, and one of the primary means of the survival of living beings, whereas fire does not possess these characteristics. It is true that fire is one of the conditions involved in the processes of decomposition and combination in the world of beings, but the fundamental role in the constitution of living beings belongs to the materials contained in earth; fire merely plays a complementary role. It is also correct that the earth, at the time of its formation, separated from the sun and existed as a mass of fire which gradually cooled. Yet it must be remembered that so long as the earth remained hot and aflame, no living creature existed upon it; life appeared only when fire gave way to soil and clay. Moreover, every fire that appears on earth originates from substances that themselves come from the earth: trees grow from soil, fire emerges from trees, and even the elements of oil or combustible fats ultimately trace back either to the earth itself or to living creatures that derive nourishment from plants. Leaving all this aside, reflection shows that Adam’s distinction did not lie merely in the fact that he was created from earth; rather, his true distinction was that he possessed the spirit of humanity, by virtue of which he attained the rank of divine vicegerency and representation. Therefore, even if it were conceded that the primordial material of Satan’s creation was superior, it would not follow that he should refuse to bow in humility before Adam, whom God had endowed with spirit, dignity, and the rank of divine representation. It is evident that Satan was aware of all these realities; it was only his arrogance and pride that prevented him from obedience, and all the rest were merely excuses.

In numerous narrations transmitted from the Pure Household (Ahl al‑Bayt) (peace be upon them), there is a strong condemnation of employing qiyās (analogical reasoning) in the religious rulings. In these narrations it is stated that the first person to resort to qiyās was Iblīs. Likewise, in Sunni sources—such as Tafsīr al‑Manār and Tafsīr al‑Ṭabarī—this same point is reported from Ibn ʿAbbās and Ḥasan al‑Baṣrī. What is meant by qiyās is that two subjects which resemble one another in some respects are compared, and the ruling of one is applied to the other, without having knowledge of the underlying reasons and philosophy of the original ruling. For example, we know that human urine is impure and must be avoided; then one might analogize human sweat to it and claim that since both are liquids and resemble one another in some aspects and components, both must be impure. However, although these two fluids may resemble one another in certain respects, they differ in others: one is thin and the other thicker; avoiding one is easy, while avoiding the other is very difficult. Moreover, the full rationale behind avoiding urine is not completely known to us. Thus, such reasoning is nothing more than conjectural comparison. For this reason, our leaders—whose teachings are derived from the commands of the Messenger of God (peace be upon him and his Family)—have strongly condemned qiyās and declared it wholly invalid. If the door of qiyās were opened to everyone, the inevitable outcome would be that each person, despite limited understanding and deficient insight, would begin applying analogies in religious law; wherever two things appear slightly similar, the ruling of one would be imposed upon the other, resulting in chaos and disorder in the laws of Islam and the rulings of the Sharīʿah. From a rational perspective as well, the prohibition of qiyās is not confined to religious laws alone. Physicians likewise insist that the prescription of one patient should never be given to another patient, even if their illnesses appear outwardly similar. The reason is obvious: although the two patients may seem alike to us, they may differ in many respects, such as tolerance for medication, blood group, or levels of sugar and fat in the blood. Ordinary people cannot comprehend or diagnose such factors; only a trained physician can. If a medication is given to another patient without regard for these specifics, it may cause harm rather than benefit—harm that may be irreparable. This is merely an example; divine laws are even more subtle and complex than this. For this reason, narrations state that if qiyās is applied to the rulings of God, the religion of God will be destroyed, or that the harms of qiyās outweigh any supposed benefits. Moreover, resorting to qiyās in determining divine rulings implies that the religion of Islam is incomplete. If we accept that for every matter there exists a ruling in our religion, and that there is no aspect of life upon which the Qurʾan and ḥadīth have not shed light, then what need remains for qiyās? This is precisely why adherents of the Shiʿi school do not act upon qiyās, as they obtain all essential religious rulings from the Pure Household, who are the true deputies and heirs of the Messenger of God (peace be upon him and his Family). Sunni jurists, however, having set aside the school of the Ahl al‑Bayt—regarding whom the Prophet (peace be upon him and his Family) declared them to be the refuge of the Muslims after the Qurʾan—found themselves lacking sufficient sources for Islamic rulings. Consequently, they were left with no option but to extend their hand toward qiyās. As for Satan, concerning whom it is stated in the narrations that he was the first to employ qiyās, the point is that he compared his own material origin to that of Adam, and by claiming the superiority of fire over earth in some respects, inferred an absolute superiority for himself. He ignored the other distinct qualities of earth, and more importantly, he failed to attend to Adam’s spiritual and moral distinctions. Technically, this type of analogy is called qiyās al‑awlawiyyah (a fortiori analogy). Through this analogy—based merely on conjecture and superficial observation—he deemed himself superior to Adam and, on the strength of this false reasoning, dared to reject the divine command. It is noteworthy that in narrations transmitted through both Shiʿi and Sunni routes from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), it is stated: “من قاس امرالدین براٴیہ قرنہ اللّٰہ تعالٰی یوم القیامة بابلیس” — whoever applies his own analogy in matters of religion, God will place him alongside Iblīs on the Day of Resurrection. In summary, comparing one subject to another without full knowledge of all its underlying principles and secrets cannot constitute proof that both should have the same ruling. If the path of qiyās were opened in religious matters, the result would be that no coherent system of divine law would remain, since it would become possible for one person to analogize a given issue in a manner that leads to prohibition, while another person analogizes the same issue differently and arrives at permissibility.

Only one subject admits of an exception, namely where the legislator—such as a physician—explicitly states the rationale and cause of a ruling. In that case, wherever that stated rationale and cause are present, the ruling may be applied accordingly. In technical terms, this is called qiyās manṣūṣ al‑ʿillah. For example, if a physician tells a patient to avoid a certain fruit because it is sour, the patient understands that acidity is harmful to him and should therefore be avoided wherever it is found, even if it occurs in another fruit. In exactly the same way, if the Qur’an or the Sunnah explicitly states that wine is to be avoided because it is intoxicating, we understand that every intoxicating liquid (even if it is not wine) is prohibited. This kind of analogy is not forbidden, because the decisive cause has been explicitly stated. Analogy is prohibited only where we do not know the philosophy and rationale of a ruling with certainty and in all its aspects. The subject of qiyās is an extensive one; what has been stated above is only a brief and summary presentation. For further clarification, one should consult the sections on qiyās in the books of uṣūl al‑fiqh and ḥadīth. We conclude this discussion by citing a narration reported in ʿIlal al‑Sharāʾiʿ: On one occasion, Abū Ḥanīfah came to Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him). The Imām said to him: “I have been informed that you apply your own analogy in the rulings of God.” Abū Ḥanīfah replied: “Yes, that is so; I employ analogy.” The Imām said: “Do not do so in the future, for the first person who employed analogy was Iblīs, when he said: خَلَقْتَنِی مِنْ نَارٍ وَخَلَقْتَهُ مِنْ طِینٍ. He compared fire and clay with one another, whereas had he compared the luminosity and spirituality of Adam to fire, he would have recognized the great difference between the two and perceived the superiority that luminosity and spirituality possess over fire.”

Here remains one important question: how did Satan converse with God? Did revelation (waḥy) also descend upon him? The response is that God’s speaking does not always take the form of revelation, because revelation in its technical sense denotes the communication of prophethood and messengership. There is nothing to prevent God from addressing a being—not in the capacity of revelation or prophethood, but by way of inner inspiration or through an angel—whether that being is righteous, such as Mary or the mother of Moses, or unrighteous, such as Satan. We now return to the interpretation of the remaining verses. Satan’s refusal to prostrate before Adam was not an ordinary or trivial refusal, nor was it a common sin. Rather, it was an act of rebellion and protest that implicitly contained a rejection of the divine station itself. When Satan claimed, “I am better than Adam,” the meaning of this statement was essentially that the command to prostrate before Adam was—God forbid—contrary to wisdom and justice, and that it involved preferring the inferior to the superior. For this reason, his refusal became bound up with unbelief and with the denial of God’s wisdom and knowledge. Consequently, he fell from the rank and station he had held in the divine presence, and he was told: “Descend from it” (قَالَ فَاهْبِطْ مِنْهَا). Regarding the pronoun “minhā” (“from it”) in this verse, some exegetes have held that it refers to heaven or Paradise, while others maintain that it refers to rank and station. In terms of the ultimate outcome, however, there is no substantial difference between these views. Thereafter, the essential reason for his downfall is stated: you have no right to display arrogance in this station (فَمَا يَكُونُ لَكَ أَنْ تَتَكَبَّرَ فِيهَا). Once again, for further emphasis, it is said: “Go forth, for you are among the abased” (فَاخْرُجْ إِنَّكَ مِنَ الصَّاغِرِينَ). That is, as a result of this act you not only failed to attain any greatness, but instead plunged into the depths of humiliation and abasement. This makes it entirely clear that Satan’s entire misfortune stemmed from his arrogance. His self‑conceit and pride—by which he assigned himself a rank that he did not in reality deserve—led him not only to refuse to prostrate before Adam, but also to deny God’s wisdom and knowledge and to criticize the divine command. As a result, he lost his rank and station and, instead of attaining greatness, purchased eternal humiliation and disgrace. Thus, he not only failed to reach his supposed goal, but ended up moving in the exact opposite direction. In Sermon al‑Qāṣiʿah of Nahj al‑Balāghah, Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (peace be upon him), in condemning arrogance, self‑admiration, and pride, states: فاعتبروا بما كان من فعل الله بإبليس إذا حبط عمله الطويل وجهده الجهيد، وكان قد عبد الله ستة آلاف سنة… عن كبر ساعة واحدة. فمن ذا بعد إبليس يسلم على الله بمثل معصيته؟! كلا، ما كان الله سبحانه ليدخل الجنة بشراً بأمر أخرج به منها ملكاً. إن حكمه في أهل السماء وأهل الأرض لواحد. “Take admonition from what God did with Iblīs: how He rendered futile his lengthy acts and his strenuous efforts, even though he had worshipped God for six thousand years—whether of the years of this world or of the Hereafter—because of the arrogance of a single moment. After Iblīs, who can feel secure from God’s punishment by committing a sin like his? Never! God would never admit to Paradise a human being by an act through which He expelled an angel from it, for His ruling concerning the inhabitants of the heavens and the inhabitants of the earth is one and the same.” (Here the term “angel” is applied to Satan because he was among the ranks of the angels, not because he himself was an angel, as previously clarified.) In another narration from Imām Zayn al‑ʿĀbidīn (peace be upon him), it is reported that sins have many types and many causes, but the greatest cause of disobedience to God is arrogance, which was the sin of Iblīs, due to which he rejected God’s command, became arrogant, and joined the disbelievers. After that came greed (ḥirṣ), on account of which Adam and Eve committed their lapse (tark al‑awlā). Then comes envy (ḥasad), which was the cause of the sin committed by Adam’s son (Qābīl), who envied his brother (Hābīl) and killed him. Likewise, Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) is reported to have said: “The roots of disbelief are three: greed, arrogance, and envy. As for greed, when Adam was forbidden from the tree, greed drove him to eat from it. As for arrogance, when Iblīs was commanded to prostrate before Adam, he refused. And as for envy, it was because of envy that one of Adam’s sons killed the other.” However, Satan’s story does not end here. When he realized that he had been expelled from the divine presence, his rebellion and obstinacy increased still further. Instead of remorse and repentance, instead of turning back to God and admitting his error, he merely requested that God grant him respite—to allow him to live until the end of the world (قَالَ أَنْظِرْنِي إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ يُبْعَثُونَ). His request was granted, and God said: you are indeed among those granted respite (قَالَ إِنَّكَ مِنَ الْمُنظَرِينَ). Although this verse does not specify the precise extent of the respite, Sūrat al‑Ḥijr, verse 38, clarifies: إِنَّكَ مِنَ الْمُنظَرِينَ إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ الْوَقْتِ الْمَعْلُومِ—that is, you are granted respite until a known appointed time. Thus, his request was not accepted in full; rather, respite was granted only to the extent God willed. God willing, discussion of this matter will follow under that verse. What is clear here is that Satan did not seek this respite in order to rectify his error. Instead, he openly stated the purpose of his prolonged existence: “Since You have led me astray, I will surely lie in wait for them on Your straight path” (قَالَ فَبِمَا أَغْوَيْتَنِي لَأَقْعُدَنَّ لَهُمْ صِرَاطَكَ الْمُسْتَقِيمَ), so that, just as I have gone astray, they too may be led astray. Generating responseProvide your feedback on BizChatابلیس کی مہلت کی آیات کی مزید تفسیر کروابلیس اور آدم کے درمیان روحانی فرق کی وضاحت کروDrop your files here

From the above verse it becomes clear that Iblīs, in order to absolve himself, attributed compulsion (jabr) to God and said: “Since You have led me astray, I too will exert my utmost effort to lead the progeny of Adam astray.” Although some exegetes insist on interpreting the phrase “فَبِمَا أَغْوَيْتَنِي” in such a way that no doctrine of compulsion emerges from it, apparently there is no necessity for such an interpretation, because the apparent wording does convey the sense of jabr, and such an assertion is not unlikely to come from Satan. Evidence for this is found in a statement of Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (peace be upon him), made when he was returning from the Battle of Ṣiffīn and an elderly man asked him about qaḍāʾ wa qadar. The Imam replied: “Everything we have done has occurred by divine qaḍāʾ wa qadar.” The old man understood this as an affirmation of absolute compulsion. At that point, the Imam forcefully repudiated this mistaken notion and, in the course of a lengthy explanation, said: “تِلْكَ مَقَالَةُ إِخْوَانِ عَبَدَةِ الْأَوْثَانِ وَخُصَمَاءِ الرَّحْمٰنِ وَحِزْبِ الشَّيْطَانِ.” This is the statement of idol‑worshippers, enemies of the All‑Merciful, and the party of Satan. The Imam then interpreted qaḍāʾ wa qadar as legislative decree, that is, the divine commands and legal obligations. Thus it becomes evident that the first to espouse the doctrine of compulsion was Satan himself. Satan then reinforced his claim by saying: I will not only lie in ambush on their path, but I will come upon them from before them, from behind them, from their right, and from their left; as a result, You will not find most of them grateful (ثُمَّ لَآتِيَنَّهُمْ مِنْ بَيْنِ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَمِنْ خَلْفِهِمْ وَعَنْ أَيْمَانِهِمْ وَعَنْ شَمَائِلِهِمْ وَلَا تَجِدُ أَكْثَرَهُمْ شَاكِرِينَ). This expression may simply mean that Satan will surround human beings from every side and employ every possible means to mislead them; a similar mode of expression is found in ordinary speech when it is said that a person has been encircled by debt or illness from all directions. No mention is made of above and below, because human activity is generally confined to these four directions. However, a narration from Imam Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (peace be upon him) provides a deeper interpretation of these “four directions”: coming from behind means that Satan incites human beings to hoard wealth and to be miserly for the sake of possessions and children; coming from the right means that he casts doubt in a person’s heart and thereby undermines his spiritual affairs; and coming from the left signifies that he beautifies material pleasures and worldly lusts in human perception. At the end of this discussion, Satan is once again commanded to depart from the station of divine proximity and from his former rank and status. The distinction here is that the command to depart is issued in a more severe and more humiliating tone. This is likely due to Satan’s audacity and obstinacy, manifested in his vow to mislead the children of Adam. Initially, his sin consisted only in refusing to obey the divine command, for which he was ordered to depart. Subsequently, he committed an even greater sin by vowing before God to lead the progeny of Adam astray, speaking in a manner that amounted almost to a threat against God. What sin could be greater than this? Accordingly, God said to him: Depart from it in utter disgrace and utter humiliation (قَالَ اخْرُجْ مِنْهَا مَذْؤُومًا مَدْحُورًا). The term “مَذْؤُومًا” derives from ذَأْم and denotes severe blame, while “مَدْحُورًا” derives from دَحْر and means being driven out with abasement. God then declared: And I swear that whoever follows you, I shall surely fill Hell with you and with them all (لَمَنْ تَبِعَكَ مِنْهُمْ لَأَمْلَأَنَّ جَهَنَّمَ مِنْكُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ).

In discussions of this kind, several questions usually arise, of which the two most important are the following. First, why did God create Satan, when He knew that he would become a source of every kind of misguidance and whispering? Second, after Satan committed such a great sin, why did God accept his request and grant him a prolonged life? The answer to the first question has already been given in the first volume of Tafsīr‑i Namūnah. First, at the outset Satan’s creation was pure and free from defect. For this reason, for many long years he remained among the ranks of the angels, worshipping, and attained proximity to God, even though in terms of his creation he was not one of them. Thereafter, he misused his freedom of choice and, because of his rebellion and arrogance, was expelled from the divine presence and came to be designated as “Satan.” Second, the existence of Satan is not only harmful for those who walk on the path of truth, but is in fact a means for their growth and perfection. The presence of a powerful adversary before the human being is, in reality, a cause for strengthening and development. Wherever progress is observed, there is always some opposing factor present. No being advances on the path of perfection unless it confronts a strong challenger. The conclusion, therefore, is that although Satan himself bears responsibility for his own misdeeds, his whisperings are not harmful to the servants of God who seek to tread the path of truth; rather, indirectly, they are beneficial for them. The answer to the second question also becomes clear from what was said in response to the first. The continuation of Satan’s life, as a negative factor serving to reinforce positive elements, not only entails no harm but is actually effective. Even apart from Satan, there exist within us various instincts and natural inclinations that constantly contend with rational and spiritual faculties. Through this opposition and tension, the field is prepared for human growth and advancement. The preservation of Satan’s life likewise serves to strengthen the foundations of this very opposition. In other words, the straight path can only be recognized as such when there are numerous crooked and deviant paths alongside it; without this contrast, the concept of the straight path would not become clear. Moreover, many narrations report that after committing such a grave sin, Satan had entirely jeopardized his salvation and felicity in the Hereafter, and no hope of reform remained for him. Consequently, in return for the acts of worship he had performed in the worldly realm, he requested from God a prolonged life, a request that was granted in accordance with the principle of divine justice. It should also be borne in mind that although God granted Satan full freedom to mislead and whisper, He did not leave the human being defenseless. First, He endowed the human being with the great power of intellect, by means of which he is capable of constructing a firm barrier against the flood of satanic insinuations, especially when this faculty is properly nurtured. Second, the innate purity of human nature and the inherent love for growth and perfection embedded within the human constitution are themselves divine gifts that assist the human being in moving toward eternal felicity. Third, when Satan tempts a person and the human being, though striving to resist, becomes weak, God the Most Generous sends angels to assist him by inspiring him toward goodness, as stated in the Qur’an: إِنَّ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا رَبُّنَا اللّٰهُ ثُمَّ اسْتَقَامُوا تَتَنَزَّلُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ — those who say, “Our Lord is God,” and then remain steadfast, upon them descend the angels. Likewise, elsewhere it is stated: إِذْ يُوحِي رَبُّكَ إِلَى الْمَلَائِكَةِ أَنِّي مَعَكُمْ فَثَبِّتُوا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا — when your Lord revealed to the angels, “I am with you, so strengthen those who believe.”

Here an additional question arises: does the creation of Adam accord with the theory presented in the natural sciences (science), or not? And more fundamentally, has the evolutionary view reached the level of certainty in the view of scientists? These are necessary discussions which, God willing, we shall address under the relevant verses (such as verses 26–33 of Sūrat al‑Ḥijr).

See ayat 22 for tafseer.

See ayat 22 for tafseer.

See ayat 22 for tafseer.

In these verses, another portion of the narrative of Adam is presented. First, it is stated that God commanded Adam and his spouse (Eve) to take up residence in Paradise (وَيَا آدَمُ اسْكُنْ أَنْتَ وَزَوْجُكَ الْجَنَّةَ). From this statement it becomes evident that Adam and Eve were not in Paradise at the moment of their creation; rather, after their creation they were sent to Paradise. As we have already indicated in the verses of Sūrat al‑Baqarah relating to the creation of Adam, contextual indications suggest that this Paradise was not the Paradise promised in the Hereafter, but—as is also reported in the narrations of the Pure Household (peace be upon them)—a verdant and flourishing garden of this world in which various divine blessings had been provided. At that point, the first divine obligation and command appeared in the following form: you may eat from any tree of Paradise as you wish, but beware of approaching this particular tree, lest you become among the wrongdoers (فَكُلَا مِنْ حَيْثُ شِئْتُمَا وَلَا تَقْرَبَا هَٰذِهِ الشَّجَرَةَ فَتَكُونَا مِنَ الظَّالِمِينَ). Thereafter, Satan—who had been banished from the divine presence for refusing to prostrate and had resolutely decided to take revenge on Adam and his progeny for this defeat by any means possible, and to strive to divert them from the straight path—also knew that if Adam were to eat from the forbidden tree he would be expelled from Paradise. Thus he sought to cast his whisperings into Adam’s heart, employing various stratagems to attain his malevolent objective. The Qur’an first states that Satan began to cause them to slip, so that he might strip them of the garment of obedience and servitude and reveal to them their private parts which had been concealed (فَوَسْوَسَ لَهُمَا الشَّيْطَانُ لِيُبْدِيَ لَهُمَا مَا وُورِيَ عَنْهُمَا مِنْ سَوْآتِهِمَا). In order to reach his goal, Satan found it most effective to exploit the latent human desire for perfection and advancement, the urge toward eternal life, and to present disobedience to God as a plausible pretext. Thus he first said to Adam and Eve that God had forbidden them from this tree only because, if they were to eat from it, they would either become angels or achieve everlasting life (وَقَالَ مَا نَهَاكُمَا رَبُّكُمَا عَنْ هَٰذِهِ الشَّجَرَةِ إِلَّا أَنْ تَكُونَا مَلَكَيْنِ أَوْ تَكُونَا مِنَ الْخَالِدِينَ). In this way, he recast the divine command in a different light, attempting to persuade them that eating from the forbidden tree was not harmful but rather a means to immortality or angelic rank. This meaning is further supported by a statement attributed to Satan in Sūrat Ṭā Hā, verse 120: يَا آدَمُ هَلْ أَدُلُّكَ عَلَىٰ شَجَرَةِ الْخُلْدِ وَمُلْكٍ لَا يَبْلَىٰ—“O Adam, shall I guide you to the tree of immortality and to a dominion that does not decay?” A narration reported in Tafsīr al‑Qummī from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq and in ʿUyūn Akhbār al‑Riḍā from Imām ʿAlī ibn Mūsā al‑Riḍā (peace be upon them) states that Satan told Adam that if he ate from the forbidden tree, he and his spouse would become angels and remain in Paradise forever; otherwise, they would be expelled from it. When Adam heard this, he became pensive. To make his stratagem more effective, Satan then solemnly swore an oath, declaring that he was indeed a sincere adviser to them (وَقَاسَمَهُمَا إِنِّي لَكُمَا لَمِنَ النَّاصِحِينَ). Adam, who had not yet acquired sufficient experience of life and had not previously encountered Satan’s deceit, falsehood, and trickery, could not conceive that someone might utter so grave a false oath or spread such snares. Ultimately, he fell prey to Satan’s deception. In his desire to obtain the water of life and eternal sovereignty, he grasped the frayed rope of Iblīs’s deceit and descended into the well of temptation; the rope snapped, and he not only failed to attain immortality but became entangled in the whirlpool of disobedience to God. The Qur’an encapsulates this entire episode with the phrase: فَدَلَّاهُمَا بِغُرُورٍ—he lowered them by means of deception. The term dalā is derived from tadlīyah, which literally means lowering a bucket into a well by a rope. Metaphorically, this signifies that Satan bound them with the rope of his deception and brought them down from their lofty station, plunging them into a pit of hardship and distance from divine mercy. Given Satan’s prior enmity and Adam’s awareness of God’s encompassing wisdom, mercy, and benevolence, Adam should have shattered all of Satan’s webs of deception. Yet what should not have occurred did occur. As soon as Adam and Eve tasted the forbidden tree, their garments fell away from them and their private parts became manifest (فَلَمَّا ذَاقَا الشَّجَرَةَ بَدَتْ لَهُمَا سَوْآتُهُمَا). This statement clearly shows that the immediate negative effect appeared as soon as they tasted the forbidden tree: deprived of their paradisal garment, which in reality was a garment of divine honor and dignity, they became exposed. The verse makes it clear that Adam and Eve were not naked prior to this act of disobedience; rather, they wore garments, though the Qur’an does not describe their exact nature. Whatever those garments were, they were appropriate to Adam and Eve’s dignity and were taken from them as a consequence of disobedience. By contrast, in the later, human‑authored Torah it is claimed that Adam and Eve were initially naked but were unaware of the shame of nakedness, and only after eating from the tree of knowledge did they become aware of it. The Adam depicted in such a narrative is unlike the Adam introduced by the Qur’an. The Qur’anic Adam was not only conscious of his condition but was also aware of the secrets of creation (ʿilm al‑asmāʾ) and was counted among the teachers of the celestial realm. If Satan influenced him, it was not due to ignorance, but due to exploitation of his purity and sincerity. This understanding is reinforced by verse 27 of the same sūrah, which states: يَا بَنِي آدَمَ لَا يَفْتِنَنَّكُمُ الشَّيْطَانُ كَمَا أَخْرَجَ أَبَوَيْكُمْ مِنَ الْجَنَّةِ يَنْزِعُ عَنْهُمَا لِبَاسَهُمَا—“O children of Adam, let not Satan tempt you as he expelled your parents from Paradise, stripping from them their garment.” If some Islamic exegetes have written that Adam was initially naked, this is in fact a clear error arising from reliance on the Torah narrative. The Qur’an continues by stating that when Adam and Eve realized their condition, they immediately began to cover themselves with the leaves of the trees of Paradise (وَطَفِقَا يَخْصِفَانِ عَلَيْهِمَا مِنْ وَرَقِ الْجَنَّةِ). The verb yakhsifān is derived from khasf, meaning to join or attach one thing to another; it later came to be used for sewing shoes or garments, since sewing joins separate pieces together. At that moment, a divine call was issued: “Did I not forbid you from that tree, and did I not tell you that Satan is a clear enemy to you?” (وَنَادَاهُمَا رَبُّهُمَا أَلَمْ أَنْهَكُمَا عَنْ تِلْكُمَا الشَّجَرَةِ وَأَقُلْ لَكُمَا إِنَّ الشَّيْطَانَ لَكُمَا عَدُوٌّ مُبِينٌ). From this verse and the earlier verse permitting Adam and Eve to reside in Paradise, it becomes evident how far they had fallen from the station of divine proximity as a result of this act of disobedience—so much so that they were even distanced from the trees of Paradise. In the earlier verse the phrase “هَٰذِهِ الشَّجَرَةَ” (“this tree”) is used, employing a demonstrative for nearness, whereas in the later verse the vocative “نَادَاهُمَا” and the demonstrative “تِلْكُمَا” (“that tree”)—both indicating distance—are used, subtly reflecting their altered state and separation.

The expression “وسوس له”—which includes the particle lām, commonly used to denote benefit or advantage—indicates that Satan presented his whispering in the guise of goodwill and friendship toward Adam. By contrast, the expression “وسوس إليه” does not yield this meaning; rather, it simply denotes the act of exerting covert influence upon someone’s heart. In any case, it should not be imagined that satanic whisperings, however strong and forceful they may be, deprive the human being of autonomy or free will. Even thereafter, a person remains capable of resisting them through the power of intellect and faith. In other words, satanic whisperings do not compel one irresistibly toward evil acts; the faculty of choice and volition remains intact. Nevertheless, opposing such whisperings requires firmness and perseverance, and at times entails enduring great hardship and suffering. Yet under all these circumstances, such whisperings do not abolish personal responsibility and accountability, just as they did not do so in the case of Adam. As we have seen, despite all the instigations and inducements that Satan employed in order to mislead Adam, God held Adam accountable for his action and, on that basis—as will be discussed subsequently—assigned its corresponding consequence.

The first is a material interpretation, according to which—on the basis of narrations—it is identified as wheat. It should be noted that in Arabic the word shajarah is not applied exclusively to a tree; rather, it is also used for various kinds of plants, whether in the form of shrubs or vines. For this reason, the Qur’an itself refers to the gourd vine as a shajarah: وَأَنْبَتْنَا عَلَيْهِ شَجَرَةً مِنْ يَقْطِينٍ (al‑Ṣāffāt 37:146). The second is a spiritual or conceptual interpretation, which in the narrations of the Ahl al‑Bayt (peace be upon them) is expressed as “the tree of envy” (shajarat al‑ḥasad). The substance of these narrations is that when Adam observed his exalted rank and lofty station, a thought occurred to him that God had not created any being superior to him. God then informed him that among his descendants there would be certain divine friends—namely, the Prophet of Islam and his pure Household (peace be upon them)—whose rank would be even higher than his own. At that point, a state resembling envy arose in Adam. Here, by envy is meant rashk (emulative admiration), which in itself is praiseworthy; however, even this form of emulation is impermissible in relation to Muḥammad and the family of Muḥammad (peace be upon them all), as is indicated by the story of Adam. In Arabic usage, the term ḥasad is also applied to rashk. This, according to the narrations, was the “forbidden tree” from whose vicinity Adam was warned to keep away. In reality, as reported in the narrations, Adam partook of two “trees.” One was a tree lower than his station, drawing him toward the material world, identified as the wheat plant. The other was a spiritual tree, representing the rank of particular divine saints, a rank superior to Adam’s own. Adam exceeded the proper limit in both respects, and therefore became subject to the consequences that followed. It should, however, be emphasized that this “envy” did not belong to the category of prohibited envy; it was merely a passing inner feeling, and Adam undertook no action upon it. As repeatedly noted, Qur’anic verses can bear multiple layers of meaning, and there is therefore no impediment to understanding shajarah here in both senses simultaneously. Indeed, the word shajarah appears in the Qur’an in both meanings: sometimes in the sense of an actual tree, as in وَشَجَرَةً تَخْرُجُ مِنْ طُورِ سَيْنَاءَ تَنْبُتُ بِالدُّهْنِ (al‑Muʾminūn 23:20), referring to the olive tree; and sometimes in a metaphorical sense, as in وَالشَّجَرَةَ المَلْعُونَةَ فِي القُرْآنِ (al‑Isrāʾ 17:60), which refers to accursed groups such as the polytheists, the Jews, or other rebellious communities (for example, Banū Umayyah). Although some exegetes have proposed additional interpretations, the clearest meaning is the one stated here. At this point, it is also appropriate to draw attention to another matter (as was already mentioned in the first volume): in the present, human‑authored Torah—accepted by contemporary Jews and Christians—the forbidden tree is interpreted as the “tree of life” or the “tree of knowledge.” The Torah states, in effect, that before Adam ate from the tree of knowledge, he was devoid of knowledge and was not even aware of his nakedness; once he ate from it, his eyes were opened, he truly became “Adam,” and he was expelled from Paradise lest he eat also from the tree of life and attain immortality like the gods. This account is clear evidence that the present form of the Torah is not a revealed heavenly book, but rather a human composition, reflecting the mentality of someone who regarded knowledge as blameworthy for Adam and considered him deserving of expulsion from God’s garden for acquiring knowledge—implying that Paradise is not for enlightened human beings. It is noteworthy that Dr. William Miller, regarded as an authoritative interpreter of the Old and New Testaments, writes in his book What Is Christianity? that Satan entered the garden in the form of a serpent and persuaded Eve to eat the fruit of that tree; Eve ate and gave it to Adam, and he ate as well. According to Miller, this act was neither a minor mistake nor an unintentional error, but a deliberate rebellion against the Creator: they wished to become “gods” themselves rather than submit to God’s will. As a result, God severely reproached them and expelled them from the garden so that they might live in a world filled with pain and suffering. In attempting to interpret the forbidden tree, this biblical exegete effectively attributes the gravest possible sin—rebellion against God—to Adam. It would have been far preferable for such interpreters to acknowledge the distortions present in their “sacred texts” rather than offering such untenable explanations.

From the passages cited above from the Jewish and Christian sacred scriptures, it appears that they not only maintain that Adam committed sin and transgression, but also regard his sin as far from trivial. Rather, they consider it a grave sin, to the extent that Adam is said to have resolved to wage war against the divine lordship. In contrast, Islamic sources—whether grounded in rational argument or in Qur’anic verses and transmitted reports—clearly establish that no prophet commits sin and that the leadership of humankind is never entrusted to a sinner. It is known that Adam (peace be upon him) was among the divine prophets. Therefore, the verses and other texts in which disobedience is ascribed to Adam or to other prophets are to be understood as referring to “relative disobedience” (ʿiṣyān nisbi) and “leaving the preferable” (tark al‑awlā), not to absolute sin. It should be recognized that sin is of two kinds: first, “absolute sin” (Absolute Sin), and second, “relative sin” (Relative Sin). Absolute sin consists of violating a prohibitive command (nahy taḥrīmī), abandoning a definitive divine obligation, or committing an act that is categorically forbidden. By contrast, relative sin occurs when a person of elevated rank performs an act that is not prohibited in itself but is incompatible with that person’s dignity and station. It may happen that an act which is permissible or even recommended is nevertheless unfitting for a person of high spiritual rank; in such a case, that act is called a “relative sin.” For example, if a faithful and wealthy individual provides only minimal assistance to rescue a poor person from poverty, that assistance—however small—is not unlawful and is even meritorious, yet anyone who hears of it would feel as though the benefactor had committed a fault, because greater generosity was expected of someone of his means and faith. Accordingly, the actions of those who are close to the divine presence are assessed in light of their elevated status. If their acts fall short of the standard appropriate to their rank, expressions such as disobedience or sin (ʿiṣyān, dhanb) may be employed for them. As it is said: “ḥasanāt al‑abrār sayyiʾāt al‑muqarrabīn”—sometimes an act that counts as a good deed for ordinary righteous people is reckoned as a sin for those who are especially near to God. For example, a prayer performed without full presence of heart may be considered commendable for an ordinary believer, yet the same prayer may be regarded as a “sin” for the friends of God, because for them even momentary heedlessness during worship is unbefitting; by virtue of their knowledge and piety, they are expected to be wholly immersed in the divine majesty during prayer. The same principle applies to their other actions. For this reason, when a tark al‑awlā occurs on their part—that is, when they leave a more excellent act in favor of a less excellent yet lawful act—it may become a cause for divine reproach. Islamic narrations relate that the hardships endured by Prophet Jacob (peace be upon him), including the prolonged separation from his son, resulted from an incident in which a needy fasting person came to his door at sunset and Jacob neglected to assist him, causing the poor man to depart hungry and disheartened. Had such an omission occurred from an ordinary person, it might not have been deemed significant; but when it occurred from a great prophet and guide of the community, God attached such seriousness to it that severe consequences followed. The prohibition directed to Adam regarding the “forbidden tree” was likewise not a prohibitive command in the strictly unlawful sense (nahy taḥrīmī), but rather pertained to tark al‑awlā. Given Adam’s exalted status, however, this matter assumed gravity, and its violation—though not an act of absolute sin—became a cause of divine admonition. Some exegetes have also suggested that the prohibition addressed to Adam was a “guidance‑based prohibition” (nahy irshādī), not a legislative one (nahy mawlawī). A legislative prohibition issues from God in His capacity as sovereign and lawgiver, the obedience of which is obligatory for all. A guidance‑based prohibition, by contrast, warns that engaging in a certain act will lead to adverse consequences, much like a physician warning a patient against harmful foods. If a patient disregards such advice, he has neither insulted the physician nor committed an act of disobedience; rather, he has ignored beneficial guidance and consequently suffers harm. On this view, Adam was informed that eating from the forbidden tree would result in expulsion from Paradise and exposure to hardship; thus the prohibition served as counsel, not as a binding legal command. Nonetheless, the first interpretation appears more sound, because a guidance‑based prohibition does not normally require repentance and the seeking of forgiveness, whereas Adam—as will be shown—did indeed seek divine forgiveness. Moreover, as explained earlier, Adam’s stay in Paradise constituted a period of instruction and preparation during which he was introduced to divine commands and prohibitions, taught to distinguish friend from foe, informed of the consequences of disobedience, and warned against yielding to satanic temptation. It is known, however, that a guidance‑based prohibition does not entail legal obligation in the technical sense and thus does not normally generate liability, whereas Adam’s response indicates a deeper moral accountability. In conclusion, it should be borne in mind that terms such as prohibition, disobedience, forgiveness, and wrongdoing—though they properly apply to absolute sin and its consequences—must, in light of the proven doctrine of prophetic infallibility (ʿiṣmah), be interpreted as instances of “relative sin” when applied to Adam and other prophets. Given their exalted stature, this interpretation is neither far‑fetched nor problematic.

See ayat 25 for tafseer.

See ayat 25 for tafseer.

Finally, when Adam and Eve fully realized Satan’s ruse and the consequence of their disobedience became clear to them, they became concerned with repairing their past loss. Thus, they took the first step by confessing before God the wrongdoing they had committed against themselves and said: “Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves” (قَالَا رَبَّنَا ظَلَمْنَا أَنْفُسَنَا); and “if You do not forgive us and show us mercy, we shall surely be among the losers” (وَإِنْ لَمْ تَغْفِرْ لَنَا وَتَرْحَمْنَا لَنَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ). In the process of turning back to God and rectifying corruption, the very first step is that a person dismounts from the steed of pride and obstinacy and confesses his error—a confession that reforms him and assists him in advancing along the path of growth. It is noteworthy here that in their repentance and plea for forgiveness, Adam and Eve observed a refined etiquette: they did not even say, “O God, forgive us” (اغفر لنا); rather, they said, “If You do not forgive us, we shall be losers.” There is no doubt that every sin and every act of disobedience constitutes an act of injustice against oneself, since all commands and laws are established for human felicity and perfection; any violation of them obstructs the path of perfection and results in human decline. Adam and Eve, although they did not commit a sin in the strict sense, nevertheless experienced the consequence of this tark al-awlā (leaving the preferable), which caused them to descend from their lofty station. Although the sincere repentance of Adam and Eve was accepted in the divine presence—as stated in Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 37: فَتَابَ عَلَيْهِ (“He accepted their repentance”)—the necessary consequence of this tark al-awlā nevertheless manifested itself, for they were commanded to depart from Paradise. It was said: “Descend; some of you shall be enemies to others” (قَالَ اهْبِطُوا بَعْضُكُمْ لِبَعْضٍ عَدُوٌّ). And the earth will be for you a place of settlement and a means of sustenance for a time (وَلَكُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ مُسْتَقَرٌّ وَمَتَاعٌ إِلَىٰ حِينٍ). They were also informed: you will live upon it, die upon it, and from it you will be brought forth for resurrection (قَالَ فِيهَا تَحْيَوْنَ وَفِيهَا تَمُوتُونَ وَمِنْهَا تُخْرَجُونَ). From the verse قَالَ اهْبِطُوا بَعْضُكُمْ لِبَعْضٍ عَدُوٌّ it appears that Adam, Eve, and Satan are all intended; however, the subsequent verse serves as an indicator that only Adam and Eve are meant here, since their resurrection and return will be from the earth.

Although some exegetes who are heavily influenced by Western thought have attempted to depict the entire story of Adam and his spouse—from beginning to end—as metaphorical, allegorical, and figurative, and in contemporary terms to describe it as purely symbolic, there is no doubt that the outward wording of these verses presents a real and historical narrative that actually befell our first parents. Since there is not a single point in this account that conflicts with the literal wording of the text or with reason, there is no necessity to abandon its apparent meaning or to evade its factual import. At the same time, it is possible that within this tangible and concrete event there are elements that also pertain to the future life of humanity. That is, in the tumultuous arena of life, human beings may encounter many situations that resemble the story of Adam and Eve. This can be understood as follows: on the one hand, the human being is composed of intellect, desire, and impulse, with these forces pulling him in different directions; on the other hand, there are false guides whose past, like that of Satan, is well known, and who cause human beings—hoping for water—to mistake mirage for reality, wander in deserts, and lose their lives. The first consequence of falling prey to such satanic deception is that the “garment of piety” falls from the human being, and his inner flaws become manifest and exposed. The second consequence is distance from the divine presence: the human being falls from his exalted station and, expelled from the paradise of tranquility and inner peace, becomes entangled in the forests of hardship and affliction characteristic of material life. At this stage, however, the power of intellect can still come to his aid, providing an opportunity to compensate for the loss and to return him once again to the presence of God, so that he may openly and courageously confess his sin—such a confession as guarantees the rebuilding of his life and marks a decisive new turning point. This is precisely the moment when the hand of divine mercy is extended once more toward him, to rescue him from permanent decline and degradation. Although the bitter taste of his past sin remains upon his tongue as an inevitable consequence, the experience itself becomes a lesson of admonition: through the experience of defeat, he can lay firm the foundations of a renewed life and transform loss and damage into the basis for future felicity.

See ayat 28 for tafseer.

See ayat 28 for tafseer.

As stated in the concluding discussion of the preceding verses, the narrative of Adam and his struggle with Satan constitutes a reflection of the experiences that confront all human beings who come upon the earth. For this reason, following those verses God addresses all the children of Adam with a series of constructive directives, which in reality represent a continuation of the commands given to Adam in Paradise. First among these is the matter of clothing and covering the body, which also held a central place in the story of Adam. He says: O children of Adam, We have sent down upon you clothing that covers your private parts (سَوْآتِكُمْ) (يَابَنِي آدَمَ قَدْ أَنْزَلْنَا عَلَيْكُمْ لِبَاسًا يُوَارِي سَوْآتِكُمْ). Yet the function of clothing is not limited merely to covering the body and concealing its exposure; rather, it has also been provided as an adornment for you, enhancing the appearance of the body and presenting it in a more pleasing form (وَرِيشًا). In Arabic, rīsh originally denotes the feathers of a bird; since feathers also function as a form of covering, the term came to be used for clothing in general. Moreover, because feathers are beautiful, the concept of adornment is also inherent in the word rīsh. In addition, the cloth placed upon a horse’s saddle or a camel’s back is likewise called rīsh. Some lexicographers and exegetes have extended the meaning of rīsh even further, applying it to anything that human beings require for their livelihood; however, in the present verse the appropriate meaning is clothing as adornment. Immediately after mentioning outward clothing, the Qur’an turns to the subject of inner or spiritual clothing, in accordance with its usual method of presenting both aspects when a matter has dual dimensions. Thus it declares: but the clothing of piety—that is better (وَلِبَاسُ التَّقْوَىٰ ذٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ). The metaphor of clothing for piety and God‑consciousness is profoundly eloquent and meaningful. Just as clothing protects the body from heat and cold, serves as a shield in many dangers, conceals physical shortcomings, and constitutes a form of adornment, so too the state of piety and God‑consciousness protects the human being from the destructive effects of sin, safeguards him from numerous individual and social harms, and becomes a great adornment for him. Piety is a captivating adornment that confers dignity and weight upon the human personality. Exegetes have discussed at length what is meant by “the clothing of piety.” Some have said it refers to righteous action; others have interpreted it as modesty (ḥayāʾ); still others have understood it as the garment of worship; and some have taken it to mean protective attire such as armor, helmets, and shields, since taqwā is derived from wiqāyah, meaning protection. The Qur’an itself uses taqwā in this sense, as in Sūrat al‑Naḥl, verse 81: وَجَعَلَ لَكُمْ سَرَابِيلَ تَقِيكُمُ الْحَرَّ وَسَرَابِيلَ تَقِيكُم بَأْسَكُمْ—garments that protect you from heat and garments that protect you in battle. However, as repeatedly noted, Qur’anic expressions often carry broad meanings with multiple valid applications; therefore, all these interpretations may be encompassed by the present verse. Since “the clothing of piety” is mentioned in contrast to physical clothing, it is clear that what is primarily intended is the spirit of piety and God‑consciousness that safeguards the human soul, within which modesty and righteous deeds are also included. At the end of the verse it is stated that these garments bestowed upon you by God—whether material or spiritual, physical clothing or the clothing of piety—are among the signs of God, so that His servants may remember the divine blessings (ذٰلِكَ مِنْ آيَاتِ اللَّهِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَذَّكَّرُونَ).

In numerous verses of the Noble Qur’an the term “anzalnā” (“We sent down”) appears, which at first glance may seem incompatible with a strictly spatial sense of descending from above to below, as in the verse under discussion. For in this verse God the Exalted says: We sent down for you clothing so that it may cover your private parts, even though it is well known that garments are ordinarily produced either from animal wool or from plants, all of which belong to the earth. Likewise, in Sūrat al‑Zumar, verse 6, it is said: “وَأَنْزَلَ لَكُمْ مِنَ الْأَنْعَامِ ثَمَانِيَةَ أَزْوَاجٍ” (“He sent down for you eight pairs from among the livestock”), and in Sūrat al‑Ḥadīd, verse 25, it is said: “وَأَنْزَلْنَا الْحَدِيدَ” (“and We sent down iron”). Many exegetes insist that in such verses nuzūl makānī (spatial descent from above to below) is intended and interpret them accordingly. For example, they say that since rain descends from above and from it plants grow and animals are nourished, the raw materials for clothing are, in this sense, sent down from the sky; similarly, regarding iron, they argue that meteors falling from the sky contain iron elements. However, if attention is paid to the fact that the term nuzūl is sometimes used for nuzūl maqāmī (descent in rank or source), a usage well established in everyday language—such as when it is said “this order was issued from a higher authority” or “I submitted my complaint to the judge”—then there is no necessity to insist upon spatial descent in interpreting these verses. All divine blessings originate from God’s exalted court and reach His servants from there; consequently, the use of the term nuzūl for them is entirely appropriate and contextually fitting. An analogy may also be found in demonstrative expressions denoting “near” and “far.” Sometimes an object is physically very close to us, yet because of its elevated rank or status it is referred to using a term of distance. Thus one may say “I submit before His Excellency,” even though the person addressed may be seated nearby. Similarly, in the Qur’an we read: “ذَٰلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ”—“That Book, in which there is no doubt”—where “that” points not to physical distance, but to exaltation and lofty rank.

As seen in the passages cited above from the Jewish and Christian scriptures, they not only maintain that Adam committed sin and transgression, but also regard his act as far from a minor lapse. Rather, they portray it as a grave offense, even to the point that Adam is depicted as having entered into conflict with the divine lordship. In contrast, Islamic sources—whether grounded in rational reasoning or in Qur’anic verses and transmitted reports—affirm unequivocally that no prophet commits sin, and that the leadership of humankind is never entrusted to one who is sinful. It is well known that Adam (peace be upon him) was among the divinely appointed prophets. Accordingly, the verses and other texts in which disobedience is attributed to Adam or to other prophets are to be understood as referring to relative disobedience and tark al‑awlā (leaving what is preferable), not to absolute sin. It should be understood that sin is of two kinds: first, absolute sin (Absolute Sin); second, relative sin (Relative Sin). Absolute sin consists in violating a prohibitive command (nahy taḥrīmī), abandoning a decisive divine obligation, or committing an act that is categorically forbidden. Relative sin, by contrast, occurs when a person of elevated rank performs an act that is not unlawful in itself but is inconsistent with the dignity and status appropriate to that rank. It may occur that an act which is permissible, or even recommended, is nonetheless unsuitable for a person of high spiritual station; in such a case, that act is described as a “relative sin.” For example, if a faithful and wealthy person provides only minimal assistance to save a poor individual from poverty, that assistance—however small—is not unlawful and is even commendable; yet anyone who hears of it would feel as though the benefactor had committed a fault, because greater generosity was expected of one in his position. Accordingly, the actions of those near to the divine presence are assessed in light of their exalted status. If their actions fall short of what is befitting their rank, expressions such as disobedience or sin (ʿiṣyān or dhanb) may be used with respect to them. Hence the maxim: “ḥasanāt al‑abrār sayyiʾāt al‑muqarrabīn”—that which is counted as a good deed for the righteous may be regarded as a fault for those brought near to God. For instance, a prayer performed without full presence of heart may be considered praiseworthy for an ordinary believer, whereas the same prayer may be deemed a “sin” for the friends of God, because for them even momentary heedlessness during worship is inappropriate; by virtue of their knowledge and piety, they are expected during worship to be wholly immersed in divine majesty and beauty. The same principle applies to their other actions, all of which are evaluated according to the standard of their station. For this reason, if a tark al‑awlā occurs on their part—that is, if they leave a more excellent act in favor of a lesser though permissible act—it may become a cause for divine reproach. Islamic narrations report that the hardships endured by Prophet Jacob (peace be upon him), including the prolonged separation from his son, resulted from an incident in which a needy fasting person came to his door at sunset and Jacob neglected to assist him, causing the poor man to depart hungry and distressed. Had such an omission occurred from an ordinary person, it might not have seemed significant; but when it occurred from a great prophet and leader of the community, God accorded it such gravity that severe consequences followed. The prohibition addressed to Adam concerning the forbidden tree was likewise not a strictly prohibitive command (nahy taḥrīmī), but rather related to tark al‑awlā. Given Adam’s exalted rank, however, it was treated with seriousness, and its violation—though not an absolute sin—became a cause for divine reproach. Some exegetes have also held that the prohibition given to Adam was a guidance‑based prohibition (nahy irshādī), not a legislative one (nahy mawlawī). By way of explanation: sometimes God forbids an act in His capacity as sovereign and lawgiver, rendering obedience obligatory; such a prohibition is nahy mawlawī. At other times, a prohibition serves as guidance, warning that an act will lead to harmful consequences, as when a physician warns a patient against harmful food. If the patient disregards such advice, he has not insulted the physician nor willfully disobeyed him; rather, he has neglected beneficial guidance and thus suffers harm. In Adam’s case, it is said that God warned him that eating from the forbidden tree would result in expulsion from Paradise and exposure to hardship. On this reading, the prohibition would be advisory rather than juridical, and Adam’s act would not constitute true disobedience. Nevertheless, the first interpretation appears more accurate, because a merely guidance‑based prohibition would not necessitate repentance and the seeking of forgiveness, whereas Adam— as will be made clear—did in fact seek divine forgiveness. Moreover, as explained earlier, Adam’s residence in Paradise constituted a period of instruction and moral formation during which he was acquainted with divine commands and prohibitions, taught to distinguish friend from foe, informed of the consequences of disobedience, and warned against heeding satanic whisperings. It is known that a purely guidance‑based prohibition does not constitute a legal obligation and does not ordinarily entail liability; yet Adam’s response indicates a deeper level of moral accountability. In conclusion, it should be kept in mind that terms such as prohibition, disobedience, forgiveness, and wrongdoing—although they properly apply to absolute sin and its effects—must, in light of the firmly established doctrine of prophetic infallibility (ʿiṣmah), be interpreted as instances of relative sin when applied to Adam and other prophets. Given the exalted stature of Adam and the other prophets, this understanding is entirely appropriate and unproblematic.

Many exegetes hold that the term “fāḥishah” (obscene or vile act) in this verse refers to the pre‑Islamic custom of the Arabs in the Age of Ignorance of circumambulating the Kaʿbah completely naked. In this practice there was no distinction between men and women. Their justification for this behavior was that garments in which one had committed sins against God should be removed from the body at the time of circumambulation. This interpretation certainly accords with the preceding verses, which discuss clothing and the obligation of covering the body. However, numerous narrations indicate that “fāḥishah” here refers to the practice of oppressive leaders telling people to follow them on the claim that God Himself had commanded obedience to them. By contrast, some exegetes—such as the authors of al‑Manār and al‑Mīzān—have given the term a broader meaning that encompasses every kind of evil act. If the verse is viewed in this broader sense, it becomes clear that “fāḥishah” should indeed be understood generally. Nude circumambulation of the Kaʿbah and the blind following of unjust leaders are among its clear instances, and this understanding does not conflict with the transmitted narrations. In Tafsīr‑i Namūnah, volume one, under Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 170, a detailed discussion has already been presented regarding the unconditional imitation of ancestral customs and practices; that discussion may be consulted for further elaboration.

See ayat 30 for tafseer.

Because the preceding verse discussed al‑faḥshāʾ (a term denoting every kind of vile or morally reprehensible act) and emphasized that God never commands what is evil, this verse now refers—through a concise formulation—to those fundamental divine commands that pertain to practical responsibility. Thereafter, it briefly sets forth the two foundational principles of belief, namely the Origin (mabdaʾ) and the Return (maʿād). It opens by declaring: “Say: My Lord has commanded justice” (قُلْ أَمَرَ رَبِّي بِالْقِسْطِ). It is well known that justice has a broad meaning which encompasses all righteous actions, because its essential definition is to place everything in its proper position and to use each thing for the purpose for which it is suited. Although a distinction exists between the terms ʿadl (justice) and qisṭ, justice (ʿadl) refers to rendering to each person his due, the opposite of which is oppression and the usurpation of rights. By contrast, qisṭ signifies not giving one person’s right to another, that is, avoiding partiality and discrimination in distribution. Its opposite is preferential treatment whereby the right of one is transferred to another. However, when considered in their comprehensive sense—especially when used independently—both terms are nearly synonymous, conveying the idea of moderation in all matters and of assigning everything to its proper place. Thereafter, commanding exclusive devotion to God and a decisive struggle against every form of shirk, the verse states: “Set your faces toward Him at every place of prayer” (وَأَقِيمُوا وُجُوهَكُمْ عِندَ كُلِّ مَسْجِدٍ), meaning that the heart must be directed solely toward Him in every act of worship, without turning away to any other. It continues: “Call upon Him, devoting the religion sincerely to Him” (وَادْعُوهُ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ). After consolidating the pillar of divine unity, attention is then drawn to the question of resurrection and return, with the declaration: “As He originated you, so shall you return” (كَمَا بَدَأَكُمْ تَعُودُونَ).

1. The meaning of “وَاَقِيمُوا وُجُوهَكُمْ عِندَ كُلِّ مَسْجِدٍ: Exegetes have offered various interpretations of the phrase “وَاَقِيمُوا وُجُوهَكُمْ عِندَ كُلِّ مَسْجِدٍ”. At times it has been said that it means facing the qiblah at every prayer. At other times it has been interpreted as attending the mosques regularly for prayer, or as denoting presence of heart and sincerity of intention in prayer. However, the interpretation adopted above—namely, directing oneself toward God and waging a struggle against every form of polytheism and turning toward other than God—accords more closely with the preceding and following context of the verse, although the inclusion of all these meanings is not far‑fetched. 2. A most concise argument for the Resurrection: Although much discussion has taken place regarding the Resurrection and life after death, and the study of Qur’anic verses shows that in earlier periods many short‑sighted individuals found it extremely difficult to accept this reality, to the extent that they even accused the divine prophets—God forbid—of falsehood or madness simply because they proclaimed the Day of Resurrection and return to life. They would say: “افْتَرَىٰ عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا أَمْ بِهِ جِنَّةٌ”—has he fabricated a lie against God, or is he insane? (Sūrat Sabaʾ, 34:8). What most astonished them was bodily resurrection, for they found it inconceivable that a body reduced to dust, whose particles had been scattered by winds and dispersed across the earth, could ever be reassembled. The Qur’an responds to this baseless incredulity in numerous verses. The present verse offers one of the shortest yet most compelling answers: look at your own initial creation. This very body of yours—much of which consists of different minerals—where was it before? Each drop of water circulating within you may once have wandered in an ocean, ascended through evaporation into clouds, descended as rain, and then become part of your body. Likewise, the particles that now constitute your physical structure were once grains, fruits, or plants gathered from different regions of the earth. What, then, is astonishing if these particles are later dispersed again and thereafter reassembled by the command of the same Creator to restore that very body? If such restoration were impossible, how did the first creation occur? Hence, the meaning encapsulated in the brief statement “كَمَا بَدَأَكُمْ تَعُودُونَ” is that just as God created you initially from diverse elements, so too will He return you on the Day of Resurrection. The subsequent verse explains the effect of this call—toward righteousness, monotheism, and the Resurrection—upon people. It states that one group was granted divine success and guided to the path of truth, while for another group error became firmly established (فَرِيقًا هَدَىٰ وَفَرِيقًا حَقَّ عَلَيْهِمُ الضَّلَالَةُ). Lest it be imagined that God arbitrarily guides some and misguides others, the following phrase clarifies that the misguided group consists of those who chose Satan as their patron instead of God (إِنَّهُمُ اتَّخَذُوا الشَّيَاطِينَ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ). Astonishingly, despite all this misguidance, they still deemed themselves rightly guided (وَيَحْسَبُونَ أَنَّهُم مُّهْتَدُونَ). This condition is particularly characteristic of those who become so immersed in rebellion and sin, and sink so deeply into the mire of corruption, idolatry, and deviation, that their faculty of discernment is utterly inverted: they perceive evil as good and misguidance as guidance. It is precisely at this point that all avenues of guidance are sealed off to them—a condition produced by their own actions. Provide your feedback on BizChat

See ayat 32 for tafseer.

In these verses, in connection with the narrative of Adam and the discussion of clothing, the Qur’an once again turns to the subject of dress, the other blessings of life, and the proper manner of benefiting from them. First, all the children of Adam are given a command that functions as an enduring law applicable to all times: to take one’s adornment when going to the place of worship (يَابَنِي آدَمَ خُذُوا زِينَتَكُمْ عِنْدَ كُلِّ مَسْجِدٍ). This statement may refer to outward adornment, such as wearing clean clothes, grooming oneself, applying perfume, and similar forms of physical neatness; it may also point to inward adornment, meaning noble human qualities, moral virtues, purity of intention, and sincerity. Some Islamic narrations state that it refers to wearing good clothes or combing one’s hair, or that it alludes specifically to the rites of congregational prayer on Fridays and feast days; however, this does not mean that the interpretation is restricted to these cases alone. Rather, these narrations merely highlight clear and prominent instances of the broader meaning. Likewise, when other narrations indicate that “adornment” refers to worthy leaders and guides, this further confirms the breadth of the concept. In sum, the verse encompasses every kind of outward and inward adornment. Although this command applies to all the children of Adam at all times, it also implicitly reproaches a group of Arabs in the Age of Ignorance who used to enter the Sacred Mosque for circumambulation of the Kaʿbah completely naked. It additionally admonishes them to come to the mosque for congregational prayer in clean attire, since it was their habit to attend in the same soiled clothes they wore at home. Regrettably, even in our own time some uninformed Muslims exhibit a similar habit, coming to the mosque in ordinary or shabby clothing, despite the many narrations interpreting this verse that instruct believers to appear in mosques wearing their best garments and in a state of proper grooming. In the following verse, reference is made to other divine blessings related to food and drink, where it is said: eat and drink (وَكُلُوا وَاشْرَبُوا). Yet, because human nature is prone to excess, there was the possibility that people might misuse these permissions and, instead of adopting proper dress and balanced nourishment, incline toward extravagance, wastefulness, and excess in consumption. Therefore, an immediate warning is added: do not be excessive, for God does not love those who are excessive (وَلَا تُسْرِفُوا إِنَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُسْرِفِينَ). The term “isrāf” is highly comprehensive, encompassing every kind of excess, whether quantitative or qualitative, as well as waste and prodigality. One of the distinctive features of the Qur’anic method is that whenever it encourages the enjoyment of natural blessings, it immediately also prevents deviation from the path of moderation. In the next verse, a firm response is given to those who imagine that asceticism consists in forbidding adornments for oneself and abandoning pure and lawful sustenance, supposing such behavior to be a sign of piety and closeness to God. Thus it is said: Say, who has forbidden the adornment of God which He has brought forth for His servants, and the good and pure things of provision? (قُلْ مَنْ حَرَّمَ زِينَةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي أَخْرَجَ لِعِبَادِهِ وَالطَّيِّبَاتِ مِنَ الرِّزْقِ). If these things were inherently bad, God would not have created them in the first place; and if He has created them for the benefit of His servants, how could He then forbid them? Is it conceivable that there be a contradiction between the order of creation and the prescriptions of divine law? To reinforce this point further, it is said: tell them that these blessings are for the believers in the life of this world, though others may also partake in them without deserving such benefit; but in the Hereafter, at the time of the higher and more complete life, when humanity will be sifted and distinguished, these blessings and delights will be exclusively for the believers and the saved, while others will be entirely deprived of them (قُلْ هِيَ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا خَالِصَةً يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ). Accordingly, blessings and enjoyments that are permitted for them in this world and reserved exclusively for them in the Hereafter cannot be regarded as forbidden, for prohibition applies to that which is harmful, not to that which is a gift and mercy. Another possible interpretation suggested in exegesis is that these blessings, though mixed with hardship and pain in the worldly life, will be granted to the believers in the Hereafter in a form entirely free of suffering; however, the former interpretation appears more fitting. At the end of the verse, by way of emphasis, it is stated: thus do We set forth Our signs in detail for a people who know (كَذَٰلِكَ نُفَصِّلُ الْآيَاتِ لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ).

Islam, in the matter of benefiting from adornment, has—as in its approach to other matters—adopted the path of moderation. It neither maintains, as some do, that beautifying oneself and personal grooming, even within the bounds of moderation, are contrary to asceticism and piety, nor does it endorse those who, driven by an obsession with luxury and display, immerse themselves in various forms of adornment and engage in all manner of improper conduct for that purpose. If we reflect upon the constitution of the human body and soul, and then examine the teachings that have been given to us, it becomes clear that these teachings are fully harmonious with human nature, both physical and spiritual. This can be explained as follows: psychologists have established that four fundamental sensibilities exist within every human being: the sense of beauty, the sense of goodness, the sense of knowledge, and the religious sense. All literary refinements, the praise of beauty in poetry and prose, and the creation of delicate and beautiful arts are manifestations of this innate sense of beauty. How, then, could a sound and rational law suppress this natural inclination and ignore the adverse consequences that would result from stifling it? For this very reason, Islam has not only permitted enjoyment of natural beauty, attractive and appropriate clothing, various fragrances, and similar aesthetic pleasures, but has also actively encouraged them. Numerous narrations recorded in reliable sources attest to this. By way of example, it is reported in the accounts of Imam al‑Hasan (peace be upon him) that whenever he stood for prayer, he would wear his finest garments. When asked about this, he replied: “Indeed God is beautiful and loves beauty, so I adorn myself for my Lord; and He Himself has commanded: خُذُوا زِينَتَكُمْ عِندَ كُلِّ مَسْجِدٍ.” Similarly, it is narrated that an ostentatious ascetic named ʿAbbād b. Kathīr once encountered Imam Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), who at the time was wearing relatively fine clothing. ʿAbbād remarked that it would have been better for him to wear less expensive garments. The Imam replied: “Woe to you, ʿAbbād! Have you not read this verse of the Qur’an: مَنْ حَرَّمَ زِينَةَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي أَخْرَجَ لِعِبَادِهِ وَالطَّيِّبَاتِ مِنَ الرِّزْقِ?” Other narrations convey the same message. The statement that God is beautiful and loves beauty, or that He has created good and beautiful things, clearly indicates that if benefiting from beauty in all its forms were impermissible, God would never have created it. The pervasive presence of natural beauty throughout the world is itself evidence that the Creator of beauty loves beauty. It must be noted, however, that in such matters people often fall into excess and, under various pretexts, adopt a lifestyle of extravagance and vanity. For this reason, as has already been noted, the Qur’an immediately follows its permission of adornment with a stern warning against excess, wastefulness, and transgression of bounds. Indeed, the Qur’an refers to the issue of extravagance in more than twenty places and consistently condemns it (a more detailed discussion of isrāf will follow in later verses). In sum, the approach of Islam and the Qur’an in this regard is balanced and well‑proportioned. It neither endorses rigid austerity nor allows an unrestrained pursuit of beauty that leads to the neglect and destruction of the human spirit. Nor does it approve the behavior of the extravagant, the ostentatious, or those who indulge excessively in consumption. This is why some narrations report that when certain Imams were asked why they wore fine clothing while their forefather Imam ʿAlī (peace be upon him) had not done so, they replied that in Imam ʿAlī’s time people generally lived under harsh economic conditions, making simplicity appropriate, whereas in later times people’s material circumstances had improved. Consequently, making reasonable use of adornment in such conditions involved no impropriety.

The Qur’anic statement “كُلُوا وَاشْرَبُوا وَلَا تُسْرِفُوا” (“eat and drink, but do not be excessive”), although it may appear at first glance to be a simple directive, has, in light of contemporary research, proven to be one of the most profound principles of preventive medicine. Modern physicians, as a result of extensive investigation, have concluded that a large number of diseases originate from excess food that remains unassimilated within the human body. Such unnecessary substances become a heavy burden on the heart and adversely affect other organs as well, contaminating the body with various ailments and toxins. The first step toward remedying this condition is to eliminate these excess substances—which are, in fact, nothing more than waste within the body’s internal system—so that internal cleansing may occur. The primary cause of the accumulation of these harmful substances is overeating. There is no effective means of preventing this except moderation in diet, particularly in our own age, when numerous illnesses—such as diabetes, high blood lipids, arteriosclerosis (hardening of the arteries), liver disorders, various forms of stroke, and other conditions—have become widespread. If one examines these ailments closely, it becomes evident that along with lack of physical movement, overeating plays a decisive role in their development. The remedy lies precisely in increased physical activity and moderation in consumption. One of the great classical exegetes, al‑Ṭabarsī, reports an instructive episode in his tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān. He relates that at the court of Hārūn al‑Rashīd there was a highly renowned Christian physician. One day, this physician remarked to a Muslim scholar that he found no reference to medicine in the Muslims’ revealed book, despite the fact that, in his view, beneficial knowledge consists of only two sciences: the science of religion and the science of the body. The scholar replied that God the Exalted had encompassed all medical principles within half a verse, wherein He says: “كُلُوا وَاشْرَبُوا وَلَا تُسْرِفُوا” (“eat and drink, but do not be excessive”). He added that the Prophet of Islam had summarized medicine in the statement: “المعدة بيت الأدواء، والحمية رأس كل دواء، وأعطِ كلَّ بدنٍ ما عوّدته”—that is, “the stomach is the home of illness, restraint in diet is the foundation of all treatment, and give the body only that to which it has become accustomed.” Upon hearing this, the Christian physician exclaimed: “Your Book and your Prophet have left nothing for Galen.” Those who consider this command merely trivial would do well to test it within their own lives. By doing so, they will come to realize its depth and significance, and the near‑miraculous effects of adhering to this principle will become manifest before them.

As has often been observed in the Qur’anic style, whenever the Qur’an discusses something permissible or obligatory, it immediately follows it by mentioning its opposite—namely, reprehensible actions and prohibitions—so that the two discussions may stand face to face and mutually complete one another. Accordingly, at this point, after mentioning divine favors, permission to make use of adornment, and the negation of its prohibition, the Qur’an turns to forbidden acts. It first speaks in general terms of prohibitions and then points explicitly to several important instances. At the outset, the prohibition of fawāḥish is stated. It says: O Prophet! Say: my Lord has forbidden only vile deeds, whether they are manifest or concealed (قُلْ إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ رَبِّي الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ). The word fawāḥish is the plural of fāḥishah, meaning an “extremely evil act”; not every evil act is described as fāḥishah. The emphasis on whether such sins are overt or hidden is perhaps due to the custom of the Arabs in the Age of Ignorance, who regarded immoral acts committed in private as unobjectionable, while condemning them only when they became public. Thereafter, the discourse is broadened to include all sins, with the statement: wal‑ithm (وَالْإِثْمَ). The word ithm in its original sense refers to anything that causes harm, lowers a person’s moral standing, and prevents him from attaining reward and recompense. Hence, every kind of sin falls within its broad meaning. Some exegetes, however, have suggested that ithm here refers specifically to wine, citing the verse of poetry: sharibtu al‑ithma ḥattā ḍalla ʿaqlī / kadhāka al‑ithmu yaṣnaʿu bi’l‑ʿuqūl (“I drank ithm until my intellect went astray; such is what wine does to minds”). Yet it is evident that this is only one prominent instance of ithm, not its entire meaning. Next, several major sins are again singled out, and it is declared: and injustice and transgression against the rights of others without right (is forbidden) (وَالْبَغْيَ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ). The term baghy literally means striving to obtain something, but it is commonly used to denote unlawfully seizing what belongs to another. Thus its meaning is often equivalent to oppression and injustice, and the phrase bi‑ghayr al‑ḥaqq serves as further clarification and emphasis. Thereafter, the issue of shirk is mentioned. It is said: and that you associate with God that for which He has sent down no authority (وَأَنْ تُشْرِكُوا بِاللَّهِ مَا لَمْ يُنَزِّلْ بِهِ سُلْطَانًا). Here too, the expression mā lam yunazzil bihi sulṭānan emphasizes and clarifies the point that the partners attributed to God by the polytheists are unsupported by any rational proof or sound evidence. The word sulṭān denotes any form of evidence or authority by which one prevails over an opponent. The final item among the prohibited acts mentioned in the verse is attributing something to God without knowledge (وَأَنْ تَقُولُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ). The issue of speaking without knowledge has already been discussed under verse 28 of this same sūrah. Qur’anic verses and Islamic traditions strongly emphasize that a Muslim must not speak about matters of which he has no knowledge. It is even reported from the Prophet Muḥammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny that he said: “Whoever gives a legal verdict without knowledge, upon him is the curse of the angels of the heavens and the earth.” If one carefully examines the condition of human societies and the misfortunes that afflict humanity, it becomes clear that a major portion of these calamities arises from rumor‑mongering, speaking without knowledge, false testimony, and expressing opinions without evidence or proof.

In this noble verse, God the Exalted points to one of the fundamental laws of creation: the law of transience and perishing. The preceding discussions concerning the life of the children of Adam upon the earth, and the ultimate fate of wrongdoers described in earlier verses, all become clear in the light of this principle. The verse opens by stating: for every community there is an appointed term (وَلِكُلِّ أُمَّةٍ أَجَلٌ). When that term arrives, they can neither delay it for a moment nor bring it forward (فَإِذَا جَاءَ أَجَلُهُمْ لَا يَسْتَأْخِرُونَ سَاعَةً وَلَا يَسْتَقْدِمُونَ). The meaning is that all nations, like individuals, are not exempt from the law of life and death. Some nations pass away from the stage of existence, and other nations take their place. Thus, the law of extinction applies equally to individuals and to communities. The difference is that the death of nations most often occurs because they deviate from the path of truth and justice, adopt oppression and injustice, immerse themselves in lust and unrestrained desire, and become entangled in luxury‑seeking and self‑indulgence. When a nation blindly follows such paths and disregards the established laws of nature, the inevitable result is that it loses its capital of existence and falls forever into the abyss of destruction. A study of the civilizations of various nations—such as Babylon, the Pharaohs of Egypt, the people of Sabaʾ, the Chaldeans, the Assyrians, the Muslims of al‑Andalus, and others—shows that when their deviations and rebellions exceeded all bounds, the decree of annihilation descended from above, and they were unable to preserve even for a moment the trembling pillars of their power. It should be noted that in Arabic the word sāʿah is used for the smallest unit of time: sometimes for a fleeting instant, and at other times for a very short duration. Although in contemporary usage it commonly denotes one‑twenty‑fourth of a day (an hour), its Qur’anic sense here conveys the idea of even the briefest moment.

Certain self‑styled religions that have emerged in modern times have considered it necessary, in order to achieve their ulterior aims, first to deliver—so they imagine—a decisive blow to the doctrine of the finality of the Prophet Muḥammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and to undermine it. Accordingly, they have made unsuccessful attempts to force certain Qur’anic verses into conformity with their objectives through distortion and interpretation based on personal opinion (tafsīr bi‑l‑raʾy). They have even sought to derive their claims from the present verse, arguing that the Qur’an states that every ummah has an end, that ummah means “religion,” and therefore that the religion of Islam must also have an end. To understand the fallacy of this argument, it is necessary first to examine the meaning of the term “ummah” in Arabic lexicography and then its usage in the Qur’an. When classical dictionaries are consulted and the Qur’anic occurrences of the term—appearing sixty‑four times—are examined, it becomes clear that in both contexts ummah means a group, community, or collective, not a religion as such. For example, in the story of Moses it is stated: وَلَمَّا وَرَدَ مَاءَ مَدْيَنَ وَجَدَ عَلَيْهِ أُمَّةً مِنَ النَّاسِ يَسْقُونَ “When he reached the watering place of Midian, he found there a group (ummah) of people drawing water.” (al‑Qaṣaṣ 28:23) Likewise, concerning enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, the Qur’an states: وَلْتَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ “Let there be among you a group (ummah) that calls to what is good.” (Āl ʿImrān 3:104) Elsewhere it says: وَقَطَّعْنَاهُمُ اثْنَتَيْ عَشْرَةَ أَسْبَاطًا أُمَمًا “We divided them into twelve tribes as communities (umam).” (al‑Aʿrāf 7:160) And again: وَإِذْ قَالَتْ أُمَّةٌ مِنْهُمْ لِمَ تَعِظُونَ قَوْمًا اللَّهُ مُهْلِكُهُمْ “When a group (ummah) of them said: ‘Why do you admonish a people whom God is about to destroy…’” (al‑Aʿrāf 7:164) From all these verses it is evident that the term ummah, wherever it appears in the Qur’an, signifies a group or community, not a religion in the abstract. Even when it is used for the followers of a religion, it is only because they constitute a community. Hence, in the verse under discussion the meaning is that every community has a term, that is, not only do individuals die, but nations and collectives, as collectives, are also subject to decline and extinction; their unity and corporate existence eventually disintegrate. Nowhere does the Qur’an apply the term ummah to religion itself as such. Therefore, this verse has no connection whatsoever with the doctrine of the finality of prophethood. Indeed, both the Qur’an and the Prophetic tradition contain explicit and incontrovertible texts affirming the finality of the Prophet Muḥammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). The Qur’an states: مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِّنْ رِجَالِكُمْ وَلَكِنْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ “Muḥammad is not the father of any of your men; rather, he is the Messenger of God and the Seal of the Prophets.” (al‑Aḥzāb 33:40) Likewise, the mutawātir ḥadīth addressed by the Messenger of God to ʿAlī (عليه السلام) states: أنت مني بمنزلة هارون من موسى إلا أنه لا نبي بعدي “You are to me as Hārūn was to Mūsā, except that there is no prophet after me.” Another well‑known narration recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ al‑Bukhārī reports that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said: “My likeness and the likeness of the prophets before me is that of a man who built a house and perfected it except for the place of one brick. People went around it and admired it, saying: ‘Why was this brick not placed?’ I am that brick, and I am the Seal of the Prophets.” These explicit texts leave no room for doubt regarding the finality of prophethood in Islam.

See ayat 36 for tafseer.

Once again, God the Exalted addresses the children of Adam and declares: O children of Adam, if messengers from among you come to you conveying My signs, then follow them. For those who adopt piety and God‑consciousness and strive to reform themselves and others, there shall be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve (يَابَنِي آدَمَ إِمَّا يَأْتِيَنَّكُمْ رُسُلٌ مِنْكُمْ يَقُصُّونَ عَلَيْكُمْ آيَاتِي فَمَنِ اتَّقَى وَأَصْلَحَ فَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ). In the following verse it is stated: those who deny Our signs and arrogantly turn away from them are the companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein forever (وَالَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِنَا وَاسْتَكْبَرُوا عَنْهَا أُولَٰئِكَ أَصْحَابُ النَّارِ هُمْ فِيهَا خَالِدُونَ).

As explained in the preceding discussion, some self‑styled “religion‑making” groups that emerged in recent centuries have sought to clear the way for their own erroneous claims by attempting to undermine, in their own estimation, the doctrine of the finality of prophethood. To this end, they have tried—unsuccessfully—to bend certain Qur’ānic verses to their purposes through distortion and interpretation based on personal opinion, despite the fact that those verses have no connection with this issue at all. One such verse is the one already mentioned. Without paying any attention to the context, they argue that the verb “يَأْتِيَنَّكُمْ” (a present‑tense verb meaning “will come to you”) indicates the possibility that prophets may continue to come in the future and that the chain of prophethood has not ended. However, if one looks back even briefly at the surrounding verses—those that describe the creation of Adam, his residence in Paradise, and then the expulsion of him and his spouse—and also keeps in mind that the addressees of these verses are not Muslims in particular but the whole of humankind, the weakness of this argument becomes obvious. There is no doubt that many messengers came to all the descendants of Adam, a number of whom are mentioned in the Noble Qur’ān, while others are recorded in historical sources. Yet these religion‑fabricating groups have ignored the preceding verses in order to mislead people, re‑defining the addressees of this verse as Muslims alone and then concluding that the coming of further messengers is still possible. This type of fallacious argument has appeared before, especially among those who detach a verse—or even part of a verse—from what comes before and after it, and then impose their own preferred meanings upon it, without the slightest concern for context, even if the resulting interpretation directly contradicts the overall sense of the text.

In this verse and those that follow it, certain aspects of the evil fate of those who fabricate lies about God and deny His signs are described. First, their condition after death is mentioned: who is more unjust than one who invents a lie against God or denies His signs (فَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَىٰ عَلَى اللهِ كَذِبًا أَوْ كَذَّبَ بِآيَاتِهِ). As noted earlier in the commentary on Sūrat al‑Anʿām, verse 21, the Qur’an refers in various ways to the “most unjust” people; when the characteristics attributed to them are examined, a common root becomes apparent—namely, shirk and the denial of God’s signs. In the present verse, fabricating lies against God is added as another defining feature of such people. If one recognizes that the root of all misfortune is shirk and the foundation of all felicity is tawḥīd, it becomes clear why these misguided and misguiding individuals are described as the most unjust: they wrong themselves and also wrong the society of which they are a part, by sowing the seeds of discord and division and becoming major obstacles on the path of unity, progress, and human reform. Thereafter, their state at the moment of death is described. For a brief period, they obtain whatever share has been apportioned to them, benefiting according to their allotted portion from God’s various blessings, until the cup of their lifespan is filled and the appointed term arrives. At that point, Our messengers—namely, the angels charged with seizing their souls—come upon them (أُولَٰئِكَ يَنَالُهُمْ نَصِيبُهُمْ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا جَاءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا يَتَوَفَّوْنَهُمْ). In this passage, “al‑kitāb” refers to the worldly blessings that God has apportioned to His servants, although some exegetes have suggested that it refers to divine recompense or to something encompassing both meanings. However, attention to the particle “ḥattā,” which is typically used to mark the endpoint of a process, indicates that “al‑kitāb” here refers to the diverse worldly provisions allotted to all people—righteous and wicked alike—which come to an end at death, rather than to divine punishment, which does not end with death. These blessings are termed “kitāb” because they resemble apportioned rations recorded in a register. With death, the recompense of their deeds begins. The first stage is that the angels of death deal harshly with them and ask: “Where are those whom you used to invoke besides God?”—those objects of worship whose devotion you proclaimed throughout your lives and for whose sake you sacrificed everything (قَالُوا أَيْنَ مَا كُنْتُمْ تَدْعُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللهِ). When they realize that everything they possessed has vanished, and that all the hopes they had placed in their self‑made deities have turned to dust, they reply: “They have vanished from us and departed,” finding no trace of them, nor any power in them to avert the punishment; all their acts of worship directed toward them have proven futile (قَالُوا ضَلُّوا عَنَّا). Thus they bear witness against themselves that they were disbelievers (وَشَهِدُوا عَلَىٰ أَنْفُسِهِمْ أَنَّهُمْ كَانُوا كَافِرِينَ). Although the wording suggests a dialogue in which the angels ask questions and the sinners respond, in reality this represents a psychological state. The purpose is to convey the wretched condition that overcomes them after death: how they squandered an entire lifetime on a false path, destroyed all the capital of their existence, and obtained nothing in return. The path of return is now closed to them, and this realization itself becomes the first lash of recompense inflicted upon their souls by God.

See ayat 39 for tafseer.

In these verses as well, the evil end that awaits those who deny the truth is described. Whereas the previous verses explained what befalls such people at the moment of death, the present verses portray the dispute that will arise on the Day of Resurrection between those who led others astray and those who were led astray. It is stated that on the Day of Judgement God will say to them: enter the Fire along with the communities of jinn and human beings who passed away before you and were like you (قَالَ ادْخُلُوا فِي أُمَمٍ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ مِنَ الْجِنِّ وَالْإِنسِ فِي النَّارِ). This command may be understood as a creational command, meaning that God will establish both groups together in the Fire, or as a command similar to a legislative decree that they will hear and be compelled to obey. When they enter Hell, conflict will arise among those who were of the same disposition and ideology—an astonishing and admonitory conflict—in which every group, upon entering Hell, will curse the other group and hold it responsible for this wretched fate (كُلَّمَا دَخَلَتْ أُمَّةٌ لَعَنَتْ أُخْتَهَا). Since the word ummah is grammatically feminine, the word ukht (sister) is used accordingly, indicating the close ideological association among these misguided communities. As has been stated repeatedly, the scenes of the Hereafter will reflect the realities of this world. In worldly life as well, it is often the case that factions turn upon one another and express mutual hatred, whereas the divine messengers and the righteous reformers of God have always supported one another and declared that their objective was one and the same. The matter does not end here. When all of them find themselves together in the blazing flames of Hell in utmost humiliation, they will begin to complain to God about one another. The deceived followers, finding every path of salvation closed, will complain first, saying: Our Lord, these ones led us astray; therefore give them a double punishment of the Fire—one punishment for their own misguidance and another for misguiding us (حَتَّىٰ إِذَا ادَّارَكُوا فِيهَا جَمِيعًا قَالَتْ أُخْرَاهُمْ لِأُولَاهُمْ رَبَّنَا هَٰؤُلَاءِ أَضَلُّونَا فَآتِهِمْ عَذَابًا ضِعْفًا مِنَ النَّارِ). There is no doubt that this demand is logically sound. Indeed, even if such a request were not made, those who led others astray would still deserve an additional punishment, since they will bear the burden of those whom they misled, while their own punishment will not be diminished. Yet what is striking is that the reply given to them will be: for each of you there is double punishment, but you do not realize why (قَالَ لِكُلٍّ ضِعْفٌ وَلَٰكِنْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ). Upon reflection it becomes clear why the punishment of the followers will also be doubled. Leaders of injustice and chiefs of deviation cannot execute their corrupt schemes alone; it is these obstinate and unthinking followers who help them achieve their false aims. In other words, it is the followers who fuel their cause and gather beneath their banners, thereby enabling them to mislead others. Hence this group too deserves double punishment: one for their own misguidance and another for supporting oppressive and misguided leaders. This is why a well‑known tradition from Imam Mūsā al‑Kāẓim (عليه السلام) reports that he forbade one of his companions, Ṣafwān, from cooperating in any way with the oppressive ruler Hārūn al‑Rashīd, explaining that if people did not assist tyrants and support them, how could such rulers usurp the rights of the just? In the following verse, the response of those misguided leaders is conveyed: they will say to their followers that there is no superiority of yours over us; if we spoke falsely, you endorsed us; if we took a wrong step, you supported us; if we committed injustice, you were our allies. Therefore, taste the painful punishment for what you used to earn (وَقَالَتْ أُولَاهُمْ لِأُخْرَاهُمْ فَمَا كَانَ لَكُمْ عَلَيْنَا مِنْ فَضْلٍ فَذُوقُوا الْعَذَابَ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَكْسِبُونَ). Here, al‑ūlā refers to the former group, namely the leaders, and al‑ukhrā to the latter group, namely the followers.

See ayat 41 for tafseer.

Once again, the Qur’an describes the fate of those arrogant and obstinate people who neither acknowledge the signs of their Lord nor accept the truth. It states that those who denied Our signs and responded to them with arrogance will not have the gates of heaven opened for them (اِنَّ الَّذِینَ كَذَّبُوا بِآیَاتِنَا وَاسْتَكْبَرُوا عَنْهَا لَا تُفَتَّحُ لَهُمْ أَبْوَابُ السَّمَاءِ). In a narration reported from Imām Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (عليه السلام), it is stated: as for the believers, their deeds and their souls are raised toward the heaven, and its gates are opened for them; but as for the disbeliever, his deed and his soul are also raised up until, when they reach the heaven, a caller proclaims: “Take him down to Sijjīn.” (reported in Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān under this verse). Other narrations conveying the same meaning have also been transmitted from the Messenger of God (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in Tafsīr al‑Ṭabarī and similar works under this verse. Here, “heaven” may be understood in its apparent sense, and it may also signify the station of proximity to God, as in the verse of Sūrat Fāṭir (10): اِلَيْهِ يَصْعَدُ الْكَلِمُ الطَّيِّبُ وَالْعَمَلُ الصَّالِحُ يَرْفَعُهُ Pure words ascend toward Him, and righteous deeds raise them up. It is then further stated that they will not enter Paradise until the camel passes through the eye of the needle (وَلَا يَدْخُلُونَ الْجَنَّةَ حَتَّىٰ يَلِجَ الْجَمَلُ فِي سَمِّ الْخِيَاطِ). This is a subtle metaphor indicating absolute impossibility, so that the impossibility of such people entering Paradise may be made perceptible in a tangible way. Just as a camel, given its massive size, cannot pass through the eye of a needle, so too the entry of these arrogant unbelievers into Paradise is impossible. In Arabic usage, “جمل” refers to a camel whose teeth have recently emerged. Another meaning of “جمل” is a thick rope used to moor ships (as noted in Taj al‑ʿArūs and al‑Qāmūs). Because of the apparent correspondence between a rope and a needle, some exegetes have preferred this meaning. However, the majority of exegetes adopt the first meaning, and this view is the stronger one, because: (1) it is explicitly found in the narrations transmitted from the leaders of Islam; (2) a parallel expression exists in the present Gospels regarding arrogant and self‑satisfied wealthy people. In the Gospel of Luke, chapter 18, verses 24–25, Jesus (عليه السلام) is reported to have said that it is extremely difficult for wealthy people to enter the Kingdom of God, for it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a wealthy person to enter the Kingdom of God [here “wealthy” refers to corrupt and sinful wealthy persons, not wealth as such]. At minimum, this shows that the proverb was well known, describing something that is effectively impossible; and (3) the word “جمل” is far more commonly used to mean “camel” than “thick rope.” Hence, the first interpretation is more appropriate. At the end of the verse, for emphasis and clarification, it is stated: thus do We recompense the criminals (وَكَذَٰلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُجْرِمِينَ). In the following verse, reference is made to another aspect of their painful punishment: for them there will be a bed of Hell, and above them coverings of fire (لَهُمْ مِنْ جَهَنَّمَ مِهَادٌ وَمِنْ فَوْقِهِمْ غَوَاشٍ). The word “مِهَاد” is the plural of “مِهْد” (meaning a bed), and “غَوَاشٍ” (originally “غواشي”) is the plural of “غاشية,” meaning any kind of covering; it may here signify either a tent or a covering. Then, again by way of emphasis, it is declared: thus do We recompense the wrongdoers (وَكَذَٰلِكَ نَجْزِي الظَّالِمِينَ). It is noteworthy that these people are sometimes described as “criminals,” sometimes as “wrongdoers,” sometimes as “deniers of the divine signs,” and sometimes as “arrogant.” In reality, all these descriptions ultimately refer back to a single underlying reality.

See ayat 43 for tafseer.

As we have noted previously, the Qur’anic method, in order to reinforce a point, is to present different groups and their respective outcomes side by side, comparing them so that their true states and worth become clear. In the preceding verses, the fate of those who deny the signs of God—arrogant and unjust individuals—was depicted. In the present verses, the Qur’an now sets forth, in contrast, the radiant end of the believers in the following manner: those who believe and perform righteous deeds—such are the inhabitants of Paradise; therein they shall abide forever (وَالَّذِینَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ … أُولٰئِکَ أَصْحَابُ الْجَنَّةِ هُمْ فِیهَا خَالِدُونَ). However, between the subject and the predicate of this sentence, an intervening clause appears, which in reality answers several potential questions. (By “intervening clause” it is not meant that the statement is unrelated to the main point; rather, although it is inserted structurally within the sentence, it remains closely connected in meaning.) That intervening clause is: We do not burden any soul beyond its capacity (لَا نُکَلِّفُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا). This indicates that one should not imagine that entering the ranks of the faithful and the righteous is beyond the reach of all but a few exceptional individuals. Divine obligations and responsibilities are imposed in accordance with each person’s capacity and ability. In this way, the path is opened for all—learned and unlearned, young and old—and every human being is invited to join the company of the righteous. God expects from each person only what corresponds to his or her intellectual and physical capacity. This verse, together with others, makes clear that the means to eternal salvation and felicity is faith coupled with righteous action. In doing so, it nullifies the superstitious belief held by Christians according to which the sacrifice of Jesus, peace be upon him, is regarded as the means for the forgiveness of all human sins. The present verse explicitly invalidates such a notion. The Qur’an’s repeated emphasis on faith and righteous deeds is precisely aimed at refuting beliefs of this kind. In the following verse, an exceedingly important blessing that God will bestow upon the inhabitants of Paradise—one that will bring complete repose to their souls—is described as follows: We shall remove from their hearts every trace of rancour, envy, and hostility (وَنَزَعْنَا مَا فِی صُدُورِهِمْ مِنْ غِلٍّ). The root meaning of ghill is that something enters another thing surreptitiously; hence the term is used for envy, rancour, and hostility, because these emotions infiltrate a person silently. It is also sometimes used for bribery, since it too is given furtively as an act of betrayal. In reality, one of the greatest causes of human discomfort and misery in worldly life—indeed a factor behind global wars, immense loss of life and property, and the erosion of human peace—is precisely this rancour and envy. Many people lack nothing in their material lives, yet envy of others becomes a torment to their souls, depriving them of comfort and forcing them into exhausting and futile struggles. The inhabitants of Paradise will be entirely free of such afflictions: there will be no rancour, no envy, and no destructive consequences arising from them. They will live together in perfect friendship and mutual affection, wholly content with their own state. Even those of lesser rank will not envy those of higher rank. In this way, the greatest source of discord in communal life will be entirely removed. Some exegetes have reported a tradition stating that when the people of Paradise proceed toward Paradise, they will encounter a tree at its gate beneath which flow two springs. When they drink from one spring, all rancour and envy will be washed from their hearts; this is the pure drink (sharāb ṭahūr) mentioned in Sūrat al‑Dahr. When they bathe in the second spring, all physical imperfections, fatigue, and weakness will vanish, and their bodies will be renewed with freshness and beauty, such that they will thereafter never age or change. Although the chain of transmission for this report does not explicitly reach the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny or the Imams, and such matters are not the kind ordinarily known by individuals like al‑Suddī or others, it nonetheless contains a subtle indication: the inhabitants of Paradise enter it purified both inwardly and outwardly. God grants them outward beauty as well as inner beauty; in that realm they are safeguarded entirely from envy and rancour. How elevated, then, is the state of those who, even in this world, fashion Paradise for themselves—who cleanse their hearts of envy and rancour, thereby protecting themselves and others from the suffering these traits generate. After mentioning this spiritual blessing, the Qur’an turns to their material and bodily blessings: beneath them rivers shall flow (تَجْرِی مِنْ تَحْتِهِمُ الْأَنْهَارُ). It then portrays their complete satisfaction and perfect joy in these words: they will say, “All praise belongs to God, who guided us to this. Had God not guided us, we would never have been guided.” (وَقَالُوا الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِی هَدَانَا لِهَذَا وَمَا کُنَّا لِنَهْتَدِیَ لَوْلَا أَنْ هَدَانَا اللَّهُ). Indeed, the messengers of our Lord came with the truth, and now we behold the outcome of their truthfulness with our own eyes (لَقَدْ جَاءَتْ رُسُلُ رَبِّنَا بِالْحَقِّ). At that moment, a call will be proclaimed from God—a call that will permeate their hearts and souls and fill them with joy: This is the Paradise which you have inherited in return for what you used to do (وَنُودُوا أَنْ تِلْکُمُ الْجَنَّةُ أُورِثْتُمُوهَا بِمَا کُنْتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ). Once again, we encounter the fundamental truth that eternal salvation is attained through righteous action, not through unfounded imaginings or baseless claims. The term inheritance (irth) signifies the transfer of property from one person to another without any contractual transaction—by a natural process rather than through sale or exchange. For this reason, the property that passes from a deceased person to his heirs is also termed inheritance.

Here a question arises as to why the people of Paradise will be told that they have obtained these blessings as an inheritance as a result of their deeds. The answer to this question is found in a ḥadīth transmitted through both Sunni and Shia chains. This tradition is reported from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, in which he states: "مَا مِن اَحَدٍ الّا وَلَہُ مَنزِلٌ فِی الْجنّة وَمَنزِلٌ فِی النّار فَامّا الکَافر فَیَرِث المُوٴمن مَنزِلہ مِنَ النّار، وَالموٴمنُ یَرِثُ الکَافر مَنزلہ مِنَ الْجَنّة فَذٰلک قَولَہُ: اُورِثْتُمُوھَا بِمَا کُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ". There is no individual without exception who has one abode in Paradise and one abode in Hell. The unbeliever inherits the believer’s abode in Hell, and the believer inherits the unbeliever’s abode in Paradise. This is the meaning of God’s statement: "اُورِثْتُمُوھَا بِمَا کُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ". This ḥadīth points to the fact that the paths of both felicity and wretchedness are open to every individual. At the beginning, no one is inherently destined for Paradise or Hell; rather, every person possesses the capacity for both. It is the human will itself that determines this destiny. It is evident that when believers, on account of their righteous deeds, enter Paradise, and impure and unbelieving individuals take their place in Hell, the necessary consequence is that the vacant dwellings of one are inherited by the other. In any case, both this verse and this ḥadīth serve as clear proofs that the doctrine of absolute determinism is false and that the human being is fully free in the exercise of his will.

After the preceding discussion, in which the destinies of the inhabitants of Paradise and Hell were described, these verses set forth the dialogue that will occur between the two groups in the Hereafter. First it is stated that the people of Paradise will call out to the people of the Fire, saying: we have found the promise of our Lord to be true; have you also found the outcome that God promised through His messengers to be true? (وَنَادَىٰ أَصْحَابُ الْجَنَّةِ أَصْحَابَ النَّارِ أَنْ قَدْ وَجَدْنَا مَا وَعَدَنَا رَبُّنَا حَقًّا فَهَلْ وَجَدْتُمْ مَا وَعَدَ رَبُّكُمْ حَقًّا). They will reply: yes, we have seen all of it realized as reality. (قَالُوا نَعَمْ). It should be noted that although the verb نَادَىٰ is in the past tense, here it conveys a future meaning. This manner of expression appears frequently in the Qur’an, where events that will certainly occur in the future are expressed in the past tense in order to emphasize their inevitability, as though they had already taken place. Implicit in this wording is also the idea that there will be considerable spatial distance between the two groups, since نداء (calling out) is made from afar. One might ask what purpose is served by this exchange, when both groups already know the answer. The response is clear: questions are not always asked to obtain information, but sometimes for reproach and rebuke. Here, the question serves precisely that purpose. In reality, this exchange itself constitutes a severe punishment for the sinners and wrongdoers, because in worldly life they tormented the believers through mockery and reproach. On the Day of Resurrection, therefore, they must experience recompense for that conduct. Similar scenes are portrayed elsewhere in the Qur’an, such as at the end of Sūrat al-Muṭaffifīn. Expressions like هَلْ ثُوِّبَ الْكُفَّارُ مَا كَانُوا يَفْعَلُونَ, or at the beginning of Sūrat al-Qamar where اقْتَرَبَتِ السَّاعَةُ وَانْشَقَّ الْقَمَرُ is stated using past tense to indicate future certainty, follow this same stylistic pattern. Thereafter it is said that at that moment a caller will proclaim—an announcement that will reach everyone—that the curse of God is upon the wrongdoers: (فَأَذَّنَ مُؤَذِّنٌ بَيْنَهُمْ أَنْ لَعْنَةُ اللَّهِ عَلَى الظَّالِمِينَ). Then the identity of these wrongdoers is clarified: they are those who used to bar people from the path of God, who sought to make that path appear crooked, and who disbelieved in the Hereafter: (الَّذِينَ يَصُدُّونَ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَيَبْغُونَهَا عِوَجًا وَهُمْ بِالْآخِرَةِ كَافِرُونَ). The phrase يَبْغُونَهَا عِوَجًا means that they desire and actively strive to distort the straight path by sowing doubts and spreading poisonous propaganda. It is also mentioned by al-Rāghib in al-Mufradāt that عِوَج refers to intellectual or conceptual distortion, whereas هَوَج denotes physical crookedness, although some Qur’anic usages require further reflection. From this verse, the truth is once again made clear that all forms of deviation and corruption fall within the comprehensive concept of oppression and injustice. The term ظالم thus carries a broad meaning that encompasses all sinners, especially those misguided individuals who actively mislead others.

See ayat 45 for tafseer.

Here a question arises as to who this “muʾadhdhin” (the caller) is—the one who will raise such a proclamation so that all the people assembled on the Day of Judgement will hear it, and through whom a position of authority and prominence will become manifest over the entire gathering. The verse itself does not clarify this explicitly, but in Islamic traditions relating to the interpretation of this verse it is most commonly transmitted that the one intended is Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (عليه السلام). Accordingly, Abū al‑Qāsim Ḥaskānī, one of the Sunni scholars, narrates with his chain of transmission from Muḥammad ibn al‑Ḥanafiyyah, and he from ʿAlī (عليه السلام), that ʿAlī said: اَنا ذٰلِكَ المُؤَذِّن — “I am that caller.” Likewise, Ḥaskānī narrates with his chain from Ibn ʿAbbās that he said: In the Qur’an there are several names for ʿAlī (عليه السلام) that people do not recognize; among them is the name “muʾadhdhin”, which appears in the verse فَاَذَّنَ مُؤَذِّنٌ بَیْنَھُمْ. It is ʿAlī who will make this proclamation and will say: اَلا لَعْنَةُ اللّٰهِ عَلَی الَّذِینَ کَذَّبُوا بِوِلایَتِی وَاسْتَخَفُّوا بِحَقِّی — “Behold! The curse of God is upon those who denied my authority and treated my right as insignificant.” From Shīʿī sources as well, numerous traditions have been transmitted on this subject. For example, al‑Ṣadūq (may God have mercy upon him) narrates with his chain of transmission from Imām Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (عليه السلام) that when ʿAlī (عليه السلام) was returning from the Battle of Nahrawān, he learned that Muʿāwiyah was publicly cursing him and killing his followers. At that moment, ʿAlī delivered a sermon in which he said: “I am the caller in this world and in the Hereafter, the one whom God has mentioned in His Book, where He says: فَاَذَّنَ مُؤَذِّنٌ بَیْنَھُمْ اَنْ لَعْنَةُ اللهِ عَلَی الظَّالِمِینَ. I am the caller on the Day of Resurrection. And God has also said: وَاَذَانٌ مِنَ اللهِ وَرَسُولِه. That proclamation too was made by none other than me.” When reflecting on why ʿAlī (عليه السلام) would raise this proclamation on the Day of Resurrection, it becomes clear that, firstly, in this very world this role had already been entrusted to him by God and His Messenger. After the conquest of Mecca, he was commanded to publicly recite Sūrat al‑Barāʾah during the season of Ḥajj so that all pilgrims would hear it, and to announce to them: وَاَذَانٌ مِنْ اللهِ وَرَسُولِهِ اِلَی النَّاسِ یَوْمَ الْحَجِّ الْاَکْبَرِ اَنَّ اللهَ بَرِیءٌ مِنَ الْمُشْرِکِینَ وَرَسُولُهُ (Sūrat al‑Tawbah, verse 3). Secondly, throughout his entire life, the defining stance of ʿAlī (عليه السلام) was one of confrontation with oppression and tyranny—a stance in which he constantly struggled against wrongdoers and transgressors. This aspect of his life shines plainly: his entire existence was devoted to the defense of the oppressed and opposition to the oppressor, always within the bounds prescribed by justice. Since the life of the Hereafter is a perfected manifestation of life in this world, it is hardly surprising that the caller on that Day—who will stand between Paradise and Hell and pronounce the divine curse upon the wrongdoers—should be none other than ʿAlī (عليه السلام). From this explanation, the answer to the objection raised by the author of al‑Manār, who doubted whether this constituted a virtue for ʿAlī (عليه السلام), becomes clear. Just as his public recitation of Sūrat al‑Barāʾah at the time of the Greater Ḥajj, on behalf of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, was a great honor and distinction for him, and just as his lifelong struggle against tyrants and rebels is among his most evident merits, so too his elevation to this exalted station on the Day of Resurrection—being, in reality, the continuation of his worldly responsibilities—is a great honor and an eminent virtue for him. Likewise, what was discussed above also answers the claim made by al‑Ālūsī, the author of Rūḥ al‑Maʿānī, who asserted that these traditions are not authentically transmitted through Sunni chains, since—as has been shown—both Shīʿī and Sunni scholars have recorded these traditions in their works.

See ayat 49 for tafseer.

See ayat 49 for tafseer.

See ayat 49 for tafseer.

After the preceding verses, which presented a brief account of the destinies of the inhabitants of Hell and the inhabitants of Paradise, these verses mention al‑Aʿrāf. Al‑Aʿrāf is the region situated between Paradise and Hell, serving as a boundary separating the two realms, and its characteristics are described here. First, reference is made to the barrier that will exist between the people of Paradise and the people of Hell, where it is stated: “وَبَيْنَهُمَا حِجَابٌ” — “Between them there will be a veil.” From the subsequent verses, it becomes clear that this veil is al‑Aʿrāf itself, a raised place situated between the two groups, which prevents them from seeing one another. However, this barrier does not prevent them from hearing each other’s voices, as has already been indicated in the verses, for it is often the case that people converse with one another through walls, hearing each other without seeing one another. Those who are upon al‑Aʿrāf—that is, at the elevated part of this barrier—will be able to see both groups (this point deserves careful reflection). Although certain verses also suggest that some of the inhabitants of Paradise may occasionally be able to look out from their position and observe the inhabitants of Hell (as in Sūrat al‑Ṣāffāt, verse 55), such exceptions do not contradict the general state of separation between Paradise and Hell. What has been described above refers to the prevailing condition, even though this rule may admit exceptions. Before describing the nature of al‑Aʿrāf, it must be emphasized that the expressions and terminology used in the Qur’an concerning the Hereafter and the world to come are not fully capable of depicting the realities of the Hereafter in all their details and dimensions. At times these expressions convey the meaning through similitude and metaphor; at other times they merely provide an outline or a shadow of the reality. This is because life in the Hereafter is far more expansive than worldly existence, and it should not be surprising if terms and meanings formulated for this world fail to fully encompass the truths of the afterlife. The Qur’an then states that upon al‑Aʿrāf there will stand certain men who will recognize each of the inhabitants of Paradise and Hell by their distinguishing marks: “وَعَلَى الْأَعْرَافِ رِجَالٌ يَعْرِفُونَ كُلًّا بِسِيمَاهُمْ”. The word al‑Aʿrāf is the plural of ʿurf, meaning an elevated place. For this reason, the mane of a horse and the crest feathers of a rooster are also called ʿurf al‑faras and ʿurf al‑dīk, respectively, since these features are located at elevated parts of the body. (Further discussion of the characteristics of the land of al‑Aʿrāf will follow in the commentary on this verse.) The verse then states that those standing upon al‑Aʿrāf will call out to the inhabitants of Paradise and say, “Peace be upon you,” even though they themselves will not yet have entered Paradise, although they will ardently long to do so: “وَنَادَوْا أَصْحَابَ الْجَنَّةِ أَنْ سَلَامٌ عَلَيْكُمْ لَمْ يَدْخُلُوهَا وَهُمْ يَطْمَعُونَ”. Yet when they turn their gaze in the opposite direction and behold the inhabitants of Hell within it, they will beseech God, saying: “Our Lord, do not place us among the wrongdoing people” — “وَإِذَا صُرِفَتْ أَبْصَارُهُمْ تِلْقَاءَ أَصْحَابِ النَّارِ قَالُوا رَبَّنَا لَا تَجْعَلْنَا مَعَ الْقَوْمِ الظَّالِمِينَ”. According to some exegetes and linguists, tilqāʾ was originally a verbal noun meaning “confrontation,” though it later came to be used to denote spatial direction and facing toward something. It is noteworthy that with regard to observing the inhabitants of Hell, the verse uses the phrase “وَإِذَا صُرِفَتْ أَبْصَارُهُمْ”—“when their eyes are turned toward them.” This indicates that the people of al‑Aʿrāf will feel aversion toward looking at the inhabitants of Hell and will do so only by a kind of compulsion, not by choice. The following verse adds that the people of al‑Aʿrāf, recognizing certain individuals among the inhabitants of Hell by their facial features, will call out to them in reproach and rebuke, saying in effect: what benefit did your amassed wealth, your gathered forces, and your arrogance—by which you refused to accept the truth—eventually bring you? Where is all that wealth now, and where are those people who surrounded you? What did your pride and self‑conceit ultimately yield, other than Hell? This is conveyed in the verse: “وَنَادَىٰ أَصْحَابُ الْأَعْرَافِ رِجَالًا يَعْرِفُونَهُمْ بِسِيمَاهُمْ قَالُوا مَا أَغْنَىٰ عَنْكُمْ جَمْعُكُمْ وَمَا كُنْتُمْ تَسْتَكْبِرُونَ”. In the same tone of reproach, while pointing toward the weakened believers standing upon al‑Aʿrāf, they will say: are these not the very people about whom you used to swear that God would never extend mercy to them? “أَهَؤُلَاءِ الَّذِينَ أَقْسَمْتُمْ لَا يَنَالُهُمُ اللَّهُ بِرَحْمَةٍ”. Finally, God’s mercy will indeed encompass these individuals as well, and they will be addressed with the command: enter Paradise; there is no fear for you, nor shall you grieve — “اُدْخُلُوا الْجَنَّةَ لَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْكُمْ وَلَا أَنْتُمْ تَحْزَنُونَ”. From the foregoing, it becomes clear that the “weakened believers” refer to individuals who possessed faith and performed righteous deeds, yet due to certain sins or shortcomings were constantly subjected to humiliation and contempt by their enemies in worldly life. Those enemies used to say, on seeing them, that such people could never enter Paradise nor fall under the mantle of divine mercy. Ultimately, however, by virtue of their faith and righteous actions, God’s mercy will embrace them, and their final outcome will be felicitous.

As stated earlier, al‑Aʿrāf refers to an elevated and prominent area. When the contextual indicators present in the above verses are considered, and the transmitted narrations are examined, it becomes clear that between the two centers of felicity and wretchedness (Paradise and Hell) there will be a raised location that functions as a barrier, divider, and veil between them. This elevated place will create a separation between Paradise and Hell. It is called al‑Aʿrāf, and from there certain people will observe the inhabitants on both sides and recognize them by their luminous or darkened faces. The question that now arises is: who are the Aṣḥāb al‑Aʿrāf, and which individuals will be assigned to this station? If the four verses discussed above are examined carefully, it becomes evident that two distinct and contrasting sets of characteristics are mentioned for these people. In the first and second verses, the condition of the people of al‑Aʿrāf is described in such a way that they long to enter Paradise, yet certain circumstances prevent them from doing so. When they see the people of Paradise, they greet them with peace and wish that they themselves were among them, but they are not yet able to enter Paradise. When they turn their gaze toward the people of Hell and behold their painful fate, they are overtaken with dread and seek refuge in God. However, from the third and fourth verses it becomes clear that they are influential and authoritative individuals who reproach the inhabitants of Hell and assist those believers who have remained on al‑Aʿrāf, helping them to pass beyond it and reach the abode of eternal felicity. The narrations that have reached us concerning al‑Aʿrāf and its people also reflect these two contrasting groups. In many reports transmitted from the Pure Household (ʿalayhim al‑salām), we find statements such as: “نحن الأعراف” (“We are al‑Aʿrāf”) or “آل محمد هم الأعراف” (“The family of Muḥammad are al‑Aʿrāf”). Other narrations state that they are the most honored of God’s creatures, or that they are witnesses over the people while the prophets are witnesses over them. Similar narrations convey that these individuals are the prophets, the Imams, and the righteous. In contrast, other narrations indicate that they will be weak servants whose good deeds and bad deeds are equal, or sinners who nonetheless performed some righteous deeds. Among these is a report from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām): “هم قوم استوت حسناتهم وسيئاتهم فإن أدخلهم الله النار فبذنوبهم وإن أدخلهم الجنة فبرحمته”, meaning: “They are people whose good deeds and bad deeds are equal; if God places them in the Fire, it is due to their sins, and if He places them in Paradise, it is due to His mercy.” Similar reports are found in Sunni exegetical works, transmitted from Ḥudhayfah, ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās, Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, and others. Some reports even suggest that the people of al‑Aʿrāf are the righteous, jurists, scholars, or even the angels of God. At first glance, these verses and narrations may appear contradictory, and this apparent tension is likely what led various exegetes to propose differing interpretations. However, a closer examination reveals that there is in fact no contradiction at all; rather, all of them are expressing a single underlying reality. As stated previously, when all the verses and narrations are considered together, it becomes clear that al‑Aʿrāf represents a difficult and arduous passage leading toward the abode of eternal felicity, namely Paradise. It is natural that the truly righteous and pure individuals traverse this passage swiftly. However, some weaker individuals—those who have mixed righteous and sinful deeds—become weary along this path and remain there. It is also reasonable that the leaders and guides of the community resemble military commanders who travel at the rear of an army along perilous routes, so that if any soldier falls behind or falters, they can assist him and save him from danger. In the same way, these leaders and Imams remain stationed at al‑Aʿrāf to assist the weaker believers and help those who possess the potential for salvation to attain deliverance under their guidance. Thus, two kinds of people will be present at al‑Aʿrāf: first, weak and sinful individuals who will ultimately receive divine mercy; and second, the leaders of the community and great guides who support and aid their weaker followers. For this reason, the preceding part of these verses refers to the weaker servants, while the latter part alludes to the eminent leaders—prophets, Imams, and righteous individuals. Certain narrations further corroborate this understanding. For example, ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm records a narration from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (ʿalayhi al‑salām): “الأعراف كثبان بين الجنة والنار، والرجال هم الأئمة، يقفون على الأعراف مع شيعتهم وقد سبق المؤمنون إلى الجنة بغير حساب”. According to this narration, al‑Aʿrāf consists of elevated mounds between Paradise and Hell, and the “men” mentioned in the verse are the Imams, who stand on al‑Aʿrāf with their followers while the believers have already entered Paradise without reckoning. The narration continues that the Imams will say to their sinful followers: observe how your righteous brethren entered Paradise swiftly and without account—this is the situation to which God alluded in His statement “سلام عليكم لم يدخلوها وهم يطمعون”. Then they will be told to look at the enemies of the truth and see how they are consumed by the blazing flames, corresponding to the verse “وإذا صرفت أبصارهم تلقاء أصحاب النار قالوا ربنا لا تجعلنا مع القوم الظالمين”. Thereafter, they will address the inhabitants of Hell, saying: behold, these are the very people about whom you swore in the world that God would never bestow mercy upon them—yet now God’s mercy has indeed encompassed them. Finally, those servants—who, despite their sins, possessed faith and some righteous deeds and thus retained the potential for forgiveness—will be commanded by the Imams of guidance to proceed toward Paradise without fear or grief. A similar theme is also reported in Sunni commentaries, transmitted from Ḥudhayfah as a narration from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Once again it should be emphasized that all the detailed descriptions of resurrection and judgement found in the Qur’an and narrations resemble the depiction of a distant silhouette: we attempt to describe it with limited and imperfect language, even though its reality is far removed from the conditions of our worldly life. One important point to note here is that the life of the Hereafter is structured upon patterns and archetypes already present in this world. This is also the case with al‑Aʿrāf, for in this world humanity is divided into three groups: first, the sincere believers who, through faith and action, attain the station of everlasting peace; second, the obstinate and hostile enemies of the truth, who refuse all paths leading toward it; and third, a group that stands between these two on a difficult passageway. The primary concern of the leaders of truth is directed toward this third group: they remain alongside them, take them by the hand, guide them through the stage of al‑Aʿrāf, and place them among the ranks of the believers. From this it also becomes clear that on the Day of Resurrection, the involvement of prophets and the purified Imams in the affairs of these servants—guiding them into Paradise—is not in conflict with the absolute sovereignty and authority of God. Whatever these exalted figures do, they do by God’s permission and command.

See ayat 51 for tafseer.

When the people of Paradise and the people of Hell have all reached their respective abodes, a dialogue will begin between them. The purpose of this exchange will be to inflict upon the inhabitants of Hell a spiritual and moral punishment on account of their deeds. First, the people of Hell, being in an extremely distressing state, will call out to the people of Paradise and plead for the water of Paradise and for some of the food that God has granted them, so that their burning thirst and other sufferings may be somewhat alleviated (وَنَادَىٰ أَصْحَابُ النَّارِ اَصْحَابَ الْجَنَّةِ اَنْ اَفِیضُوا عَلَیْنَا مِنَ الْمَاءِ اَوْ مِمَّا رَزَقَکُمُ اللهُ). However, the inhabitants of Paradise will immediately reject this request, saying: these things have been declared forbidden by God for the disbelievers (قَالُوا اِنَّ اللهَ حَرَّمَهُمَا عَلَى الْكَافِرِينَ).

1. The Qur’an uses the term “نَادَىٰ”, which denotes calling out from a distance. This indicates that there will be a considerable distance between the people of Paradise and the people of Hell. It is not improbable that this distance may span thousands of miles, yet by divine power both groups will be able to hear one another’s voices, and at times even see one another despite that distance. Although such a notion may not have been easily accepted by people in earlier times, an era has now arrived in which transmitting voices and seeing from afar have become possible; therefore, this should no longer be regarded as astonishing. 2. The very first wish expressed by the people of Hell is their request for water. This is entirely natural, for anyone who is burning in fire instinctively longs first for water to relieve the burning agony. 3. The phrase “مِمَّا رَزَقَكُمُ اللهُ” (“from what God has provided you”) is deliberately left unspecific, indicating that the inhabitants of Hell will not even fully comprehend what kinds of blessings the people of Paradise enjoy, nor their true nature. This accords with reports stating that Paradise contains blessings which no eye has ever seen, no ear has ever heard, nor has any human mind ever conceived. Implicit in the particle “أَو” (“or”) is another meaning, namely that the other blessings of Paradise—especially its fruits—may serve as a substitute for water and thus quench burning thirst. 4. The statement “إِنَّ اللهَ حَرَّمَهُمَا عَلَى الْكَافِرِينَ” (“God has made them forbidden to the disbelievers”) indicates that there will be no diminution of these blessings for the inhabitants of Paradise, nor will there be any rancour or resentment in their hearts toward anyone, not even toward their former enemies. Rather, the condition of the people of Hell is such that they are incapable of benefiting from these divine blessings. This prohibition is in reality a form of ontological prohibition (تحريم تكويني), similar to the way in which many sick people are deprived of delicious foods. The following verse explains the reason for their deprivation and, by describing the qualities of the inhabitants of Hell, clarifies that they themselves prepared this evil fate by their own hands. It first states: these are the people who took their religion as mere amusement and play (الَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا دِينَهُمْ لَهْوًا وَلَعِبًا), and the life of this world deceived them (وَغَرَّتْهُمُ الْحَيَاةُ الدُّنْيَا). These factors led them to sink deep into the swamp of their desires, until they forgot everything—even the Day of Resurrection—and denied the commands of the prophets and the signs of God. Thus it continues: today We shall likewise disregard them, just as they disregarded the meeting of this Day, and because they used to deny Our signs (فَالْيَوْمَ نَنْسَاهُمْ كَمَا نَسُوا لِقَاءَ يَوْمِهِمْ هٰذَا وَمَا كَانُوا بِآيَاتِنَا يَجْحَدُونَ). It is self‑evident that attributing “forgetfulness” to God here is not intended in its literal sense. Rather, it means that God will treat them in the manner one ordinarily treats someone who has been forgotten. This is like a person who does not actually forget, yet says to a neglectful friend, “Since you have forgotten me, I will forget you,” meaning: I will now deal with you as one deals with someone who has been forgotten. Implicit in this verse is also the insight that the first stage of misguidance and deviation occurs when a person treats matters that give true value to life as trivial and dismisses them as mere play. This attitude ultimately leads to absolute disbelief and the denial of all truths.

In the first verse, it is indicated that the deprivation of the disbelievers and their evil fate are the direct consequences of their own shortcomings and errors; otherwise, from the side of God the Most Generous, no deficiency had existed with respect to their guidance. Accordingly, God states that no shortcoming had been committed in guiding them: “وَلَقَدْ جِئْنَاهُمْ بِكِتَابٍ فَصَّلْنَاهُ عَلَىٰ عِلْمٍ”. He brought to them a Book whose contents were set forth in detail, with full knowledge of all its secrets and meanings—a Book that is a source of guidance and mercy for those who believe, although obstinate and stubborn people remain deprived of its benefit: “هُدًى وَرَحْمَةً لِقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ”. In the following verse, attention is drawn to the erroneous attitude of the corrupt and the misguided regarding divine guidance. It is said: is it that they are merely waiting to behold with their own eyes the fulfillment of God’s promises and warnings—to see the people of Paradise in Paradise and the people of Hell in Hell—so that only then they will believe? “هَلْ يَنظُرُونَ إِلَّا تَأْوِيلَهُ”. What a false expectation and how misplaced a hope this is, for when that moment arrives in which they will directly witness the outcomes of those divine promises, the opportunity will already have been lost and the path of return will be entirely closed. That will be the time when those who had previously neglected the Book of God and the heavenly laws in worldly life will confess that all the messengers sent by their Lord had indeed come with the truth and that all their words were true: “يَوْمَ يَأْتِي تَأْوِيلُهُ يَقُولُ الَّذِينَ نَسُوهُ مِن قَبْلُ قَدْ جَاءَتْ رُسُلُ رَبِّنَا بِالْحَقِّ”. At that moment, however, they will be engulfed in fear and anxiety and will begin to worry about their own salvation, saying: are there any intercessors who might intercede on our behalf? “فَهَلْ لَنَا مِن شُفَعَاءَ فَيَشْفَعُوا لَنَا”. Or, if intercession is not decreed for us and we are fundamentally unworthy of it, is it possible that we be returned to the world so that we may perform deeds different from those we used to perform and submit humbly to the truth? “أَوْ نُرَدُّ فَنَعْمَلَ غَيْرَ الَّذِي كُنَّا نَعْمَلُ”. But, alas, this awakening will come too late and after the proper time. Neither will there be any possibility of returning to the world, nor any intercessor, for they will have squandered the capital of their very existence with their own hands and will be among the losers—a loss that will encompass them from every side: “قَدْ خَسِرُوا أَنفُسَهُمْ”. At that point they will realize that the idols and their self‑fabricated deities will be of no benefit to them, and in reality “everything they used to fabricate will vanish from their sight”: “وَضَلَّ عَنْهُم مَّا كَانُوا يَفْتَرُونَ”. Thus, the final two clauses of the verse serve as the response to their plea. That is, if they seek intercession, they should now cling to the very idols before whom they used to prostrate themselves in the world. As for returning to the world, that would only have been possible had they preserved the capital of their existence—but that capital they had already wasted in worldly life. From this verse it also becomes clear, first, that the human being is free and self‑determining in his actions; otherwise, he would not long to return to the world to compensate for and rectify his evil deeds. Secondly, it becomes evident that the Hereafter is not a realm of action or of acquiring merit; it is solely the realm of recompense.

See ayat 53 for tafseer.

We learned in the previous verses that on the Day of Resurrection the polytheists will realize that they had been gravely deceived in their choice of objects of worship. In the present verse, the discussion turns to the true object of worship and its distinctive attributes, so that those who seek the truth may recognize it clearly in this world before the Day of Resurrection arrives. It is stated at the outset: “إِنَّ رَبَّکُمُ اللهُ الَّذِی خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْاَرْضَ فِی سِتَّةِ اَیَّامٍ”—your Lord is that Being who created the heavens and the earth in six days. The meaning is that no one can truly be an object of worship except the Creator alone.

The discussion that God created the world in six days appears in the Noble Qur’an in seven places (including this verse, as well as Yūnus 3, Hūd 7, al‑Furqān 59, al‑Sajdah 4, Qāf 38, and al‑Ḥadīd 4). In three of these passages, in addition to “the heavens and the earth,” the expression “وما بینهما” (“and whatever is between them”) also occurs. This addition is made for further clarification, for in reality whatever lies between the heavens and the earth is included in the concept of “heaven” if it is above, and in the concept of “earth” if it is below. The first question that naturally arises here is that before the creation of the heavens and the earth, there was no day and night; how, then, could there have been six “days”? For day and night come into existence through the rotation of the earth on its axis. Moreover, it does not appear plausible that the entire universe was created in six days, that is, in less than a week, since modern knowledge maintains that millions of years elapsed before the heavens and the earth took on their present form. The answer to both of these questions becomes clear when attention is paid to the meaning of the word “یوم” (yawm, “day”) and its equivalents in other languages. At times, yawm is used to denote a period or era, whether that period is one year, one million years, or many tens of millions of years. There is ample evidence that yawm has been used in the sense of a period or epoch. For example: 1. In the Qur’an, the word yawm is used repeatedly. In many instances it does not carry the meaning of an ordinary day‑and‑night cycle. For example, the Day of Resurrection is referred to as “یوم القیامة”, even though, according to explicit Qur’anic text, that day will be equal to fifty thousand years (Sūrat al‑Maʿārij, verse 4). 2. Lexicographical works also confirm this usage. They state that yawm sometimes refers to the interval between sunrise and sunset, and at other times to a portion of time or an era, regardless of its length. Al‑Rāghib, in his Mufradāt, notes that yawm may denote either the period between sunrise and sunset or a span of time, whatever its duration may be. 3. In narrations and the statements of religious leaders, the term yawm is frequently used in the sense of a period or phase. For instance, Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (عليه السلام) states in Nahj al‑Balāghah: “الدهر یومان یوم لک ویوم علیک” Time consists of two days: one day in your favor and one against you. Similarly, in Tafsīr al‑Burhān, under this verse, it is reported from Tafsīr ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm al‑Qummī that the Imam said: “فی ستة أیام یعنی فی ستة أوقات”—six days, meaning six periods. 4. In everyday speech and in poetry as well, the word yawm is commonly used in the sense of an era or phase. For example, we say: one day the earth was a sphere of fire; then another day came when it cooled and signs of life appeared—although the fiery state of the earth lasted for many tens of millions of years. Or we say: one day the Umayyads usurped the Islamic caliphate, and another day the Abbasids did the same, despite the fact that each ruled for decades or even centuries. In this regard, two elegant and meaningful verses by Kalīm Kāshānī may be noted: بدنامیِ حیات دو روزی نبود بیش آن هم کلیم با تو بگویم چسان گذشت یک روز صرف بستنِ دل شد بدین و آن روزی گریه کندنِ دل زین و آن گذشت The meaning is that the disgrace of worldly life lasted only two days—though, O Kalīm, how can I tell you how those two days passed? One day was spent fastening the heart to worldly pleasures, and the other day was spent weeping over the severing of the heart from them. From all of this discussion, the conclusion is that God created the heavens and the earth in six stages or eras. Each of these eras may have lasted many millions of years, and such an understanding in no way conflicts with contemporary scientific knowledge. These six eras may have proceeded in the following manner: 1. An era in which the entire universe existed in the form of a vast gaseous mass, which, due to rapid motion, became unstable and gave rise to distinct celestial bodies. 2. These bodies gradually condensed and took shape as molten, luminous spheres or as cooler spheres capable of habitation. 3. Then came an era in which the solar system formed, and the earth separated from the sun. 4. Then came an era in which the earth cooled and became habitable, capable of sustaining living beings. 5. Then came an era in which vegetation and trees appeared. 6. Finally, there came an era in which animals and human beings appeared. What has been stated here concerning the six eras of the universe accords with Sūrat Fuṣṣilat, verses 8–11, the detailed explanation of which will, God willing, be presented in the commentary on those verses.

Here another question arises: since God the Most Generous possesses absolute power, He could have created all the heavens and the earth in a single instant. Why, then, did He create this universe over an extended period of time? The answer to this question becomes clear by understanding a single point, namely that if the creation of the universe had occurred in a single moment, it would have conveyed less about the greatness, power, and knowledge of its Creator. However, when this creation takes place in multiple stages, in diverse forms, according to a precise, measured, and well‑ordered program, it becomes a far clearer and more evident proof of the existence of the Supreme Creator. By way of example, if the human embryo were to become a fully formed child in a single second, it would not manifest the grandeur of its creation to such an extent. But when its formation unfolds over nine months, passing through stage after stage, and assuming a new form each month, then with every stage fresh, renewed signs of the magnitude and power of the Creator become apparent. After this, the Qur’an states that God, after creating the heavens and the earth, assumed their governance with His hand of power, meaning that He not only created the entire universe but that its regulation and administration are also entirely in His control: ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ. This, in reality, serves as a response to those who consider God merely the cause of the creation of the universe but do not recognize Him as the cause of its continued existence and ongoing governance.

In Arabic usage, “ʿarsh” denotes anything that has a roof, and at times the roof itself is also called ʿarsh. For example, the Qur’an states: اَوْ كَالَّذِي مَرَّ عَلَىٰ قَرْيَةٍ وَهِيَ خَاوِيَةٌ عَلَىٰ عُرُوشِهَا — “or like one who passed by a town while it lay desolate upon its roofs” (al‑Baqarah 2:259). The term is also used for an elevated throne, such as the thrones of kings. Thus, in the story of Prophet Sulaymān (peace be upon him), the Qur’an says: اَيُّكُمْ يَأْتِينِي بِعَرْشِهَا — “Which of you can bring me her throne?” (al‑Naml 27:38). Likewise, the supports on which vines are trained are also called ʿarsh, and this usage too appears in the Qur’an, as in: وَهُوَ الَّذِي أَنْشَأَ جَنَّاتٍ مَعْرُوشَاتٍ وَغَيْرَ مَعْرُوشَاتٍ — “He it is who produced gardens, both trellised and untrellised” (al‑Anʿām 6:141). However, when this term is used in relation to God — when it is said “the ʿarsh of God” — it refers to the entire order of existence, which in reality constitutes the throne of divine sovereignty. When the expression “اسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ” is employed, it is a metaphor indicating that a ruler has fully taken command over the affairs of his dominion and has established his authority. Conversely, the expression “ثُلَّ عَرْشُهُ” (“his throne has collapsed”) is used when a king’s rule is overturned. Such figurative language is also widely used in Persian and Urdu. For example, one says that people revolted in a certain country and overthrew the ruler from the throne, even if no literal throne existed; or that supporters installed someone upon the throne, meaning that they granted him power and authority. All such idioms signify the attainment or loss of dominion and governance. Accordingly, in the verse under discussion, the phrase “اسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ” is a metaphor meaning that after creating the heavens and the earth, the Lord of the universe became dominant over them in every respect and took the regulation of their order into His own hand of power. From this it becomes clear that those who have argued for the corporealization of God on the basis of this verse failed to recognize the metaphorical sense explained here. The word ʿarsh also has another meaning when it is used in contrast to kursī. In such contexts, kursī (which generally denotes a smaller seat or chair) may signify the material world, while ʿarsh may refer to the realm beyond matter, such as the world of spirits and angels. This interpretation has already been discussed in detail in the commentary on the verse وَسِعَ كُرْسِيُّهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ in Sūrat al‑Baqarah. The verse then states that God is the One who causes the night to cover the day like a veil, and who enshrouds the light of day with the dark covering of night: يُغْشِي اللَّيْلَ النَّهَارَ. It is noteworthy that this expression is used only with respect to the night, and it is not said that the day covers the night, because covering is naturally associated with darkness, not with light. The verse continues: the night pursues the day swiftly, as though a creditor were chasing his debtor: يَطْلُبُهُ حَثِيثًا. This expression perfectly accords with the condition of day and night on the earth, for one who observes the earth from outside will see that it is rapidly rotating on its axis (at roughly thirty kilometers per second), and that on the side opposite the sun a conical shadow moves continuously behind the advancing light, like a vast and mysterious form following it. At that moment, the full import of the phrase يَطْلُبُهُ حَثِيثًا becomes clear. It also explains why this expression is not used of the day, since sunlight spreads over half the earth and does not take on a distinct form. The verse then adds: He is the One who created the sun, the moon, and the stars, all of which are subjected to His command: وَالشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ وَالنُّجُومَ مُسَخَّرَاتٍ بِأَمْرِهِ (a detailed discussion of the subjection of the sun, moon, and stars will follow under the relevant verses). After mentioning the creation of the cosmos, the order of night and day, and the formation of the sun, moon, and stars, the Qur’an emphasizes once more: be fully aware that creation and command belong solely to Him: اَلَا لَهُ الْخَلْقُ وَالْأَمْرُ. Provide your feedback on BizChatمزید آیات کی تشریح کریں جو عرش اور کرسی کے فرق کو بیان کرتی ہیںرات اور دن کی گردش کی مزید تفصیل دیںسورہ بقرہ کی آیت کرسی کی تفسیر دوبارہ بیان کریںDrop your files here

What is meant by “خلق” (creation) and “امر” (command)? There has been considerable discussion among exegetes on this issue. However, if attention is paid to the contextual indicators present in this verse, as well as those found in other Qur’anic verses, it appears that “خلق” refers to the initial act of creation, while “امر” denotes the laws and governing system that rule over the universe and through which the entire cosmic order continues to function. This expression is, in reality, a response to those who imagine that God created the universe and then abandoned it, withdrawing Himself and no longer exercising any role. In other words, they claim that the universe is dependent on God for its origination but has no need of Him for its continued existence. This verse asserts that just as the cosmos is dependent upon God for its creation, it is equally dependent upon Him for its governance, continuation, and ongoing operation. If for even a single moment the divine grace were to be withdrawn from it, the entire cosmic system would collapse and be destroyed. Some philosophers have held that “عالم خلق” refers to the material world, and “عالم امر” refers to the world of spirits, because the realm of creation involves gradual processes, which is characteristic of the material world, whereas the realm of command involves immediacy and instantaneous realization, which is characteristic of what lies beyond matter. As the Qur’an states: “اِنَّمَا اَمْرُهُ إِذَا اَرَادَ شَیْئًا اَنْ یَقُولَ لَهُ كُنْ فَیَكُونُ” — “His command, when He wills something, is only that He says to it ‘Be,’ and it is” (Yā Sīn 36:82). However, if the Qur’anic usages of the term “امر” are examined more closely, including the phrase “والشمس والقمر والنجوم مسخرات بامره” found in this very verse, it becomes evident that “امر” denotes every form of divine command, whether related to the material realm or to what lies beyond matter. At the conclusion of the verse, it is stated: “تَبَارَكَ اللّٰهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ” — “Blessed is God, the Lord of the worlds.” This statement functions as a form of praise of the sacred divine station following the mention of the creation of the heavens and the earth, the sun and the moon, and their governance, and it serves an educative purpose for humanity. The word “تبارك” derives from barakah. Its root is “برك” (on the pattern of darak), which literally denotes the chest of a camel. Since a camel, when it intends to settle firmly in one place, presses its chest onto the ground, the notion of stability and permanence came to be associated with this root. Subsequently, any enduring and lasting blessing came to be described as barakah. Thereafter, any being whose existence is long-lasting or whose effects are continuous came to be called mubārak (blessed). Similarly, a pool of water is called birkah because water remains collected and retained in it for a long time. From this, it becomes clear that a “blessed” asset is one that is not quickly exhausted or depleted, and a “blessed” being is one whose beneficent effects remain enduring over an extended period. It is therefore self-evident that the most complete and perfect instance of this meaning is the blessed Essence of God Himself. He is an eternally existent, everlasting being, the source of all blessings and goodness, whose beneficence and grace are perpetually flowing and never cease.

See ayat 56 for tafseer.

From the preceding verses it has become clear that true servitude and worship are owed exclusively to God alone. In this context, the present verse issues the command that supplication and intimate prayer, which constitute the very spirit of worship, must be directed solely to God: “اُدْعُوا رَبَّكُمْ تَضَرُّعًا وَخُفْيَةً” — call upon your Lord with humble entreaty and in privacy. The term “تضرّع” is derived from the root “ضرع” (on the pattern of farʿ), originally signifying the udder. Thus, the verb taḍarruʿ literally refers to milking the udder. Since during milking the fingers press upon the udder from different directions, the term came to be used for one who expresses humility, submissiveness, and sincere abasement before a superior in various ways. Accordingly, when the verse instructs that God be invoked with taḍarruʿ (imploring supplication), it means that He should be called upon with the utmost humility, submission, and reverence. The essence of supplication is not merely calling upon God with the tongue; rather, it means that supplication should rise from the depths of the heart, permeate one’s entire being, and that the tongue should utter words on behalf of all one’s faculties. The command to invoke God “خُفْيَةً” — quietly and in privacy — is given so that ostentation does not intrude upon supplication and sincerity may be attained, allowing the heart and mind to become fully focused upon the divine presence. A ḥadīth reports that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny was once on a military expedition. When the Muslim army reached a narrow pass, they raised their voices proclaiming “لا إله إلا الله والله أكبر”. At that moment, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: “يا أيها الناس اربعوا على أنفسكم، إنكم لا تدعون أصمَّ ولا غائبًا، إنكم تدعون سميعًا قريبًا، إنه معكم” — “O people, be gentle with yourselves; you are not calling upon one who is deaf or absent. You are calling upon One who hears and is near; He is with you.” It has also been suggested with respect to this verse that taḍarruʿ refers to supplication made openly, while khufyah refers to supplication made in private, since different situations call for different modes of prayer. Sometimes prayer is offered openly and aloud, and at other times quietly and discreetly. The narration transmitted from ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm supports this interpretation. At the end of the verse it is stated: “إِنَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ” — God does not love those who transgress. This statement encompasses a broad range of meanings, covering every form of excess, whether it be loud shouting during supplication, ostentation and hypocrisy, or directing one’s attention to anyone other than God during prayer. The term “المعتدين” applies to all such behaviors. The verse then refers to another command, which in fact constitutes one of the essential conditions for the acceptance of supplication. It states: “وَلَا تُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ بَعْدَ إِصْلَاحِهَا” — do not cause corruption on the earth after it has been set right. There is no doubt that supplication reaches the divine presence only when its necessary conditions are observed. Among these conditions is that supplication should, insofar as possible, possess a constructive orientation, respect the rights of others, and cast a constructive influence upon the entirety of human existence. Consequently, the prayer of those who are corrupt and destructive can never attain the rank of acceptance. The phrase “فساد بعد الإصلاح” may refer to oppression, disbelief, or both. In a narration from Imām Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (عليه السلام), it is stated: “إن الأرض كانت فاسدة فأصلحها الله بنبيه” — “The earth was corrupt, and God set it right through His Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny.” The discourse then returns once more to the topic of supplication and mentions another of its conditions: “وَادْعُوهُ خَوْفًا وَطَمَعًا” — call upon Him in fear and hope. One must neither be so prideful with respect to one’s deeds as to imagine that there exists no dark corner in one’s life, for such an attitude itself becomes a major cause of downfall and decline; nor should one fall into such despair as to regard oneself unworthy of God’s mercy and acceptance, for this feeling likewise prevents all purposeful effort. Rather, one should remain poised between fear and hope, soaring toward the station of divine proximity through these two wings: hope in His mercy, and fear with respect to one’s responsibilities and lapses. Finally, the verse highlights the proximity of divine mercy to its true recipients: “إِنَّ رَحْمَةَ اللَّهِ قَرِيبٌ مِّنَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ” — indeed, God’s mercy is near to those who do good. This statement may be understood as another condition of supplication, namely that if one wishes one’s prayer not to remain a hollow verbal utterance, it should be accompanied by righteous deeds. Through such deeds, divine mercy may encompass the supplicant and elevate the prayer to the station of acceptance. Thus, this noble verse presents five conditions for the acceptance of supplication: first, to pray with humble entreaty and in privacy; second, not to exceed the bounds of moderation; third, that the supplication not be associated with corruption and destruction; fourth, that prayer be offered with a balance of fear and hope; and fifth, that supplication be accompanied by righteous deeds.

See ayat 58 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, reference was made to the origin (mabdaʾ), that is, divine unity (tawḥīd), and argumentation was provided through the signs and mysteries of the cosmos. In the present verse, by referring to certain divine blessings, attention is now directed to the issue of the return (maʿād), so that these two discussions may appear as complementary counterparts, each completing the other. This is a characteristic Qur’anic method, whereby in many places the Qur’an presents the themes of origin and return together. It is noteworthy that in both the recognition of the Origin and the understanding of the Return, Allah argues through the same signs of cosmic creation. It is first stated: He is the One who sends forth the winds as heralds ahead of His mercy, like bearers of glad tidings who run ahead to announce the arrival of a blessed traveller (وَهُوَ الَّذِي يُرْسِلُ الرِّيَاحَ بُشْرًا بَيْنَ يَدَيْ رَحْمَتِهِ)—winds that rise from the vast oceans and carry upon themselves heavy clouds laden with stores of water (حَتَّىٰ إِذَا أَقَلَّتْ سَحَابًا ثِقَالًا). At that moment, We drive them toward dead and arid lands and entrust them with the task of irrigating those regions (سُقْنَاهُ لِبَلَدٍ مَيِّتٍ), and through them We send down life‑giving water (فَأَنْزَلْنَا بِهِ الْمَاءَ). By means of that water, We bring forth from that dark soil fruits of every kind, diverse in color, fragrance, and taste (فَأَخْرَجْنَا بِهِ مِنْ كُلِّ الثَّمَرَاتِ). Indeed, the sun shines upon the oceans, sending vapor upward through its heat; these vapors gather and condense, forming clouds upon clouds. Then the waves of the winds carry these mountainous masses of cloud toward the regions where they are commanded to release their rain. Light breezes mixed with gentle moisture move ahead as refreshing winds, announcing the arrival of this treasure of mercy, while carrying the scent of life‑giving rain. Thereafter, the magnificent clusters of clouds release heavy raindrops toward the earth—drops that are neither so large as to devastate the fields and wash the soil away, nor so small as to disperse in the atmosphere, but rather descend with a perfectly balanced measure and speed. They penetrate the earth and prepare the environment of the buried seed for growth and emergence. Thus, land that had become a barren graveyard due to dryness and heat is transformed, through this water, into flourishing fields and fragrant gardens. The verse then continues: In the same manner, We shall bring forth the dead from the earth (كَذَٰلِكَ نُخْرِجُ الْمَوْتَىٰ). We have presented this example in order to show you a model of the Day of Resurrection—one that passes repeatedly before your eyes every year—so that you may be mindful (لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ). One might suppose that since rain often falls in a broadly similar manner across the land, all terrains should revive equally. The subsequent verse responds to this notion by explaining that differences in the capacity and suitability of the land cause each to benefit according to its own potential. Thus it states: Good and wholesome land brings forth its vegetation by the permission of its Lord (وَالْبَلَدُ الطَّيِّبُ يَخْرُجُ نَبَاتُهُ بِإِذْنِ رَبِّهِ), whereas land that is barren, salty, and corrupt produces nothing but scanty and worthless growth (وَالَّذِي خَبُثَ لَا يَخْرُجُ إِلَّا نَكِدًا). In the same way, on the Day of Resurrection, although the command to rise will be issued equally to all, human beings will not enter the gathering in an identical state or rank. People, like fertile and barren lands, differ and vary—and this variation arises from differences in beliefs, intentions, and deeds. The verse concludes by stating: Thus do We set forth Our signs repeatedly for a people who give thanks, benefit from them, and advance upon the path of guidance (كَذَٰلِكَ نُصَرِّفُ الْآيَاتِ لِقَوْمٍ يَشْكُرُونَ). In reality, this verse points to a fundamental principle that manifests both in this world and in the Hereafter: the mere efficacy of the agent is not sufficient for a result to bear fruit; rather, the receptivity and capacity of the recipient are also essential. Nothing could be imagined as more life‑giving and subtle than the drops of rain; yet this same rain that is pure and gentle gives rise to lush greenery in one place, while in another it yields nothing but weeds and thorns.

See ayat 64 for tafseer.

See ayat 64 for tafseer.

See ayat 64 for tafseer.

See ayat 64 for tafseer.

See ayat 64 for tafseer.

As we stated at the beginning of this sūrah, after setting out certain fundamental themes such as the knowledge of God, the Resurrection, human guidance, and the sense of moral responsibility, God the Exalted proceeds to mention some of the great prophets—such as Nūḥ, Hūd, Ṣāliḥ, Lūṭ, Shuʿayb, and finally Mūsā ibn ʿImrān—so that these theoretical discussions may be presented through living and practical models embodied in their fervent, instructive lives. In this sequence, the account of Prophet Nūḥ (peace be upon him) is presented first. The dialogue that took place between him and his rebellious, idolatrous, and corrupt people is briefly related. The story of Nūḥ appears in many places in the Noble Qur’an, such as Sūrat Hūd, Sūrat al‑Anbiyāʾ, Sūrat al‑Muʾminūn, Sūrat al‑Shuʿarāʾ, and there is also a shorter sūrah entitled “Nūḥ,” which is the seventy‑first sūrah of the Qur’an. The detailed events of this noble prophet’s life—such as the construction of the Ark, the terrifying account of the Flood, and the drowning of the self‑seeking, corrupt, and idol‑worshipping people—will, God willing, be discussed in detail under those sūrahs. In the present six verses, the purpose is only to present a concise outline of these events. First it is stated: “لَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا نُوحًا إِلَىٰ قَوْمِهِ” — We sent Nūḥ to his people. The first matter to which Nūḥ (peace be upon him) called their attention was tawḥīd and the rejection of every form of idolatry. He said to them: “يَا قَوْمِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مَا لَكُمْ مِنْ إِلَٰهٍ غَيْرُهُ” — O my people, worship God; you have no god other than Him. The call to tawḥīd was not only the first call of Nūḥ, but the first call of all the prophets. Accordingly, in numerous verses of this sūrah and in many other Qur’anic sūrahs, this very statement appears at the beginning of the prophetic mission: “يَا قَوْمِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مَا لَكُمْ مِنْ إِلَٰهٍ غَيْرُهُ” (see verses 65, 73, and 85 of this sūrah). From this expression it becomes clear that idolatry constitutes a formidable obstacle on the path to human felicity. Therefore, all the gardeners of the garden of tawḥīd—the prophets—before planting various flowers and trees in the soil of human receptivity, first girded themselves with resolve to remove the thorns of polytheism and idol‑worship. In particular, Sūrat Nūḥ, verse 23, shows that in the time of Nūḥ people worshipped numerous idols, such as Wadd, Suwāʿ, Yaghūth, and Nasr, the details of which will, God willing, be discussed later. After awakening their dormant nature, Nūḥ (peace be upon him) warned them of the evil consequences of idolatry and said: “إِنِّي أَخَافُ عَلَيْكُمْ عَذَابَ يَوْمٍ عَظِيمٍ” — I fear for you the punishment of a tremendous Day. By “the punishment of a tremendous Day” it may be that the Flood of Nūḥ is intended, for no lesser punishment has been witnessed; it may also refer to the punishment of the Day of Resurrection, since the Qur’an uses this expression in both senses. In Sūrat al‑Shuʿarāʾ, verse 189, it states: “فَأَخَذَهُمْ عَذَابُ يَوْمِ الظُّلَّةِ إِنَّهُ كَانَ عَذَابَ يَوْمٍ عَظِيمٍ”, referring to the punishment that befell the people of Shuʿayb in this world. Likewise, in Sūrat al‑Muṭaffifīn, verses 4–5, it states: “أَلَا يَظُنُّ أُولَٰئِكَ أَنَّهُمْ مَبْعُوثُونَ لِيَوْمٍ عَظِيمٍ”, where “tremendous” qualifies the Day itself and not its punishment. Following the issue of shirk, the use of the expression “أَخَافُ” (“I fear”) may indicate that even if they were not fully certain about such a punishment, they should at least fear it, for reason does not permit one to choose a path in which there exists the possibility of such a grave danger. However, instead of accepting the reformative call of this great prophet—which was entirely imbued with goodwill for them, accepting tawḥīd wholeheartedly, and abandoning oppression—their chiefs and wealthy elites, when they perceived their interests threatened by the people’s awakening and found Nūḥ’s message obstructing their luxury and indulgence, responded bluntly: “قَالَ الْمَلَأُ مِنْ قَوْمِهِ إِنَّا لَنَرَاكَ فِي ضَلَالٍ مُبِينٍ” — we see you to be in manifest error. The term “الملأ” generally refers to a group that adopts a specific outlook and belief system and whose outward prestige and ostentation “fill the eyes,” as the word derives from malāʾ, meaning “to fill.” In the Qur’an, this term is often used for groups that are self‑centered, outwardly refined, but inwardly corrupt, and that dominate their environment through their presence. In response to this harsh and insulting attitude, Nūḥ (peace be upon him) replied with great composure and kindness: “يَا قَوْمِ لَيْسَ بِي ضَلَالَةٌ وَلَٰكِنِّي رَسُولٌ مِنْ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ” — O my people, there is no error in me; rather, I am a messenger from the Lord of the worlds. This points to the fact that the various gods they imagined—gods of the sea, the heavens, peace, war, and so forth—are baseless superstitions; the true Lord and Sustainer of all worlds is the One God who created and fashioned everything. Nūḥ continued: “أُبَلِّغُكُمْ رِسَالَاتِ رَبِّي” — my purpose is only to convey to you the messages and commands of my Lord; “وَأَنْصَحُ لَكُمْ” — and I offer you sincere counsel. The word “أنصح” derives from “نصح”, meaning pure sincerity; hence nāṣiḥ al‑ʿasal refers to pure honey. The term later came to denote speech that is entirely sincere, free of ulterior motives or deception. He concluded by saying: “وَأَعْلَمُ مِنَ اللَّهِ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ” — and I know from God what you do not know. This statement may carry a tone of warning, indicating knowledge of painful punishments unknown to them; or it may allude to God’s mercy, meaning that if they repent and return to Him, there are rewards and blessings known to Nūḥ but unknown to them; or it may simply mean that, as the bearer of divine guidance, he possesses knowledge of God and His laws that they do not. It is also possible that all these meanings are intended simultaneously. In the following verse, another statement of Nūḥ appears in response to his people’s amazement at the idea that a human being could bear divine messengership. He asked: “أَوَعَجِبْتُمْ أَنْ جَاءَكُمْ ذِكْرٌ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ عَلَىٰ رَجُلٍ مِنْكُمْ لِيُنْذِرَكُمْ وَلِتَتَّقُوا وَلَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ” — do you find it strange that a reminder from your Lord has come to you through a man from among yourselves, so that he may warn you, that you may become God‑fearing, and that you may be shown mercy? What, indeed, is astonishing here? A qualified and upright human being is far more apt to carry divine messengership than any other creature; moreover, only a human can truly guide humans—not jinn nor angels. Yet instead of cherishing the words of such a compassionate and benevolent guide, they denied him and refused to submit to his call. The more Nūḥ (peace be upon him) preached, the more their obstinacy and stubbornness increased. Consequently, God saved only Nūḥ and those who were with him in the Ark, and He drowned all those who denied His signs: “فَكَذَّبُوهُ فَأَنْجَيْنَاهُ وَالَّذِينَ مَعَهُ فِي الْفُلْكِ وَأَغْرَقْنَا الَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِنَا”. The reason for this severe punishment is stated at the end of the verse: “إِنَّهُمْ كَانُوا قَوْمًا عَمِينَ” — they were a blind people, that is, inwardly blind and deprived of true insight. The word “عَمِينَ” is the plural of ʿamٍ, generally used for one whose inner vision and spiritual perception have been extinguished. This blindness was the result of their corrupt deeds and persistent obstinacy, for experience shows that if a person remains in darkness for a long time, or deliberately avoids the light, he gradually loses his capacity for sight. The same applies to other faculties: if they remain unused for a prolonged period, they atrophy and become permanently disabled. The inner eye of the heart is no exception to this law. Continual disregard for truth, neglect of reason, and refusal to engage intellect with reality progressively weakens inner perception, until it ultimately becomes completely blind. The remainder of the account of Nūḥ and his people will, God willing, be presented in detail under the sūrahs mentioned earlier.

See ayat 72 for tafseer.

See ayat 72 for tafseer.

See ayat 72 for tafseer.

See ayat 72 for tafseer.

See ayat 72 for tafseer.

See ayat 72 for tafseer.

See ayat 72 for tafseer.

After narrating the account of the messengership of Prophet Nūḥ (peace be upon him) and the lessons of admonition and wisdom contained therein, the Qur’an next presents the account of another prophet, namely Prophet Hūd (peace be upon him). This narrative has been discussed with greater detail in other sūrahs of the Qur’an, such as Sūrat al‑Shuʿarāʾ and Sūrat Hūd itself. In the verses presently under consideration, only a concise summary is given of the dialogue and debate that took place between Prophet Hūd and his people. It is first stated that God sent to the people of ʿĀd their brother Hūd (peace be upon him) (وَإِلَىٰ عَادٍ أَخَاهُمْ هُودًا). The people of ʿĀd lived in the land of Yemen. In terms of physical strength and material prosperity—derived from agriculture and livestock—they were a powerful and affluent people; yet in matters of belief they were severely backward. Hūd was himself a member of this nation and was related to them by kinship. He received the divine command to guide his people, to save them from destruction, to warn them of divine punishment, and to confront the corruption that had spread among them. The expression “أَخَاهُمْ” (“their brother”) may allude to this close kinship relationship between Prophet Hūd and his people. It is also possible that the use of the term “brother” for Prophet Hūd in this sūrah—and similarly for other prophets in other sūrahs, such as Prophet Nūḥ in Sūrat al‑Shuʿarāʾ (26:106), Prophet Ṣāliḥ in the same sūrah (26:142), Prophet Lūṭ (26:161), and Prophet Shuʿayb (al‑Aʿrāf 7:85)—reflects the deep compassion, sincere concern, and fraternal goodwill with which these prophets preached to their communities. They addressed their people earnestly, striving with all effort to guide them. This expression is used for those who endeavor intensely to admonish and reform others. Moreover, it conveys a sense of equality and fraternity and negates superiority, domination, or the pursuit of authority. The point is that these prophets sought no worldly gain, nor political rule; their sole aim was to rescue their peoples from misery and destruction. It is also clear that “أَخَاهُمْ” does not denote religious brotherhood, since these communities were generally polytheistic and did not accept the true faith despite the persistent efforts of the divine messengers. Thereafter, it is related that Prophet Hūd began his mission by proclaiming divine unity and expressing disavowal of customs, practices, polytheism, and idol‑worship. He said to them: O my people! Worship God; you have no deity other than Him. Will you not then adopt piety? (قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مَا لَكُمْ مِنْ إِلَٰهٍ غَيْرُهُ أَفَلَا تَتَّقُونَ). However, this self‑seeking and arrogant group—particularly its wealthy elites, whom the Qur’an describes with the term “الملأ”—responded to Hūd with exactly the same accusations that the people of Nūḥ had made against Prophet Nūḥ. They even attributed foolishness and stupidity to him, saying: We see you in folly, and we think you are indeed among the liars (قَالَ الْمَلَأُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ قَوْمِهِ إِنَّا لَنَرَاكَ فِي سَفَاهَةٍ وَإِنَّا لَنَظُنُّكَ مِنَ الْكَاذِبِينَ). In their view, “folly” and “stupidity” consisted in raising a voice of protest against prevailing customs and the traditions of the majority—no matter how corrupt or ignorant those customs might be—even to the point of endangering one’s life. According to their logic, Hūd’s folly lay in refusing to blend in with his environment, declining opportunism, challenging ancient practices, and thus voluntarily inviting hardship and conflict. Yet Prophet Hūd, with the calmness, dignity, and composure characteristic of every true and righteous prophet, replied without anger, distress, or despair: O my people! There is no folly in me; rather, my words and actions themselves testify to my sound reason and awareness. I am a messenger from the Lord of all the worlds (قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ لَيْسَ بِي سَفَاهَةٌ وَلَٰكِنِّي رَسُولٌ مِنْ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ). Prophet Hūd further added that it was incumbent upon him to convey his Lord’s message to them and to communicate to them those commandments that guarantee their prosperity and liberate them from polytheism and corruption—doing so with utmost sincerity, compassion, and trustworthiness (أُبَلِّغُكُمْ رِسَالَاتِ رَبِّي وَأَنَا لَكُمْ نَاصِحٌ أَمِينٌ). He then addressed their astonishment at God sending a messenger from among themselves, just as Prophet Nūḥ had earlier done, saying: Do you find it strange that a reminder from your Lord should come to you through a man from among yourselves, so that he may warn you of the punishment that threatens you as a consequence of your evil deeds? (أَوَعَجِبْتُمْ أَنْ جَاءَكُمْ ذِكْرٌ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ عَلَىٰ رَجُلٍ مِنْكُمْ لِيُنْذِرَكُمْ). To awaken their dormant consciences and stir within them a sense of gratitude, he reminded them of some of God’s blessings: Remember that God made you successors after the people of Nūḥ, and when they were destroyed due to their rebellion, He granted you dominion over their vast lands, lands rich in diverse blessings (وَاذْكُرُوا إِذْ جَعَلَكُمْ خُلَفَاءَ مِنْ بَعْدِ قَوْمِ نُوحٍ). He also bestowed upon you exceptional physical strength (وَزَادَكُمْ فِي الْخَلْقِ بَسْطَةً). As noted previously, this phrase may refer to the extraordinary bodily power of the people of ʿĀd, for many verses of the Qur’an and historical accounts describe them as possessing immense stature and strength. For instance, Sūrat Ḥā‑Mīm al‑Sajdah (41:15) quotes them as saying: “مَنْ أَشَدُّ مِنَّا قُوَّةً” — Who is mightier than us in strength? Likewise, Sūrat al‑Ḥāqqah (69:7) describes their destruction, portraying them lying prostrate like uprooted trunks of palm trees. It is also possible that this phrase alludes to their prosperity, wealth, and apparent civilizational advancement. However, the former interpretation accords more closely with the apparent meaning of the verse. Finally, Prophet Hūd exhorted his selfish people to remember God’s manifold blessings so that gratitude might awaken within them and, by submitting to His commands, they might attain salvation (فَاذْكُرُوا آلَاءَ اللَّهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ). Yet none of Hūd’s counsels, guidance, or reminders had any effect upon them. Instead, when they perceived their material interests to be threatened, they openly opposed him and declared: Have you come to us so that we should worship God alone and abandon those deities whom our forefathers have worshipped for generations, deities whose greatness is firmly entrenched in our hearts? This will never happen (قَالُوا أَجِئْتَنَا لِنَعْبُدَ اللَّهَ وَحْدَهُ وَنَذَرَ مَا كَانَ يَعْبُدُ آبَاؤُنَا). As is evident, their intellectual level had fallen so low that they were terrified by the worship of the One unique God and regarded devotion to numerous separate deities as a source of pride. Remarkably, their sole “argument” in defense of this irrational practice was merely that they had seen their ancestors do the same. They possessed no rational justification whatsoever for venerating pieces of stone or wood. To extinguish any remaining hope in Hūd, they added as their final statement: If you are truly truthful, and if the punishment with which you have threatened us has any reality, then bring it upon us as quickly as you can and annihilate us entirely (فَأْتِنَا بِمَا تَعِدُنَا إِنْ كُنْتَ مِنَ الصَّادِقِينَ). When matters reached this point, and their last statement clearly showed their total refusal to accept guidance, Prophet Hūd also despaired of their reform and said: Know, then, that impurity and wrath from your Lord have certainly fallen upon you (قَالَ قَدْ وَقَعَ عَلَيْكُمْ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ رِجْسٌ وَغَضَبٌ). The term “رجس” fundamentally denotes every form of impurity. Some exegetes hold that its semantic range is broader, encompassing anything that gives rise to aversion and repulsion. Hence impurity, filth, and punishment are all called رجس, since they provoke revulsion. In this verse, it can plausibly refer to divine punishment. Its use with the past‑tense expression “قد وقع” emphasizes that they had definitively become deserving of punishment and that it would inevitably befall them. It is also possible that رجس here signifies spiritual pollution, meaning that they had so immersed themselves in misguidance and corruption that their souls were burdened with layers of moral impurity, rendering them deserving of divine punishment. This was followed by another statement addressing their logic concerning idols: Do you dispute with me concerning mere names that you and your forefathers have invented—names for which God has sent down no authority? (أَتُجَادِلُونَنِي فِي أَسْمَاءٍ سَمَّيْتُمُوهَا أَنْتُمْ وَآبَاؤُكُمْ مَا نَزَّلَ اللَّهُ بِهَا مِنْ سُلْطَانٍ). In truth, your idols are nothing but names without any real referent—names fabricated by you and your ancestors, founded upon unwarranted imagination; in reality, they are no different from other pieces of wood in the forest. He then concluded: Since this is so, wait, then—I too shall wait with you (فَانْتَظِرُوا إِنِّي مَعَكُمْ مِنَ الْمُنْتَظِرِينَ). You wait to see whether these idols will come to your aid in the face of the coming calamity, and I shall wait for the descent of God’s painful punishment upon you. Soon it will become clear which expectation was closer to reality. The conclusion of the passage summarizes the fate of this obstinate and stubborn people: God saved Prophet Hūd and those who were with him through His mercy, and He utterly eradicated those who denied His signs and refused to submit to the truth (فَأَنْجَيْنَاهُ وَالَّذِينَ مَعَهُ بِرَحْمَةٍ مِنَّا وَقَطَعْنَا دَابِرَ الَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِنَا وَمَا كَانُوا مُؤْمِنِينَ). The term “دابر” literally denotes the end or last remnant of something; thus the verse means that the people were annihilated entirely and uprooted down to their very last trace. (The rest of the account of the people of ʿĀd—their characteristics, lifestyle, and the nature of the punishment inflicted upon them—will, God willing, be presented in detail in the commentary on Sūrat Hūd.)

See ayat 79 for tafseer.

See ayat 79 for tafseer.

See ayat 79 for tafseer.

See ayat 79 for tafseer.

See ayat 79 for tafseer.

See ayat 79 for tafseer.

In these verses, God mentions the struggle (jihād) undertaken by His great prophet Ṣāliḥ (peace be upon him) against his people, the Thamūd. The people of Thamūd lived in a mountainous region between Syria and the Hijaz. In continuity with the admonitory narratives presented in the Qur’an regarding the peoples of Nūḥ and Hūd, these verses likewise recount their story and set forth the account of Prophet Ṣāliḥ. In addition to this passage, the story appears in Sūrahs Hūd, al‑Shuʿarāʾ, al‑Qamar, and al‑Shams, though the most detailed treatment is found in Sūrah Hūd. Here, the Qur’an confines itself to a concise summary of the dialogue between Ṣāliḥ and his people and to the description of their evil end. The account begins with the statement that God sent to the people of Thamūd their brother Ṣāliḥ (وَإِلَىٰ ثَمُودَ أَخَاهُمْ صَالِحًا). The reason why these prophets are referred to as “brothers” has already been explained earlier in this sūrah in connection with the story of Hūd. Like the other prophets, Ṣāliḥ began his mission of reform by calling his people to monotheism and exclusive devotion to God. He said to them: “O my people, worship God; you have no deity other than Him” (قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مَا لَكُمْ مِنْ إِلَٰهٍ غَيْرُهُ). He then added that he was not making any claim without evidence: a clear proof had come to them from their Lord, namely the she‑camel that God had presented to them as a sign and a miracle (قَدْ جَاءَتْكُمْ بَيِّنَةٌ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ هَٰذِهِ نَاقَةُ اللَّهِ لَكُمْ آيَةً). The word nāqah in its original lexical sense means a she‑camel, and the she‑camel of Ṣāliḥ is mentioned seven times in the Qur’an. The exact nature of this she‑camel and the manner in which God made it a decisive miracle for the people of Ṣāliḥ will be explained, God willing, in the commentary on Sūrah Hūd. It should also be noted that attributing the she‑camel to God is an instance of iḍāfah tashrīʿiyyah, meaning that this was no ordinary animal but one endowed with a special distinction. Ṣāliḥ then instructed them to let the she‑camel graze freely on God’s land and to cause it no harm, warning that otherwise a painful punishment would seize them (فَذَرُوهَا تَأْكُلْ فِي أَرْضِ اللَّهِ وَلَا تَمَسُّوهَا بِسُوءٍ فَيَأْخُذَكُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ). The addition of “God’s land” underscores that the animal was harmless and subsisted only on wild vegetation, giving them no justification to injure it. The following verse reminds them that God had made them successors after the people of ʿĀd and had established them in the land, thus obligating them to remember divine favors and to reflect upon the fate of earlier nations destroyed because of rebellion and transgression (وَاذْكُرُوا إِذْ جَعَلَكُمْ خُلَفَاءَ مِنْ بَعْدِ عَادٍ وَبَوَّأَكُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ). God further enumerates some of the blessings granted to them: they lived in a region containing fertile plains, where they built magnificent palaces, and mountains, in whose rock they carved secure dwellings (تَتَّخِذُونَ مِنْ سُهُولِهَا قُصُورًا وَتَنْحِتُونَ الْجِبَالَ بُيُوتًا). This indicates that they possessed dwellings adapted to different terrains. The verse concludes with the admonition: remember God’s blessings and do not spread corruption on the earth (فَاذْكُرُوا آلَاءَ اللَّهِ وَلَا تَعْثَوْا فِي الْأَرْضِ مُفْسِدِينَ). Once again, the arrogant chiefs and wealthy elites—designated in the Qur’an as al‑malāʾ—rose in opposition to this great prophet. Opposed to them stood a group of humble, sincere believers who were socially weak and economically dependent and who had accepted Ṣāliḥ’s call. Seeking to undermine their resolve, the arrogant leaders questioned these believers: “Do you truly know that Ṣāliḥ has been sent by his Lord?” (قَالَ الْمَلَأُ الَّذِينَ اسْتَكْبَرُوا مِنْ قَوْمِهِ لِلَّذِينَ اسْتُضْعِفُوا لِمَنْ آمَنَ مِنْهُمْ أَتَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّ صَالِحًا مُرْسَلٌ مِنْ رَبِّهِ). Their aim was not sincere inquiry but sowing doubt and weakening the believers’ determination. However, the believers responded decisively, affirming not only their certainty but their faith in the message brought by Ṣāliḥ (قَالُوا إِنَّا بِمَا أُرْسِلَ بِهِ مُؤْمِنُونَ). The arrogant group then declared openly that they disbelieved in what the believers had accepted (قَالَ الَّذِينَ اسْتَكْبَرُوا إِنَّا بِالَّذِي آمَنْتُمْ بِهِ كَافِرُونَ), assuming that their social influence would sway the masses once more. Yet they soon realized their error: faith had transformed the believers’ personalities, granting them intellectual independence and strength of will. Significantly, the Qur’an here labels the disbelievers as mutakabbirīn (the arrogant) and the faithful poor as mustadʿafīn (the oppressed), indicating that the former had risen through exploitation and the usurpation of others’ rights, while the latter had long been subjected to such exploitation. When the arrogant leaders failed to shake the believers’ resolve and saw that their efforts against the miracle of the she‑camel were ineffective, they resolved to kill the animal. They hamstrung it and then slaughtered it, openly defying their Lord’s command (فَعَقَرُوا النَّاقَةَ وَعَتَوْا عَنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّهِمْ). Afterward, they brazenly challenged Ṣāliḥ: “O Ṣāliḥ, bring upon us what you promise us, if you are indeed one of the messengers” (وَقَالُوا يَا صَالِحُ ائْتِنَا بِمَا تَعِدُنَا إِنْ كُنْتَ مِنَ الْمُرْسَلِينَ). This was a final expression of their defiance, intended to demoralize Ṣāliḥ and the believers. When their rebellion reached its ultimate limit and all receptivity to faith vanished from them, God’s established law came into effect: He annihilates the corrupt and replaces them with better people. A violent earthquake struck, destroying their palaces and rock‑hewn dwellings; in a single instant, the lights of their luxurious lives were extinguished, and by morning their lifeless bodies lay motionless within their homes (فَأَخَذَتْهُمُ الرَّجْفَةُ فَأَصْبَحُوا فِي دَارِهِمْ جَاثِمِينَ). The term jāthimīn derives from jathm, meaning to remain crouched or motionless in one place, perhaps alluding to the suddenness of the calamity that overtook them before they could even rise to escape. This is how the Qur’an briefly recounts the end of the people of Thamūd, while further details of their life, character, and punishment will, God willing, be presented later in the exegesis of Sūrah Hūd.

Here a question arises: in the verse under discussion it is stated that the cause of their destruction was an earthquake, whereas in Sūrah Ḥā‑Mīm al‑Sajdah, verse 13, it is said that they were destroyed by a thunderbolt, and in Sūrah al‑Ḥāqqah, verse 5, we read: فَاَمَّا ثَمُودُ فَاُهْلِكُوا بِالطَّاغِيَةِ — that is, the people of Thamūd were destroyed by a devastating calamity. Is there any contradiction or inconsistency among these expressions? The answer can be given in a single sentence: all three causes ultimately refer back to one and the same reality, or, in other words, they are mutually connected. For it sometimes happens that in a region an earthquake is accompanied by a thunderbolt, meaning that lightning strikes and then the earthquake follows. As for الطَّاغِيَة, it refers to something that transgresses all bounds; this description is applicable both to an earthquake and to a thunderbolt. Hence, there is no contradiction among these verses. At the end of the verse under discussion it is stated: thereafter Ṣāliḥ (peace be upon him) turned away from them and said: O my people, I have certainly conveyed to you the message of my Lord and fulfilled my duty of sincere counsel and goodwill toward you, but you do not love those who offer sincere advice (فَتَوَلَّىٰ عَنْهُمْ وَقَالَ يَا قَوْمِ لَقَدْ أَبْلَغْتُكُمْ رِسَالَةَ رَبِّي وَنَصَحْتُ لَكُمْ وَلَكِنْ لَا تُحِبُّونَ النَّاصِحِينَ). Here another question arises: was this address by Prophet Ṣāliḥ (peace be upon him) made after the destruction of the people of Thamūd, or was it delivered before their punishment as a final completion of the proof against them, even though the Qur’an mentions it after the description of their destruction? The second possibility appears more consistent with the apparent wording of the address, since speaking to them implies that they were still alive at that moment. Nevertheless, the first possibility is not implausible either, because it sometimes occurs that such addresses are directed toward the souls of the dead for the sake of admonishing others. An example of this is found in the accounts of Imām ʿAlī (peace be upon him), who after the Battle of the Camel stood beside the body of Ṭalḥah and said: O Ṭalḥah, you performed noteworthy services in Islam, but alas, you failed to preserve them for yourself. Likewise, at the end of Nahj al‑Balāghah it is reported that when Imām ʿAlī (peace be upon him) was returning from the Battle of Ṣiffīn, he faced the cemetery at the outskirts of Kūfah, greeted the departed souls, and then said to them: You have gone ahead of this caravan, and we too are following behind you.

See ayat 84 for tafseer.

See ayat 84 for tafseer.

See ayat 84 for tafseer.

See ayat 84 for tafseer.

In these Qur’anic verses, a scene from the life of yet another prophet is presented, further completing the central objective of the preceding passages. This is the account of the Prophet Lūṭ (peace be upon him) and his people. This episode is narrated in several sūrahs of the Qur’an, including Sūrahs Hūd, al‑Ḥijr, al‑Shuʿarāʾ, al‑Anbiyāʾ, al‑Naml, and al‑ʿAnkabūt. In the present context, the Qur’an summarizes in five verses the dialogue between Prophet Lūṭ and his people. It appears that the purpose of recounting these stories in Sūrat al‑Aʿrāf is merely to present a concise outline of the opposition between the prophets and their communities and the exchanges that took place between them, while the detailed narratives are reserved for other sūrahs (and, God willing, we too shall present a full exposition of this account in the commentaries on Sūrahs Hūd and al‑Ḥijr). Turning now to the interpretation of the verses under discussion, the first verse states: “And remember Lūṭ, when he said to his people: do you commit an indecent act such as no one among all the worlds has ever committed before you?” (وَلُوطًا إِذْ قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِ أَتَأْتُونَ الْفَاحِشَةَ مَا سَبَقَكُمْ بِهَا مِنْ أَحَدٍ مِنَ الْعَالَمِينَ). This indicates that the act in question is, in and of itself, an extremely vile and shameful deed, and moreover that it is a crime unprecedented among earlier nations, thereby multiplying its gravity. Instituting a corrupt practice is tantamount to inviting both contemporaries and future generations to follow it. The verse thus clearly shows that this immoral practice first appeared historically among the people of Lūṭ, who were affluent individuals living lives devoted to sensual indulgence and lust, as will be explained in detail in the commentaries on the aforementioned sūrahs. The subsequent verse explains explicitly the sin that had so far been mentioned only allusively: “Indeed, you approach men with desire instead of women” (إِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ الرِّجَالَ شَهْوَةً مِنْ دُونِ النِّسَاءِ). What act could be more reprehensible than abandoning the sole natural means of procreation—namely, the union of man and woman—and instead pursuing relations with the same sex? This behavior is fundamentally unsound, contrary to reason, incompatible with the physical structure of the human body, destructive of the human spirit, and in opposition to uncorrupted innate human nature. The essential purpose of sexual relations is thereby nullified. In other words, the result of such conduct is the false gratification of sexual desire and the effective termination of human procreation. The verse then adds for further emphasis: “Rather, you are a people who transgress all bounds” (بَلْ أَنْتُمْ قَوْمٌ مُسْرِفُونَ). The term “مُسْرِفُونَ” may also suggest that their excesses were not confined to sexual matters but extended to other aspects of life as well. It is noteworthy that the first verse presents the matter in a veiled manner, and the following verse elaborates upon it. This is a rhetorical device whereby an important matter is first stated briefly and then explained in detail, so as to draw the listener’s full attention to its seriousness. For example, when a grave misdeed is committed, a perceptive mentor may initially say, “You have done something very wrong,” and only afterward clarify the nature of the offense. This gradual exposition prepares the listener to grasp the gravity of the wrongdoing. The next verse recounts the illogical and obstinate response of the people of Lūṭ: they had no answer to the words of this compassionate, sincere, and reformative prophet except to respond rudely and angrily by saying: “Expel them from your town; indeed, they are people who keep themselves pure” (وَمَا كَانَ جَوَابَ قَوْمِهِ إِلَّا أَنْ قَالُوا أَخْرِجُوهُمْ مِنْ قَرْيَتِكُمْ إِنَّهُمْ أُنَاسٌ يَتَطَهَّرُونَ). It is hardly surprising that a morally corrupt and sinful society would attempt to expel chaste individuals on account of their purity. Such pure people were seen as obstacles to their lustful excesses, and thus their chastity was regarded not as a virtue but as a weakness. The phrase “إِنَّهُمْ أُنَاسٌ يَتَطَهَّرُونَ” also carries the possible implication that the people of Lūṭ sought to accuse Lūṭ and his followers of hypocrisy and pretentious piety. It is often observed that drunkards and sinners mock devout and righteous individuals by labeling them as show‑offs, and arrogantly consider their own corrupt habits superior to the prayer mat of the ascetic. Such remarks are nothing but spurious self‑justifications. A fair‑minded reader of these three verses cannot but conclude that the people of Lūṭ had reached a state of extreme moral degradation. They not only rejected all the counsel, rational arguments, and goodwill of a noble reformer, but responded instead with threats, show of force, and slander. Consequently, the following verse states: “So We saved him and his family, except for his wife; she was among those who remained behind” (فَأَنْجَيْنَاهُ وَأَهْلَهُ إِلَّا امْرَأَتَهُ كَانَتْ مِنَ الْغَابِرِينَ). The term “غابرين” refers to one who remains behind after others have departed; thus, while the family of Lūṭ departed with him, his unfortunate wife remained in the city to suffer punishment, because she shared the beliefs and attitudes of that corrupt community. Some exegetes note that although the term “أهل” usually refers to close relatives, in this verse it may also encompass the true followers of Lūṭ, who were regarded as part of his household. However, Sūrat al‑Dhāriyāt (51:36) indicates that, apart from his household, no one else had believed in him; therefore, “أهل” here retains its literal meaning of family. From Sūrat al‑Taḥrīm (66:10) it is known that the wife of Lūṭ was initially righteous but later altered her intentions and betrayed Lūṭ by emboldening his people. The final verse under discussion gives a concise yet evocative reference to the dreadful punishment that befell them: “And We rained upon them a rain; so see how was the end of the criminals” (وَأَمْطَرْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ مَطَرًا فَانْظُرْ كَيْفَ كَانَ عَاقِبَةُ الْمُجْرِمِينَ). Although the specific nature of this rain is not specified here, the use of the indefinite term “مطرًا” indicates that it was no ordinary rainfall but a rain of stones, as detailed in Sūrat Hūd (11:83). While the immediate address in this verse is directed to Prophet Lūṭ (peace be upon him), the evident intention is that all people should take heed and draw moral lessons from this event. A detailed discussion of this community, the various harms of sodomy and same‑sex practices, and the prescribed legal punishment for this grave sin will, God willing, be presented in the commentaries on Sūrahs Hūd and al‑Ḥijr.

See ayat 87 for tafseer.

See ayat 87 for tafseer.

In these Qur’anic verses, the fifth part of the accounts of past nations and the struggle of the divine prophets with them is presented, namely the story of Prophet Shuʿayb (peace be upon him). Prophet Shuʿayb, whose lineage according to historical reports reaches Prophet Ibrāhīm (peace be upon him) through several generations, was sent to the people of Madyan. Madyan was a city in the region of Syria whose inhabitants were wealthy and engaged primarily in trade. Despite their material prosperity, idolatry, fraudulent measurement, and dishonest weights were widespread among them. The account of this great prophet’s struggle against his people appears in several sūrahs of the Noble Qur’an, particularly in Sūrat Hūd and Sūrat al‑Shuʿarāʾ, where it is discussed in greater detail. Following the Qur’anic method, and God willing, we too shall present the detailed narrative of Prophet Shuʿayb in the commentary on Sūrat Hūd. Here, only a brief summary of this account is given in accordance with the verses under discussion. In the first verse, God states: We sent to the people of Madyan their brother Shuʿayb (وَإِلَىٰ مَدْیَنَ أَخَاهُمْ شُعَیْبًا). Some exegetes, such as al‑Ṭabrisī in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān and Fakhr al‑Rāzī in Tafsīr al‑Kabīr, have noted that “Madyan” was originally the name of one of the sons of Prophet Ibrāhīm. Since his descendants later settled in a region along the Syrian route, that land came to be known by the same name. As for why Prophet Shuʿayb is referred to as their “brother,” the reason has already been discussed earlier in this sūrah in verse 65. The verse continues by stating that Prophet Shuʿayb, like the other prophets, began his mission with the call to monotheism. He proclaimed: O my people, worship God; you have no deity other than Him (قَالَ يَا قَوْمِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مَا لَكُمْ مِنْ إِلَٰهٍ غَيْرُهُ). He further explained that this command was not only affirmed by reason, but that a clear proof from God had already come to them (قَدْ جَائَتْكُمْ بَيِّنَةٌ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ). Although these verses do not specify the nature of this bayyinah (clear proof), it is evident that it refers to the miracles granted to Prophet Shuʿayb. After calling them to monotheism, Prophet Shuʿayb confronted their social, moral, and economic corruption. He first sought to restrain them from fraudulent measurement, dishonest weighing, deception, and other forms of misappropriation that had become common among them. Accordingly, he said: Give full measure and weight and do not diminish people’s goods (فَأَوْفُوا الْكَيْلَ وَالْمِيزَانَ وَلَا تَبْخَسُوا النَّاسَ أَشْيَاءَهُمْ). The term bakhs denotes reducing people’s rights in a manner that departs from fairness and leads to injustice. It is obvious that when fraud and dishonesty spread through economic dealings, the mutual trust and confidence upon which the entire structure of an economy rests are shaken, resulting in social damage for which no easy remedy exists. For this reason, Prophet Shuʿayb identified this grave moral flaw and sought to eradicate it. He then pointed to yet another vice, declaring: Do not spread corruption in the land after it has been set right (وَلَا تُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ بَعْدَ إِصْلَاحِهَا). It is undeniable that spreading corruption—whether moral, financial, or social—benefits no one and only leads to destruction and decline. Hence the verse concludes with the statement: This is better for you, if you are believers (ذَٰلِكُمْ خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ مُؤْمِنِينَ). The addition of “if you are believers” indicates that these ethical and social commandments yield lasting benefit only when hearts are illuminated by faith; otherwise, adherence based merely on worldly expediency will lack permanence and depth. In the following verse, a fourth admonition of Prophet Shuʿayb is mentioned: Do not sit in ambush on every path, threatening people, barring them from God’s way, and seeking to make the straight path appear crooked (وَلَا تَقْعُدُوا بِكُلِّ صِرَاطٍ تُوعِدُونَ وَتَصُدُّونَ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ مَنْ آمَنَ بِهِ وَتَبْغُونَهَا عِوَجًا). As for how the misguided among the people of Shuʿayb intimidated those inclined to faith, exegetes have suggested various possibilities: some say they threatened them with death, others say they confiscated the property of believers. However, the context of the verse accords more closely with the former explanation. At the end of the fifth verse, Prophet Shuʿayb reminds them of another lesson aimed at awakening gratitude within their hearts: remember when you were few in number and God multiplied you and strengthened your population (وَاذْكُرُوا إِذْ كُنْتُمْ قَلِيلًا فَكَثَّرَكُمْ). Then he adds: observe how the end of the corrupters was (وَانْظُرُوا كَيْفَ كَانَ عَاقِبَةُ الْمُفْسِدِينَ), and do not tread their path. An implicit lesson here is that population growth can become a source of strength, power, and progress for a society, provided that life—materially and spiritually—is organized under a thoughtful and just system. This stands in contrast to the modern tendency, promoted through widespread propaganda, to encourage population reduction at all costs. The final verse addresses a situation arising within the community of Shuʿayb. Some believers, under persistent pressure from the disbelievers, naturally wondered how long they would have to endure such oppression. At the same time, the hostility and audacity of the unbelievers increased to the point that they questioned why, if Shuʿayb were truly a messenger from God, no divine punishment had yet befallen them. Prophet Shuʿayb responded by saying: If a group among you believes in what I have been sent with and another group does not believe, then be patient until God judges between us; He is the best of judges (وَإِنْ كَانَ طَائِفَةٌ مِنْكُمْ آمَنُوا بِالَّذِي أُرْسِلْتُ بِهِ وَطَائِفَةٌ لَمْ يُؤْمِنُوا فَاصْبِرُوا حَتَّىٰ يَحْكُمَ اللَّهُ بَيْنَنَا وَهُوَ خَيْرُ الْحَاكِمِينَ).

See ayat 89 for tafseer.

In this verse, the reaction of Shuʿayb’s people to his rational argument is described. Because the powerful and arrogant members of his community were outwardly influential, their reaction was correspondingly more intense. Like other domineering and arrogant groups throughout history, they resorted to intimidation based on power and numbers, threatening Shuʿayb and his followers. As the Qur’an states, the arrogant leaders of his people said to him: “We shall certainly expel you, O Shuʿayb, and those who believe with you, from our town, unless you return to our religion” (قَالَ الْمَلَأُ الَّذِينَ اسْتَكْبَرُوا مِنْ قَوْمِهِ لَنُخْرِجَنَّكَ يَاشُعَيْبُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مَعَكَ مِنْ قَرْيَتِنَا أَوْ لَتَعُودُنَّ فِي مِلَّتِنَا). From the apparent wording of this verse, one might mistakenly assume that Shuʿayb (peace be upon him) had previously belonged to the idolaters’ religion, hence their demand that he “return” to it. This, however, is not the case. The reality is that before receiving the explicit command to proclaim his mission, Shuʿayb had remained outwardly silent regarding their idolatry. Because of this silence, the disbelievers assumed that he shared their religion, whereas in truth no prophet was ever an idol‑worshipper. In fact, even prior to their prophethood, the intellect of the prophets was so complete that they would never commit such foolish and irrational acts as idol‑worship. Moreover, the address here was not directed only at Shuʿayb, but also at his followers, and thus the expression may be understood with reference to them. The threats of the opponents did not end with this; other forms of intimidation are mentioned in further verses concerning Shuʿayb, which will be discussed later. Shuʿayb responded to all these words and threats with a very brief, simple, yet logically powerful statement. He said: “Even if we are unwilling?” (قَالَ أَوَلَوْ كُنَّا كَارِهِينَ). (Implicit in this expression is an omitted phrase, as though he were saying: “Do you intend to force us back to your religion even if we detest it?”) In reality, Shuʿayb meant to say: Is it acceptable that you impose your belief upon us by force and compel us, through power, to accept a doctrine whose falsity has already become clear to us? And even if we did so outwardly, what possible benefit would that bring you? He then developed this point further, saying: If we were to return to your idolatrous way after God has saved us from it, we would indeed be fabricating a lie against God (قَدِ افْتَرَيْنَا عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا إِنْ عُدْنَا فِي مِلَّتِكُمْ بَعْدَ إِذْ نَجَّانَا اللَّهُ مِنْهَا). This statement is in fact an explanation of his previous words. Its essence is that their abandonment of idolatry was neither a matter of caprice nor blind imitation of others; rather, they had recognised its falsehood through reasoned arguments and had wholeheartedly accepted the divine command of monotheism. Therefore, to knowingly abandon this path of truth and revert to polytheism would amount to deliberately slandering God, something that would undeniably warrant divine punishment. He then added: It is not possible for us to return to it unless God, our Lord, so wills (وَمَا يَكُونُ لَنَا أَنْ نَعُودَ فِيهَا إِلَّا أَنْ يَشَاءَ اللَّهُ رَبُّنَا). The true intent of Shuʿayb here is that they are bound in all circumstances to the command of God and cannot deviate from it even by the slightest measure. Returning to the opponents’ religion is therefore absolutely impossible unless God Himself were to command it—something that can never happen. For God’s knowledge encompasses everything (وَسِعَ رَبُّنَا كُلَّ شَيْءٍ عِلْمًا), and only one whose knowledge is limited revises decisions out of regret or error. The One whose knowledge is infinite neither errs nor rescinds His judgments. To make it clear that he and his followers were completely unafraid of their threats and stood firmly upon their position, Shuʿayb declared: “Upon God we place our trust” (عَلَى اللَّهِ تَوَكَّلْنَا). Finally, to demonstrate his sincerity and to show plainly that his approach was grounded in realism and a genuine desire for reconciliation—so that his enemies could not accuse him of being a mere agitator or instigator of disorder—he prayed: “Our Lord, decide between us and our people in truth, and bring about relief; for You are the best of those who bring about decisions” (رَبَّنَا افْتَحْ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَ قَوْمِنَا بِالْحَقِّ وَأَنْتَ خَيْرُ الْفَاتِحِينَ). It is reported from Ibn ʿAbbās that he said: I did not understand the meaning of the word فتح in this verse until one day I heard a woman say to her husband: “I shall take you before a judge for a decision (أفاتحك بالقاضي).” At that moment I realised that in such contexts فتح means judgment and adjudication, for the judge resolves and “opens” the knot of dispute between the two parties.

See ayat 93 for tafseer.

See ayat 93 for tafseer.

See ayat 93 for tafseer.

In this verse, the attempts made by the opponents of Prophet Shuʿayb (peace be upon him) to mislead his followers are described. It states that the arrogant and self‑seeking leaders of the people of Shuʿayb, who had chosen disbelief, said to those whom they thought had been influenced by Shuʿayb’s preaching: if you follow Shuʿayb, you will surely be among the losers (وَقَالَ الْمَلَأُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ قَوْمِهِ لَئِنِ اتَّبَعْتُمْ شُعَيْبًا إِنَّكُمْ إِذًا لَخَاسِرُونَ). By “loss,” they primarily meant worldly and material loss that the believers would supposedly incur by accepting Shuʿayb’s call, since they would never return to idolatry and would therefore be forcibly expelled from the city and settlement, losing their homes and property. It is also possible that by “loss” they intended not only material loss but spiritual loss as well, since they believed that their idolatrous system itself was the source of salvation, not the religion brought by Shuʿayb. When matters reached this point, they moved beyond their own misguidance and began actively seeking to mislead others, leaving no hope of their accepting faith. At that juncture, the divine law that eradicates evil from its roots was activated, and the punishment of God overtook them. A tremendous and terrifying earthquake seized them, with the result that in the morning their lifeless bodies lay motionless in their homes (فَأَخَذَتْهُمُ الرَّجْفَةُ فَأَصْبَحُوا فِي دَارِهِمْ جَاثِمِينَ). The meaning of “جَاثِمِينَ” has already been explained in verse 78 of this sūrah. It has also been clarified that the various causes mentioned for their destruction are not mutually contradictory. In this verse, the people of Shuʿayb are said to have been destroyed by an earthquake; in Hūd 94, they are said to have been destroyed by a heavenly cry; and in al‑Shuʿarāʾ 189, it is stated that they were destroyed by a calamity associated with a cloud. All of these descriptions ultimately refer to the same event: a terrifying thunderbolt descended from a dark cloud upon their settlement, which—consistent with what commonly occurs—was followed by a severe earthquake that utterly destroyed their entire way of life. The following verse further depicts the devastation caused by this dreadful earthquake: those who denied Shuʿayb were wiped out as though they had never dwelt there at all (الَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا شُعَيْبًا كَأَنْ لَمْ يَغْنَوْا فِيهَا). The verb “يَغْنَوْا” derives from the root “غ ن ي”, meaning to reside or settle in a place; as noted by al‑Ṭabrisī in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, it is not far‑fetched that this meaning traces back to the root sense of “being free of need,” since one who possesses a permanent dwelling becomes independent of other places of residence. At the end of the verse, it is stated: those who denied Shuʿayb were themselves the losers; they were not believers (الَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا شُعَيْبًا كَانُوا هُمُ الْخَاسِرِينَ). These two clauses together serve as a direct response to the objection raised by Shuʿayb’s opponents. They had threatened to expel the believers from their city, but the Qur’an declares that God annihilated the deniers so completely that it was as though they had never lived there at all—leaving no question of expulsion. And in reply to their claim that Shuʿayb’s followers would suffer loss, the Qur’an shows who in fact proved to be the true losers. In the final verse, the last statement of Prophet Shuʿayb (peace be upon him) is presented: he turned away from the sinful people and said that he had conveyed the messages of his Lord, given sincere counsel, and withheld no form of goodwill (فَتَوَلَّى عَنْهُمْ وَقَالَ يَا قَوْمِ لَقَدْ أَبْلَغْتُكُمْ رِسَالَاتِ رَبِّي وَنَصَحْتُ لَكُمْ). In such circumstances, he felt no regret over the evil fate of a disbelieving people, for he had exhausted every effort to guide them, yet they persistently refused to submit to the truth; accordingly, such an end was inevitable (فَكَيْفَ آسَىٰ عَلَىٰ قَوْمٍ كَافِرِينَ). This statement may have been uttered by Shuʿayb either before their destruction or after it. Both possibilities exist, but the closing words—expressing the absence of grief over the painful end of a disbelieving people—suggest that it was spoken after the punishment had descended, just as indicated in verse 79 of this sūrah, where similar addresses are made to the dead.

See ayat 95 for tafseer.

These verses come after the narratives of several prophets—such as Prophet Nūḥ, Prophet Hūd, Prophet Ṣāliḥ, Prophet Lūṭ, and Prophet Shuʿayb—and precede the account of Prophet Mūsā ibn ʿImrān (peace be upon them all). In them, a number of general principles are set forth that appear consistently across all prophetic narratives. If these principles are studied carefully, fundamental realities become evident—realities that bear a direct relation to our own lives. First, it is stated that God has never sent a prophet to a town or community without first afflicting its people with hardship and adversity, so that they might awaken somewhat, abandon their rebellion and arrogance, and return to the One who is the source of all blessings: وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا فِي قَرْيَةٍ مِنْ نَبِيٍّ إِلَّا أَخَذْنَا أَهْلَهَا بِالْبَأْسَاءِ وَالضَّرَّاءِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَضَّرَّعُونَ. This is because it is part of human nature that as long as a person lives in ease and comfort, the capacity to listen attentively and accept the truth remains weak. But when one becomes caught in the vortex of hardship and affliction, one is involuntarily drawn toward the remembrance of God, and at that moment the heart becomes receptive to admonition. However, this awakening—which appears in people generally and almost equally—is in many individuals transient and unstable. For as soon as difficulties are removed, they sink once again into the sleep of heedlessness. Yet there are also individuals for whom these trials become a decisive turning point in life: after such ordeals, the direction of their conduct and character changes, and they turn toward the truth permanently. The people described in the preceding verses belonged to the first category. Therefore, the next verse states that when those people failed to reform even in the face of the blows of fate and the whirlpools of hardship, and continued in their misguidance, God removed suffering from them and replaced it with ease and blessings, until prosperity returned to their lives, deficiencies were eliminated, and their wealth and numbers increased: ثُمَّ بَدَّلْنَا مَكَانَ السَّيِّئَةِ الْحَسَنَةَ حَتَّىٰ عَفَوْا. The term عَفَوْا derives from عَفْو, which in Arabic conveys several meanings: sometimes abundance and increase, sometimes abandonment or neglect, and sometimes the erasure of traces. It is not unlikely that all these meanings stem from a single underlying sense of “leaving.” To leave something can mean to allow it to grow and proliferate, or it can mean to abandon it without care until it gradually disappears. Hence, the term has been used both for increase and for disappearance. In this verse, exegetes have proposed three interpretations: first, that God granted them respite so that they might regain abundance and compensate for losses suffered during hardship; second, that God granted them blessings that made them arrogant, causing them to forget God and abandon gratitude; and third, that blessings were given so that traces of poverty and distress might be erased. Although these interpretations differ in expression, their overall implication does not differ significantly. The verse then continues by stating that when hardships were lifted from them, instead of recognizing that both blessing and adversity lie entirely in God’s hand and returning to Him, they deceived themselves by saying: these afflictions and comforts are nothing new; our forefathers also experienced hardship and ease—such fluctuations are a normal part of worldly life, where suffering and comfort alternate and soon pass away: وَقَالُوا قَدْ مَسَّ آبَاءَنَا الضَّرَّاءُ وَالسَّرَّاءُ. Finally, the Qur’an declares that when matters reached the point that none of the various methods of moral training had any effect upon them, and their arrogance and pride only increased day by day, God suddenly seized them with His punishment while they were completely unaware and unsuspecting—and for this reason the punishment proved exceedingly painful: فَأَخَذْنَاهُمْ بَغْتَةً وَهُمْ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ.

See ayat 100 for tafseer.

See ayat 100 for tafseer.

See ayat 100 for tafseer.

See ayat 100 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, a brief account was given of several past nations, such as the peoples of Prophet Nūḥ, Prophet Lūṭ, Prophet Hūd, Prophet Ṣāliḥ, and Prophet Shuʿayb (peace be upon them all). Although those verses in themselves are sufficient to convey their admonitory outcomes, the verses under discussion present those results with additional clarification. It is indicated that if the inhabitants of those towns and other cities—rather than engaging in rebellion, arrogance, denial of the divine signs, and oppression and corruption—had believed and, under the shelter of faith, adopted piety and God‑consciousness, the result would have been that they would not only have been spared the divine punishment, but that We would also have opened for them the gates of blessings from the heavens and the earth (وَلَوْ أَنَّ أَهْلَ الْقُرَىٰ آمَنُوا وَاتَّقَوْا لَفَتَحْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ بَرَكَاتٍ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ وَالْأَرْضِ). But regretfully, they abandoned the straight path—the path of felicity, prosperity, and security—and denied the messengers of God and trampled their reformative programs underfoot; consequently, We seized them in punishment for their evil deeds (وَلَكِنْ كَذَّبُوا فَأَخَذْنَاهُمْ بِمَا كَانُوا يَكْسِبُونَ).

1. What is meant by the blessings of the heavens and the earth? Exegetes have differed on this point. Some have said that it refers to the growth of vegetation; others have understood it to mean the acceptance of supplications and the resolution of difficulties. There is also the possibility that “heavenly blessings” signify spiritual blessings, while “earthly blessings” signify material blessings. However, when the preceding verses are taken into account, it appears that the first interpretation is more appropriate. This is because in the earlier verses—where severe punishments inflicted upon rebellious and criminal peoples are described—there is mention at times of floods descending from the sky and springs gushing forth from the earth (as in the Flood of Nūḥ), and at other times of heavenly thunderbolts, celestial cries, or violent earthquakes. In the verse under discussion, it is made clear that all such punishments were consequences of people’s evil deeds; otherwise, if human beings are pure and faithful, then instead of punishment descending from the sky, the blessings of God would rain down from it. Thus, it is humanity itself that turns blessings into afflictions. 2. The meaning of “blessings” (barakāt): “Barakāt” is the plural of “barakah”, and as noted earlier, this term inherently contains the notion of stability and permanence. A blessing is that which endures for a long time, whereas unblessed things are those that are fleeting and quickly perish. It is also noteworthy that faith and piety are not only causes for the descent of divine blessings, but also factors that enable a person to utilize existing blessings appropriately and in their proper place. For example, today immense human power and vast economic resources exist, yet much of them are consumed in arms races and in the development of horrific instruments of destruction. These are gifts of nature from which all blessing has been stripped; they will soon vanish, yielding not benefit but widespread ruin and devastation. If, however, faith in God and piety were to prevail in human society, these same natural endowments would be used in an entirely different manner, such that their effects and benefits would endure over time, thereby truly deserving the name “blessings”. 3. The meaning of “akhadh” (taking/ seizing) in this verse: In the verse in question, the word “akhadh” is used in its literal sense of “seizing” or “grasping”, but its intended meaning is “punishing”. This is because, in general, when punishment is to be inflicted upon someone, that person is first seized and restrained so that escape becomes impossible, and only thereafter is the punishment carried out. 4. Divine grace and punishment are not exclusive to any group: Although the verse explicitly refers to certain nations and their evil deeds, its meaning is broad, general, and enduring, and is not confined to any single people or era. It represents a divine law: faithless, impure, and corrupt individuals inevitably encounter the consequences of their conduct even within this world. At times calamities from the heavens and the earth descend upon them; at other times the fires of global or regional wars engulf them and reduce their economic and human capital to ashes. And at yet other times, they are afflicted physically and psychologically by unseen fears to such an extent that their inner peace and tranquility are stripped away. In short, the Qur’an makes it clear that in this world the principle of “as one acts, so shall one reap” is firmly operative. Neither God’s grace nor His punishment is reserved for any particular individual or group; whoever acts in a certain manner will inevitably encounter its corresponding outcome.

What has been explained in the foregoing lines also provides, almost automatically, the answer to a question that commonly arises among people. That question is this: if faith and piety are indeed the cause of the descent of divine blessings, and disbelief and sin result in the deprivation of blessings, why do we so often observe the opposite—namely, that irreligious nations appear to be immersed in comfort and luxury, while people of faith seem to live in hardship and distress? The answer to this question becomes clear by reflecting on two points: First, the assumption that irreligious and sinful nations are truly immersed in blessing is a major misconception. The source of this misconception lies in equating wealth and material affluence with genuine happiness. People generally assume that a nation which has progressed in industry and wealth must therefore be fortunate and successful. Yet, if one looks into the inner conditions of such societies, one encounters deeply painful afflictions that have shattered them spiritually. Careful observation of these inner sufferings reveals that within such societies there are millions of individuals who are among the most miserable human beings on earth. It should also be noted that whatever additional material progress such societies may have achieved is largely the result of principles such as effort, perseverance, order, and independence—principles that hold a foundational place in the teachings of the divine prophets. At the very time when this commentary was being written, reports appeared in newspapers describing an incident in the city of New York, considered one of the most materially advanced cities in the world. A sudden power outage occurred—something that happens from time to time in many cities. Yet in New York it resulted in extraordinary chaos: many people stormed shops and looted whatever they could lay their hands on, leading to widespread plundering. The police reportedly arrested three thousand looters. It is certain that the actual number of looters was far greater, since those arrested were merely the individuals who could not escape. It is also undeniable that these people were neither professional thieves nor criminals who had arrived with prior intention to steal, as the incident was entirely sudden. The conclusion, therefore, is that a single power outage transformed thousands of inhabitants of a wealthy and advanced city, within a very short time, from ordinary citizens into looters and robbers. This incident is not only evidence of moral decay within a society, but also proof that such a society lives in a state of insecurity. Another report from the same day’s newspapers quoted a well‑known person staying in a tall skyscraper hotel, who stated that after the power outage the situation in the hotel became extremely dangerous. No one dared to leave their room and enter the corridors, for fear of being attacked by looters. Hotel management escorted new guests to their rooms in groups of ten or more, accompanied by armed police officers. The individual further recounted that as long as hunger did not compel him, he did not dare step out of his room. By contrast, in many underdeveloped cities of the East, electricity outages occur frequently, yet such incidents do not take place. This indicates that although those advanced societies have progressed materially, they lack even a minimal degree of social security. Moreover, eyewitness accounts indicate that taking a human life in such societies is, for many, as easy as drinking a glass of water. It is evident that if someone were given the entire world but required to live under such conditions, that person would be the most miserable of all human beings. And this insecurity is only one of their many afflictions; countless other problems beset them as well. Hence, these realities show that an increase in wealth alone should not be regarded as the mark of true good fortune. Second, when it is asked why those who are faithful and pious appear to be economically and intellectually backward, the response must begin with a clarification of what is meant by faith and piety. If what is meant is simply that people claim to be Muslims and assert that they follow the path of the divine prophets, then it must be acknowledged that many such communities are indeed backward and underdeveloped. Yet it is well known that the true essence of faith and piety consists in their permeating a person’s actions and every dimension of life. This is not something achieved through verbal claims alone. It must be said with deep regret that in many Muslim countries and societies, Islamic teachings and the guidance of the prophets have become either fully abandoned or only partially adhered to. The contemporary image of Muslim society has become so distorted that it can scarcely be described as Islamic at all. Islam calls to chastity, righteousness, trustworthiness, and persistent effort—yet where are trustworthiness and genuine struggle today? Islam calls to knowledge, awareness, and awakening—where are these qualities? Islam summons people to unity, solidarity, harmony, and self‑sacrifice—do these qualities truly exist among today’s Muslims, such that they could still be regarded as backward? Thus we must admit that true Islam is one thing, and our present condition is quite another. In the following verses, the Qur’an further emphasizes the universality of this law, making clear that it was not confined to past nations but applies equally to human beings today and tomorrow. God says: Do the criminal inhabitants of the earth’s various regions feel secure from God’s punishment? Are they unafraid that divine torment—such as lightning, earthquakes, or similar calamities—might seize them by night while they lie in deep sleep (اَفَاَمِنَ اَھْلُ الْقُرَیٰ اَنْ یَاْتِیَھُمْ بَاْسُنَا بَیَاتًا وَھُمْ نَائِمُونَ); or that it might seize them by day while they are engaged in play and distraction (اَوَاَمِنَ اَھْلُ الْقُرَیٰ اَنْ یَاْتِیَھُمْ بَاْسُنَا ضُحًی وَھُمْ یَلْعَبُونَ). The meaning is that in every state—day or night, sleep or wakefulness, joy or sorrow—human beings remain within the grasp of divine power. Whenever God wills, He can overturn their entire edifice of existence with a single command, without requiring any preparatory stage or waiting period. In a single instant, whatever He wills can descend upon them. It is striking that even in this advanced age, despite the vast progress of science and technology and humanity’s apparent mastery over many forces of nature, human beings remain just as weak and helpless before calamities such as earthquakes and lightning as they were a thousand years ago. In this respect, no real change has occurred. This fact is itself evidence that, despite all their power, human beings are fundamentally frail and vulnerable—a reality that every person should keep firmly in mind. The subsequent verse reinforces this truth in another form, stating: Do they feel secure from the divine stratagem? Yet none feel secure from God’s stratagem except the people who are the true losers (اَفَاَمِنُوا مَکْرَ اللهِ فَلَایَاْمَنُ مَکْرَ اللهِ إِلاَّ الْقَوْمُ الْخَاسِرُونَ). As previously explained in the commentary on Sūrat Āl ʿImrān (3:54), the meaning of “مکر” in Arabic differs from its common meaning in everyday usage. In Persian and Urdu, makr often signifies deceitful and harmful plotting. In Arabic, however, it fundamentally means employing any form of strategy to prevent someone from achieving an objective, whether through rightful or wrongful means, and it often implies a gradual, unseen process. Thus, “مکر الٰہی” refers to God preventing sinful individuals from their desired ends through decisive and inescapable measures: sudden calamities and unexpected punishments that render human beings utterly helpless.

The closing portion of the above‑mentioned verse contains a statement to the effect that no one feels secure from God’s (retributive) plan and punishment except those who are truly at a loss. This gives rise to a question: does this statement apply also to prophets, leaders, and the righteous, or not? Some hold the view that such individuals are excluded from this ruling, and that the verse applies only to sinners. However, the apparent wording of the verse suggests that the ruling is general and encompasses everyone, because all prophets and the infallible Imams (peace and blessings of God be upon them all) were constantly vigilant over their own conduct lest any lapse should occur. For it is known that their infallibility does not mean that it is absolutely impossible for them to act otherwise; rather, it means that no error can be committed by them that would entail entry into Hell. It is possible for a tark al‑awlā (leaving what is more appropriate) to occur, and it was precisely this of which they remained fearful. They were concerned lest they should fail, even momentarily, to discharge the responsibility that God had placed upon them. This is why, in Sūrat al‑Anʿām (6:15), it is stated: قُلْ إِنِّي أَخَافُ إِنْ عَصَيْتُ رَبِّي عَذَابَ يَوْمٍ عَظِيمٍ “Say: I fear, if I were to disobey my Lord, the punishment of a tremendous Day.” The traditions transmitted in the interpretation of this verse also emphasize precisely this point. Ṣafwān al‑Jammāl reports that one day he was praying behind Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) and heard him say: “O God, do not make me feel secure from Your plan.” Then he raised his voice and recited this verse: فَلَا يَأْمَنُ مَكْرَ اللَّهِ إِلَّا الْقَوْمُ الْخَاسِرُونَ. Likewise, in Nahj al‑Balāghah it is reported that Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (peace be upon him) said: “Do not feel secure even regarding the best members of this community from God’s punishment, for God the Exalted has said: فَلَا يَأْمَنُ مَكْرَ اللَّهِ إِلَّا الْقَوْمُ الْخَاسِرُونَ.” In reality, not feeling secure from God’s punishment means that a person remains apprehensive about failing to fulfill his obligations or falling short in them. This fear, together with hope in God’s mercy, must coexist in a believer’s heart in a balanced way. It is precisely this equilibrium that sustains all positive striving, and it is this state that the traditions describe as khawf wa‑rajāʾ (fear and hope). Believers are always said to stand between these two states. By contrast, lost and criminal individuals forget divine retribution altogether and live with an exaggerated sense of security and complacency. In the subsequent verse, the Qur’an once again seeks to awaken present‑day peoples and urge them to take lessons from the histories of earlier nations, stating: have those who inherited the land after its former inhabitants not taken guidance? If We will, We may strike them too for their sins and deal with them as We dealt with previous peoples (أَوَلَمْ يَهْدِ لِلَّذِينَ يَرِثُونَ الْأَرْضَ مِنْ بَعْدِ أَهْلِهَا أَنْ لَوْ نَشَاءُ أَصَبْنَاهُمْ بِذُنُوبِهِمْ). We may also let them continue living, yet because of their immersion in sin, seal their hearts and deprive them of understanding and discernment, so that they will no longer be able to hear the truth, will be unreceptive to admonition, and will remain bewildered and confused throughout their lives (وَنَطْبَعُ عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ فَهُمْ لَا يَسْمَعُونَ). The manner in which God deprives people of understanding and insight has already been discussed in detail in Tafsīr‑i Namūnah, volume one, under the commentary on Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 7.

See ayat 102 for tafseer.

In these two verses, the same lessons drawn from the histories of earlier nations are presented once again, but here the address is directed specifically to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, even though the intended audience is all people. First it is stated: “These are the towns whose accounts We relate to you from their histories” (تِلْكَ الْقُرَىٰ نَقُصُّ عَلَيْكَ مِنْ أَنْبَائِهَا). (The root of نقصّ is قصّ, whose explanation has already been given earlier in this sūrah, under verse 7.) The Qur’an then declares that those peoples were not destroyed without the completion of proof against them; rather, it is an established fact that their messengers came to them with clear and manifest proofs and expended every possible effort for their guidance: “And indeed, their messengers came to them with clear evidences” (وَلَقَدْ جَاءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُهُمْ بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ). Yet, due to their obstinacy, they confronted the persistent preaching and comprehensive calls of the prophets and were not prepared to accept or believe in what they had previously denied: “But they were not such as to believe in what they had denied before” (فَمَا كَانُوا لِيُؤْمِنُوا بِمَا كَذَّبُوا مِنْ قَبْلُ). This expression shows that the divine prophets repeatedly rose to invite people to the religion of God, but such was the stubbornness of these communities that, even after the truth had become clear, they remained unwilling to accept it. The following clause explains the reason for this obstinacy: “Thus does God set a seal upon the hearts of the disbelievers” (كَذَٰلِكَ يَطْبَعُ اللَّهُ عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِ الْكَافِرِينَ). The meaning is that when people choose false paths and persist in misguidance, the repeated commission of wrong actions and continuous impurity and disbelief impress a permanent mark upon their hearts, like an indelible stamp. (Indeed, the lexical meaning of طبع is precisely to imprint a form upon something, like the impression made by a seal or coin.) This sealing is, in reality, a consequence and effect of human action that is attributed to God, because He is the One who endowed the repetition of deeds with the capacity to form a deeply rooted disposition (malakah). At the same time, it is clear that this misguidance is not coercive; rather, its causes are generated by human beings themselves, even though the effectiveness of causes operates by God’s permission. In the next verse, two aspects of the moral weakness that led these people to misguidance and destruction are identified. First, the Qur’an states: “And We found that most of them had no regard for any covenant” (وَمَا وَجَدْنَا لِأَكْثَرِهِمْ مِنْ عَهْدٍ). By “covenant” here, it may be meant the primordial covenant of nature, which God took from His servants by virtue of their creation and innate disposition. When God granted human beings intellect, perception, and capacity, this itself constituted a covenant that they would keep their eyes and ears open, listen to the call of truth, and submit to it. This notion will be discussed later in this sūrah, under verse 172, in connection with what is known as the “world of ذرّ”, and its explanation will be presented in its proper place. It may also mean the covenants that prophets of each era took from their peoples, covenants that many initially accepted but later broke. Or it may encompass all covenants—both natural and legislative. In any case, habitual covenant‑breaking was a profoundly destructive trait, and it was one of the major causes leading to disobedience of the prophets, persistence in disbelief and hypocrisy, and ultimately the experience of disastrous consequences. A second cause is then mentioned: “And indeed We found most of them to be defiantly disobedient” (وَإِنْ وَجَدْنَا أَكْثَرَهُمْ لَفَاسِقِينَ). That is, the tendency toward rebellion, lawlessness, transgressing the order of creation, and violating divine laws was another factor that kept them entrenched in disbelief and unbelief. It should be noted that the pronoun “most of them” refers back to all the previous nations mentioned. The statement that “most of them” were covenant‑breakers and corrupt takes into account the existence of small minorities who did affirm the earlier prophets, believed in them, and remained loyal to them until the end. At times, such believers were so few that they did not extend beyond a single family. Yet the truth‑seeking spirit that pervades the Qur’an demands that even the rights of a single family or a handful of individuals be acknowledged, and that not all people be branded as deviants, misguided, or covenant‑breakers. This moral precision is a striking and admirable feature that appears repeatedly throughout the Noble Qur’an.

See ayat 108 for tafseer.

See ayat 108 for tafseer.

See ayat 108 for tafseer.

See ayat 108 for tafseer.

See ayat 108 for tafseer.

After the brief presentation of the histories of several prophets in the preceding verses—such as Prophet Nūḥ, Prophet Lūṭ, Prophet Hūd, Prophet Ṣāliḥ, and Prophet Shuʿayb—these verses, and many others that follow, turn to the account of Prophet Mūsā ibn ʿImrān (peace be upon him) and his struggle against Pharaoh and his supporters, followed by Pharaoh’s admonitory end. The fact that, in this sūrah, the account of Prophet Mūsā is presented with greater detail than those of other prophets may be explained by two considerations. First, at the time of the revelation of the Qur’an, the followers of Mūsā ibn ʿImrān were more numerous, and drawing their attention to the truth of Islam was therefore of particular importance. Although it is true that this sūrah was revealed in Mecca, and that Mecca itself was not a center of Jewish settlement, there is no doubt that the Jewish communities inhabiting Medina and other regions of the Hijaz exerted considerable influence over the broader Meccan environment. Consequently, even the Meccan sūrahs contain ample reference to them. The second reason is that the struggles and movements of all prophets, and their confrontations with disbelieving powers, bear a particularly close resemblance to the mission and uprising of Prophet Mūsā. In any case, besides this sūrah, other sūrahs—such as al‑Baqarah, Ṭā Hā, al‑Shuʿarāʾ, al‑Naml, and al‑Qaṣaṣ—also allude to various aspects of this highly instructive narrative. If one were to examine these verses separately and then consider them collectively, it would become clear—contrary to the misconception held by some that the Qur’an merely repeats itself—that there is no redundancy in the Qur’an. Rather, in each sūrah, a particular segment of this narrative is presented as evidence, in accordance with the specific theme being discussed. It should also be borne in mind that at that time the Egyptian state was relatively expansive, and its inhabitants possessed a civilization more advanced than those of the peoples of Nūḥ, Hūd, or Shuʿayb. Consequently, the resistance of the Pharaonic regime was correspondingly stronger, and for this reason the mission and movement of Prophet Mūsā attained special significance and contained many particularly instructive points. Hence, in this sūrah, various aspects of Prophet Mūsā’s life and of the conditions of the Children of Israel are highlighted. Overall, the life of this great prophet can be divided into five distinct phases.

After the brief presentation of the histories of several prophets—such as Prophet Nūḥ, Prophet Hūd, Prophet Ṣāliḥ, Prophet Lūṭ, and Prophet Shuʿayb—in the preceding verses, the Qur’an now turns to the account of Prophet Mūsā ibn ʿImrān (peace be upon him), before proceeding to describe the fate of Pharaoh and his associates. The reason that the story of Prophet Mūsā is narrated in greater detail in this sūrah than those of other prophets may be traced to two factors. First, at the time of the revelation of the Qur’an, the followers of Mūsā ibn ʿImrān were more numerous, and directing them toward the truth of Islam was therefore of greater importance. Although this sūrah was revealed in Mecca, and Mecca itself was not a centre of Jewish settlement, there is no doubt that the Jewish communities residing in Medina and other regions of the Hijaz exerted a significant influence on the wider Meccan environment. Hence, references to them are also found in Meccan sūrahs. The second reason is that the mission and uprising of Prophet Mūsā bear a particularly close resemblance to the struggles of other prophets against unbelieving powers. In any case, apart from this sūrah, many other sūrahs—such as al‑Baqarah, Ṭā Hā, al‑Shuʿarāʾ, al‑Naml, and al‑Qaṣaṣ—also make reference to different aspects of this highly instructive narrative. If these verses are examined individually and then considered collectively, it becomes clear—contrary to the misconception held by some that the Qur’an merely repeats itself—that there is in fact no redundancy in the Qur’an. Rather, each sūrah presents a particular segment of this account as evidence in accordance with the topic under discussion. It should also be noted that at that time the Egyptian state was comparatively expansive, and its inhabitants possessed a civilization more developed than that of the peoples of Nūḥ, Hūd, or Shuʿayb. Accordingly, resistance by the Pharaonic regime was stronger, and for this reason the movement and mission of Prophet Mūsā carried particular significance and contained especially instructive elements. Thus, this sūrah highlights various aspects of the life of Prophet Mūsā and the conditions of the Children of Israel. In general, the life of this great prophet can be divided into five phases: The period from his birth until his upbringing in the household of Pharaoh. His departure from Egypt and the period he spent in the city of Madyan in the company of Prophet Shuʿayb. The period of his prophetic mission and his repeated confrontations with Pharaoh and the ruling authorities. The deliverance of Prophet Mūsā and the Children of Israel from Pharaoh’s grip, and the events that occurred along the way and upon reaching the sacred land. The period of internal struggle between Prophet Mūsā and the Children of Israel. It should be kept in mind that, in the Qur’anic sūrahs mentioned earlier, only one or several of these phases are addressed at a time. Accordingly, in the verses presently under discussion and in many subsequent verses of this sūrah, only the period of Prophet Mūsā’s mission and messengership is treated. For this reason, the events that occurred prior to his mission will be explained later in connection with verses that relate directly to them, particularly in Sūrat al‑Qaṣaṣ. In the first verse under discussion, it is stated: ثُمَّ بَعَثْنَا مِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ مُوسَىٰ بِآيَاتِنَا إِلَىٰ فِرْعَوْنَ وَمَلَإِهِ — “Then, after them, We sent Mūsā with Our signs to Pharaoh and his chiefs.” It should be noted that “Pharaoh” is a general title applied to all rulers of Egypt, just as the rulers of Rome were called “Caesar” and the kings of Iran “Kisrā.” The term al‑malāʾ, as explained earlier, refers to the prominent, elite, influential figures of a society—those who dominate public affairs and command social and political influence. The fact that Prophet Mūsā was sent first to Pharaoh and his ruling elite may be understood for two reasons. First, one of Prophet Mūsā’s primary objectives was to liberate the Children of Israel from Pharaoh’s domination and from Egyptian exploitation, and this could not be accomplished without direct confrontation with Pharaoh himself. Second, it accords with the principle expressed in the saying that “the source of the spring must be purified”: social corruption and collective disorder cannot be remedied merely through reform at the individual level; rather, it is necessary to begin with reforming the leaders and those who control political and economic power. This is a lesson that the Qur’an conveys to all Muslims concerning the reform of Islamic societies. The Qur’an then states: فَظَلَمُوا بِهَا — “But they acted unjustly with them.” Here, the term ẓulm is employed in a broad sense, meaning the misplacement or misuse of something. There is no doubt that the divine signs demanded submission, acceptance, and social reform; yet Pharaoh and his associates denied them, thereby committing injustice against themselves. Finally, the Qur’an says: فَانْظُرْ كَيْفَ كَانَ عَاقِبَةُ الْمُفْسِدِينَ — “So observe how was the end of the corrupters.” This is a reference to the destruction of Pharaoh and his forces, the details of which follow. In reality, the preceding verse presents an extremely concise reference to the mission of Mūsā, his confrontation with Pharaoh, and its outcome, while the subsequent verses elaborate on these matters in greater detail. It is next stated: وَقَالَ مُوسَىٰ يَا فِرْعَوْنُ إِنِّي رَسُولٌ مِّن رَّبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ — “And Mūsā said: O Pharaoh, I am a messenger from the Lord of the worlds.” This marks Prophet Mūsā’s first direct confrontation with Pharaoh and represents a clear tableau of the struggle between truth and falsehood. Notably, Mūsā addressed Pharaoh directly by name, without any expression of deference, flattery, or servile submission—whereas until then people had addressed him with titles such as “our master,” “our lord,” and other false epithets. This manner of address served as the first alarm of danger for Pharaoh. Moreover, Mūsā’s declaration that he was a messenger from the Lord of all the worlds amounted to a declaration of war against Pharaoh’s false claim to lordship, affirming that all such pretensions were lies and that only God, the One, is the true Lord of all existence. The next verse states that after proclaiming his messengership, Mūsā declared that it was incumbent upon him to speak nothing but the truth concerning God, for a messenger of God is free from falsehood and error: حَقِيقٌ عَلَىٰ أَن لَّا أَقُولَ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِلَّا الْحَقَّ. He then added, in support of his claim, that he had not made it without proof, but had brought a clear and manifest sign from their Lord: قَدْ جِئْتُكُم بِبَيِّنَةٍ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ. He therefore said: فَأَرْسِلْ مَعِيَ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ — “So send the Children of Israel with me.” This was a fundamental component of Prophet Mūsā’s mission: to liberate the Children of Israel from the grip of Pharaoh and to break the chains of enslavement from their hands and feet. At that time, the Children of Israel lived as humiliated slaves under the domination of the Egyptians, who imposed upon them the harshest and most degrading forms of labor. From later verses and from other Qur’anic passages it becomes clear that Prophet Mūsā was also commanded to invite Pharaoh and the Egyptians themselves to the divine religion; thus his mission was not confined solely to the Children of Israel. When Pharaoh heard the assertion, “I have brought a clear sign,” he immediately responded: قَالَ إِن كُنتَ جِئْتَ بِآيَةٍ فَأْتِ بِهَا إِن كُنتَ مِنَ الصَّادِقِينَ — “If you have indeed brought a sign, then present it, if you are among the truthful.” This expression concealed both doubt regarding Mūsā’s claim and an implicit posture of feigned openness, as though Pharaoh were saying that he sought the truth and would accept it if compelling proof were presented. In response, Prophet Mūsā, without hesitation, displayed two of his greatest miracles—one embodying warning and the other hope—thereby fulfilling both his roles of admonition and glad tidings. First, he cast down his staff, which immediately became a manifest serpent: فَأَلْقَىٰ عَصَاهُ فَإِذَا هِيَ ثُعْبَانٌ مُّبِينٌ. The term mubīn indicates that the staff truly transformed into a serpent; there was no illusion, sleight of hand, or sorcery involved, unlike the later displays of the magicians, which the Qur’an describes as mere deception of sight. It is necessary here to clarify a point: in Sūrat al‑Naml (27:10) and Sūrat al‑Qaṣaṣ (28:31), the staff is described as moving like a jānn, which in Arabic refers to a small, swift serpent. This might appear inconsistent with the term thuʿbān, which denotes a large serpent. However, this difficulty is resolved by noting that the former verses relate to the initial stage of Mūsā’s mission, whereas the present verse concerns his confrontation with Pharaoh. It appears that at first the staff became a small serpent, gradually increasing in form, so that Mūsā would become accustomed to the miracle. When the confrontation with Pharaoh occurred, it manifested as a great serpent so as to have a decisive impact upon the enemy, while its awe had already diminished for Mūsā himself, who had witnessed it previously.

There is no doubt that the transformation of a staff into a serpent is a manifest miracle that cannot be explained by material principles. For a theistically minded person, this entails no amazement, since such a person regards God as absolutely omnipotent and all the laws governing the universe as subject to the divine will. From this perspective, it is not extraordinary that a piece of wood should assume the form of a living creature, for subjection to a power beyond nature is entirely possible. It should also not be forgotten that, in this natural world, the creation of all animals originates from earth, and likewise the creation of wood and vegetation originates from earth. Ordinarily, however, the formation of a large serpent from soil requires, perhaps, millions of years; through the medium of miracle, this lengthy duration was so drastically condensed that all the transformations by which soil becomes a serpent were completed in a single moment. As a result, a piece of wood—which under natural laws would require an extended period to become a serpent—assumed that form within a few moments. At this point, there are some individuals who attempt to provide naturalistic and material explanations for all prophetic miracles, thereby negating their miraculous character. Their effort is to reduce all miracles to ordinary phenomena, even when this stands in clear opposition to the explicit wording and intent of the revealed scriptures. To such individuals we pose this question: let them clarify their position clearly. Do they truly believe in the overwhelming power of God and accept that the laws of nature are subordinate to His will, or not? If they do not regard God as all‑powerful, then discussing the lives of the prophets and their miracles with them is entirely futile. But if they do acknowledge God’s omnipotence, then they should reflect on why there is any need for such strenuous and contrived interpretations that stand in blatant contradiction to the Qur’anic verses. (Although in the present verse I have not encountered any exegete—regardless of methodological orientation—who has offered a material explanation of this miracle, what has been stated here is intended as a general principle.) The following verse presents the second miracle of Prophet Moses, which embodies the aspect of glad tidings. It states: Moses drew forth his hand, and suddenly it became white and radiant for the onlookers (وَنَزَعَ يَدَهُ فَإِذَا هِيَ بَيْضَاءُ لِلنَّاظِرِينَ). The term نزع signifies “to draw something out from a place where it was previously lodged.” For example, removing a cloak from the shoulders or taking off a garment from the body is described in Arabic discourse by the verb نزع. Similarly, the separation of the soul from the body is termed نزع الروح. By the same association, the word is also used in the sense of “bringing out” or “extracting,” as it is employed in this verse. Although this verse does not explicitly mention inserting the hand, Sūrat al‑Qaṣaṣ, verse 32, states: اُسْلُكْ يَدَكَ فِي جَيْبِكَ تَخْرُجْ بَيْضَاءَ, from which it becomes clear that on such occasions Moses would place his hand into his bosom and then draw it out again, whereupon it would appear conspicuously white and radiant. Thereafter, it would gradually return to its original state. Some exegetical works and narrations report that, in addition to its whiteness, Moses’ hand became exceedingly luminous. While the Qur’anic text itself remains silent on this detail, it does not contradict such an understanding. As already noted, this miracle, like the earlier one involving the staff, is beyond the ordinary and habitual order of nature. It lies outside the domain of natural processes and cannot be produced without the intervention of a power that transcends nature. These are among the extraordinary miracles of the prophets, which cannot manifest without the agency of a force beyond the natural world. It is also implicit that in displaying these two miracles, Moses intended to convey that his mission was not confined merely to warning and threat: admonition was for enemies and opponents, whereas encouragement, construction, and illumination were for the believers.

See ayat 112 for tafseer.

See ayat 112 for tafseer.

See ayat 112 for tafseer.

In the preceding verse, the reaction of Pharaoh and the members of his government to the call of Moses and the manifestation of his miracles was described. The verse first reports, on behalf of Pharaoh’s courtiers, that as soon as they witnessed these extraordinary acts from Moses, they immediately attributed them to magic and declared: “This is indeed a knowledgeable and skilled sorcerer” (قَالَ الْمَلَأُ مِنْ قَوْمِ فِرْعَوْنَ إِنَّ هٰذَا لَسَاحِرٌ عَلِيمٌ). However, from the verses of Sūrat al‑Shuʿarāʾ it becomes clear that this statement was originally made by Pharaoh himself, as the Qur’an says: قَالَ لِلْمَلَأِ حَوْلَهُ إِنَّ هٰذَا لَسَاحِرٌ عَلِيمٌ — Pharaoh said to the chiefs around him: “This is indeed a knowledgeable magician” (al‑Shuʿarāʾ 34). In reality, there is no contradiction between these two verses. It may very well be that Pharaoh uttered this statement first, since after this event all eyes were naturally fixed upon him to see how he would react to the powerful blow delivered by Moses. Then, when Pharaoh pronounced his verdict that Moses appeared to be an experienced magician, his courtiers—accustomed as they were to flattery and having no objective other than pleasing their master—responded in unison: “Indeed, you are absolutely right; he does seem to be a highly skilled magician.” This phenomenon is not confined to the entourage of Pharaoh alone; rather, such behavior is observable around every tyrannical ruler in the world, and what occurred in Pharaoh’s court is a recurring pattern of history. They then added: “It appears that this man intends to expel you from your land” (يُرِيدُ أَنْ يُخْرِجَكُمْ مِنْ أَرْضِكُمْ). That is, his purpose is nothing other than domination, exploitation, the pursuit of power, and the seizure of others’ land; and all these extraordinary acts and claims of prophethood are merely means to that end. After this, they said: “In view of this matter, you should yourselves express your opinions as to what course of action ought to be taken against him” (فَمَاذَا تَأْمُرُونَ). In other words, they sat down to deliberate concerning Moses and exchanged views on how to deal with him, for the root of amr is not confined to the meaning of issuing commands alone, but is also used in the sense of consultation and deliberation. Here it should again be noted that precisely the same statement appears in Sūrat al‑Shuʿarāʾ on Pharaoh’s own tongue, where he addressed those around him and asked what they thought should be done about Moses; as explained, there is no discrepancy between these accounts. Some exegetes have also suggested that the expression فَمَاذَا تَأْمُرُونَ may have been spoken by Pharaoh’s courtiers to Pharaoh himself, with the plural form used as a mark of respect, but the first interpretation is more plausible. In any case, their collective opinion settled upon the following proposal, which they conveyed to Pharaoh: “Do not act hastily with regard to him and his brother (Aaron); defer any immediate decision, and send gatherers throughout all the cities” (قَالُوا أَرْجِهِ وَأَخَاهُ وَأَرْسِلْ فِي الْمَدَائِنِ حَاشِرِينَ), “so that they may bring to you every skilled and knowledgeable magician” (يَأْتُوكَ بِكُلِّ سَاحِرٍ عَلِيمٍ). At this point, a question naturally arises: did Pharaoh’s faction consider it possible that Moses’ claim of prophethood might be true and thus seek to test him, or did they instead regard him as false and merely cast a political interpretation upon his efforts, as is often done? In that case, their intention would have been to eliminate Moses, but to do so precipitously would not have produced favorable results, because owing to his two mighty miracles people’s hearts had already begun to incline toward him. If Moses and Aaron had been killed immediately, their cause would have been combined with martyrdom, and even more people would have become devoted to them. Therefore, they first resolved to neutralize Moses’ miraculous acts by countering them with supernatural feats of sorcery, thereby discrediting him, and only then to eliminate him, so that the story of Moses and Aaron would be brought to a permanent end. This second possibility appears more consistent with the contextual indicators.

See ayat 122 for tafseer.

See ayat 122 for tafseer.

See ayat 122 for tafseer.

See ayat 122 for tafseer.

See ayat 122 for tafseer.

See ayat 122 for tafseer.

See ayat 122 for tafseer.

See ayat 122 for tafseer.

See ayat 122 for tafseer.

In these verses, discussion turns to the confrontation between Prophet Moses and the magicians, and finally to its outcome. In the first verse, the Qur’an states that the magicians came to Pharaoh at his summons, and the very first matter they raised was whether they would receive a substantial reward if they were to prevail over Moses: وَجَاءَ السَّحَرَةُ فِرْعَوْنَ قَالُوا إِنَّ لَنَا لَأَجْرًا إِنْ كُنَّا نَحْنُ الْغَالِبِينَ. Although the word ajr denotes any form of recompense or reward, whether great or small, its use here in the indefinite form indicates abundance and significance, especially since the granting of some reward was already assured. What they sought explicitly in advance was a large and distinguished reward. Pharaoh, without hesitation, acceded to their request and said: not only will you receive a significant and satisfactory reward, but you will also become among those brought near to my court: قَالَ نَعَمْ وَإِنَّكُمْ لَمِنَ الْمُقَرَّبِينَ. Thus Pharaoh promised them both material wealth and high rank. This formulation indicates that closeness to Pharaoh’s court was regarded as even more important than wealth itself and constituted a form of symbolic prestige; whoever attained it would thereafter find wealth flowing readily toward him. Eventually, a day was fixed for the confrontation between Moses and the magicians, as mentioned in both Sūrat Ṭā Hā and Sūrat al‑Shuʿarāʾ, and the entire populace was publicly invited to witness the contest, which shows Pharaoh’s complete confidence in his expected victory. When the appointed day arrived, all the magicians came fully equipped, bringing numerous ropes and staffs filled with chemical substances that would move when exposed to the heat of the sun. It was a remarkable scene: facing this massive assembly, only Moses stood there with his brother Aaron, with none beside them except God. With evident arrogance, the magicians said to Moses: either you cast first and throw down your staff, or we shall be the ones to begin and cast what we possess: قَالُوا يَا مُوسَىٰ إِمَّا أَنْ تُلْقِيَ وَإِمَّا أَنْ نَكُونَ نَحْنُ الْمُلْقِينَ. Moses replied with complete composure: you cast first: قَالَ أَلْقُوا. When the magicians threw down their ropes and staffs, they cast a spell over the eyes of the people and struck fear into their hearts through their actions and exaggerated incantations, presenting before them a spectacle of great magic: فَلَمَّا أَلْقَوْا سَحَرُوا أَعْيُنَ النَّاسِ وَاسْتَرْهَبُوهُمْ وَجَاءُوا بِسِحْرٍ عَظِيمٍ. As explained earlier in the commentary on Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 102, the word siḥr originally denotes deception, illusion, sleight of hand, and visual trickery, and is also applied to anything whose cause is hidden and subtle. Accordingly, the term encompasses all those who, through dexterity, rapid hand movements, and technical skill, manipulate objects in such a way that an act appears extraordinary; it also includes those who, by means of chemicals or the laws of physics, display curious and astonishing performances. All such individuals are described as sāḥir (magician). In addition, a common method employed by magicians is the utterance of particular verbal formulae that exert a psychological effect on observers. These utterances are often dramatic and ominous, powerfully influencing the minds of the audience and thereby psychologically preparing them to accept whatever extraordinary spectacle the magician intends to present. From the verses of this sūrah and others, it is evident that on that day the magicians employed all these methods of sorcery. Expressions such as سَحَرُوا أَعْيُنَ النَّاسِ (“they enchained the people’s eyes”) and اسْتَرْهَبُوهُمْ (“they filled them with fear”), as well as other formulations found in Sūrat Ṭā Hā and Sūrat al‑Shuʿarāʾ, testify clearly to this fact.

In these verses, an extraordinary scene of the magicians’ performance is presented. The Qur’an alludes concisely to the gravity and magnitude of this event through the expression “وَجَآئُوا بِسِحْرٍ عَظِیمٍ”, indicating that the plan devised by the magicians on this occasion was extremely extensive, carefully calculated, and awe‑inspiring; otherwise, the word “عَظِیم” would not have been used. Historical reports, exegetical sources, and transmitted traditions recorded under these verses likewise convey the scale and seriousness of the scene. According to the statements of some commentators, the number of magicians ran into the thousands, and the instruments of magic they employed were likewise extremely numerous. Given that sorcery and magic were widely practiced and highly developed in Egypt at that time, this is scarcely surprising. In particular, Sūrat Ṭā Hā, verse 67, states: “فَأَوْجَسَ فِی نَفْسِهِ خِیفَةً مُوسَىٰ”, meaning that the spectacle was so immense and terrifying that even Prophet Moses felt a measure of apprehension within himself. However, Nahj al‑Balāghah explicitly clarifies that Moses’ concern was not fear for himself, but rather apprehension lest the intensity of the magicians’ display might so influence the people that turning them toward the truth would become difficult. In any case, all of this indicates that Moses was facing a tremendous and decisive confrontation that he had to overcome by divine grace. This episode further illustrates the principle of confronting an opponent with an appropriate means. It becomes clear from this discussion that Pharaoh, in administering his vast dominion, pursued a calculated and deceptive political strategy. He did not rely solely on threats and intimidation against Moses and Aaron, but attempted—according to his own assumption—to counter Moses’ miracle with a similar instrument. Had he succeeded, there would have remained no trace of Moses or his teachings, and eliminating him would have been easy, even welcomed by the populace. But Pharaoh failed to realize that Moses did not rely on any human power; rather, he placed his trust in the eternal and boundless power of God, which crushes all other forces. In any case, confronting an adversary with an appropriate means is often the most effective way to secure victory, even over the strongest opponents. At a moment when the entire assembly was in a state of agitation, with cries of jubilation resounding everywhere, and when satisfaction and confidence were visible on the faces of Pharaoh and his followers—who believed victory assured—divine revelation came to Moses: “O Moses, now cast your staff.” The moment he cast it, the entire scene changed instantaneously. Faces lost all color, and Pharaoh and his supporters began to tremble. As the Qur’an states: “وَاَوْحَیْنَا إِلیٰ مُوسیٰ اَنْ اَلْقِ عَصَاکَ فَإِذَا ھِیَ تَلْقَفُ مَا یَاْفِکُونَ” — We revealed to Moses: Cast your staff, and suddenly it began to swallow what they had falsely produced. The word “تَلْقَفُ” derives from “لَقَفَ”, meaning to seize something swiftly and forcefully, whether with the hand or the mouth; in certain usages it also conveys the meaning of swallowing, which is evidently intended here. The term “یَاْفِکُونَ” derives from “اَفْک”, whose root meaning is to turn something away from its proper course; since falsehood turns people away from the truth, it is called ifk. Some commentators have proposed an alternative interpretation, suggesting that when Moses’ staff turned into a great serpent, it did not actually swallow the magicians’ apparatus but merely neutralized it and restored it to its original form. They argue that this would eliminate all ambiguity and more clearly demonstrate the superiority of Moses’ miracle. However, this interpretation is inconsistent both with the lexical meaning of “تَلْقَفُ” and with the broader context of the verses. Furthermore, if the miracle were only to nullify the magicians’ tricks, there would have been no need for the staff to transform into a massive serpent at all. Even setting this aside, the restoration of the magicians’ tools to their original state could itself have led to doubt, as observers might have assumed that Moses was simply a more skilled magician capable of reversing others’ illusions. What truly made it clear that Moses’ act lay beyond human capacity and proceeded from divine power was the historical context: Egypt abounded in expert magicians who dominated their art, while Moses was entirely unknown in this field. A seemingly ordinary man from among the Children of Israel performed a feat that left all others helpless, revealing the operation of a transcendent power and demonstrating that Moses was no ordinary human being. Thus, “فَوَقَعَ الْحَقُّ وَبَطَلَ مَا کَانُوا یَعْمَلُونَ” — the truth was established, and their false works were rendered void. Moses’ action was grounded in reality, whereas the acts of the magicians were nothing but deception and illusion. Falsehood cannot endure in the presence of truth. This was the first decisive blow delivered by Moses, the Prophet of God, against the foundations of Pharaoh’s absolutist power. The next verse declares that defeat became manifest among them, and all of them were humiliated and reduced to disgrace: “فَغُلِبُوا ھُنَالِکَ وَانقَلَبُوا صَاغِرِینَ”. Historical accounts describe widespread panic: some fled in terror, others screamed in place, and still others lost consciousness. Pharaoh and his supporters, watching the scene with amazement and dread, were overcome with shame and began to contemplate their dark and uncertain future, realizing that their dominion was slipping away through an entirely unforeseen turn of events. An even more devastating blow followed, when the scene of confrontation between Moses and the magicians suddenly transformed: “وَاُلْقِیَ السَّحَرَةُ سَاجِدِینَ” — and all the magicians fell down in prostration; “قَالُوا آمَنَّا بِرَبِّ الْعَالَمِینَ” — they proclaimed: We believe in the Lord of the worlds; “رَبِّ مُوسٰی وَھَارُونَ” — the Lord of Moses and Aaron. By this declaration they openly affirmed that any claim to lordship besides God was false and fabricated. They explicitly identified the true Lord as the Lord of Moses and Aaron in order to remove any possible confusion, since Pharaoh himself had claimed lordship over the people. This was utterly unexpected for Pharaoh and his entourage: the very individuals summoned to defeat Moses now appeared at the forefront of faith, prostrating themselves without hesitation and accepting the message of Moses wholeheartedly and unconditionally. Such sudden transformations can occur in human beings, for the light of faith exists within every heart, sometimes concealed by environment, upbringing, and the passage of time. When a powerful shock removes these veils, that light can erupt with such force that it dazzles the eyes of the age. In this case, the magicians’ immediate faith is especially comprehensible, for they were themselves seasoned masters of sorcery, fully aware of its techniques and limits. They alone could clearly distinguish between magic and miracle. What might have seemed ambiguous to others was for them self‑evident: Moses’ act was not sorcery, nor the product of any human power, but something rooted in realities beyond nature. Hence their swift and resolute faith is not surprising. The passive construction “وَاُلْقِیَ السَّحَرَةُ” conveys their complete submission, humility, and spontaneous attraction toward the truth: the miracle of Moses possessed such compelling force that they were drawn to it involuntarily, falling to the ground in acknowledgment of its authenticity.

See ayat 126 for tafseer.

See ayat 126 for tafseer.

See ayat 126 for tafseer.

When Pharaoh and the members of his ruling establishment were struck by the sudden blow of the magicians’ faith, Pharaoh became extremely anxious and disturbed. He realized that if he did not display an immediate and harsh reaction at that moment, others too would be influenced and embrace faith, after which controlling the situation would become impossible. Therefore, he adopted two strategies: First, he leveled a populist accusation against the magicians. Then, with the harshest threats, he subjected them to his wrath. Yet, in response to both these tactics, the magicians displayed such patience and courage that Pharaoh and his associates were utterly astonished and all their schemes collapsed. Thus, a third blow struck the already trembling foundations of Pharaoh’s throne. These verses portray this scene in a vivid and engaging manner. First, Pharaoh said to the magicians: “Have you believed in him (Moses) before I gave you permission?” (قَالَ فِرْعَوْنُ آمَنتُمْ بِہِ قَبْلَ أَنْ آذَنَ لَكُمْ) By using the word “بِهِ” (“in him”), Pharaoh intended to belittle Moses, as though he were not even worthy of being named. And through the phrase “قَبْلَ أَنْ آذَنَ لَكُمْ”, Pharaoh wished to convey that he himself was a seeker of truth, and that if there had truly been any validity in Moses’ claim, he would have granted them permission to believe. But, according to him, their haste proved that there was no truth in the matter at all—instead, it was a massive conspiracy plotted against the people of Egypt. From this statement, it becomes clear that Pharaoh’s obsession with power had reached such an extreme that he wanted the people of Egypt not only to refrain from acting without his permission, but even to be forbidden from thinking, reflecting, or choosing any belief without his consent. This represents one of the worst examples of tyranny and domination: when entire nations become enslaved to a single individual to the extent that even their right to think and adopt beliefs is taken from them. This is precisely the same method employed in modern forms of colonial domination. Colonial powers do not limit themselves to political, economic, and social exploitation; rather, they aim to lock people’s minds as well, ensuring that only their own ideologies take root there. Accordingly, in communist states—where iron walls surround society, borders are sealed, and strict censorship governs everything, especially education—clear signs of intellectual colonization can be observed. By contrast, in Western capitalist societies, where such overt restrictions do not exist and it is claimed that people enjoy complete freedom—including freedom of thought and belief—the same objective is achieved through a different method. In those societies, major capitalists control publishing, radio, and television, and through these means they impose their ideologies on the general public under the disguise of intellectual freedom. Through continuous “brainwashing,” they steer the world wherever they wish. This is one of the greatest calamities of the modern age. Pharaoh then added: “This is a scheme you have devised in this city to drive its inhabitants out” (إِنَّ هٰذَا لَمَكْرٌ مَكَرْتُمُوهُ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ لِتُخْرِجُوا مِنْهَا أَهْلَهَا) In Sūrat Ṭā Hā, verse 71, it is stated: إِنَّهُ لَكَبِيرُكُمُ الَّذِي عَلَّمَكُمُ السِّحْرَ According to this, Pharaoh’s intention was to suggest that Moses was their chief instructor who had taught them magic, and that they had long been planning to seize control of Egypt and wrest authority from its people—this was not a matter of just a few days. From this it is evident that “المدينة” does not mean merely the city of Egypt, but the entire country, as indicated by the definite article “ال” used in a generic sense. The phrase “لِتُخْرِجُوا مِنْهَا أَهْلَهَا” thus implies seizing control of all of Egypt, expelling Pharaoh and his supporters from positions of power, or exiling them to distant regions. Verse 110 of the same sūrah also points to this meaning. In any case, this accusation was so baseless and disgraceful that no one—except the ignorant masses—could truly accept it. Moses had not even been present in Egypt previously, nor had anyone ever seen him among the magicians. If he had truly been their famous master, he would surely have been known and recognized long before. Moreover, if Moses had indeed plotted such a conspiracy with them, it could not have remained hidden—conspiracies may be possible among a handful of individuals, but not among thousands of magicians brought from distant regions. Pharaoh then issued a concealed yet extremely severe threat: “Soon you will know” (فَسَوْفَ تَعْلَمُونَ) The following verse clarifies this threat explicitly: “I swear that I will cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides, then I will crucify you all” (لَأُقَطِّعَنَّ أَيْدِيَكُمْ وَأَرْجُلَكُمْ مِنْ خِلَافٍ ثُمَّ لَأُصَلِّبَنَّكُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ) His intent was to inflict extreme torture before killing them, to present a horrifying public spectacle: severing hands and feet would cause blood to gush forth, and hanging them high would prolong their agony as they writhed and died. (It should be noted that in those times crucifixion was not done by hanging from the neck, but by suspending the body from under the arms.) Perhaps the purpose of cutting opposite limbs was to delay death and lengthen suffering. It is worth noting that Pharaoh’s strategy reflects a common pattern of tyrants throughout history: first, they smear the people of truth with slander to turn public opinion against them; second, they threaten imprisonment, torture, and death. Yet, as the story of Moses demonstrates, neither tactic succeeded—nor could they have succeeded. The magicians did not retreat; instead, united and resolute, they replied: “We shall surely return to our Lord” (قَالُوا إِنَّا إِلَىٰ رَبِّنَا مُنْقَلِبُونَ) Meaning: O Pharaoh! Even if your threats are carried out and you kill us, no harm will come to us. Rather, our true aspiration will be fulfilled—we shall drink the cup of martyrdom and enter Paradise, which is our ultimate honor. They then refuted Pharaoh’s accusation and openly declared their innocence before the assembled crowd: “You take vengeance upon us only because we believed in the signs of our Lord when they came to us” (وَمَا تَنقِمُ مِنَّا إِلَّا أَنْ آمَنَّا بِآيَاتِ رَبِّنَا لَمَّا جَائَتْنَا) Meaning: We are neither agitators nor conspirators against you; nor did we believe in Moses to seize power or expel people from their land. You yourself know this. The moment we recognized the truth and understood its signs, we responded to our Lord’s call and believed. This alone is our “crime” in your eyes. Through their first declaration, the magicians showed that they feared none of Pharaoh’s threats and were ready to welcome death with steadfastness. Through their second statement, they dismantled his slander. The word “تَنقِمُ” derives from “نقمت”, meaning to resent or punish through words or action. Thus, the verse means either: your only objection to us is that we believed, or: you punish us solely because we accepted faith. Turning away from Pharaoh, they then directed themselves toward God and pleaded for patience and perseverance, knowing they could not withstand such brutal threats without divine assistance. They prayed: “Our Lord, pour upon us patience, and cause us to die as those who submit” (رَبَّنَا أَفْرِغْ عَلَيْنَا صَبْرًا وَتَوَفَّنَا مُسْلِمِينَ) Because they knew the danger had reached its final limit, they said “أَفْرِغْ عَلَيْنَا صَبْرًا”, asking God for the fullest possible measure of patience—since “إفراغ” literally means pouring out a liquid completely until nothing remains in the vessel.

One might be struck with wonder at how the condition of these magicians changed so swiftly. Only moments earlier they had come determined to confront Moses, and then suddenly they stood among the ranks of the believers—believers of such depth that they felt no fear of any sacrifice or self‑offering. Is it really possible for such a profound transformation to occur in a human mind within so short a time, whereby a person completely cuts himself off from the opposing camp, joins the ranks of truth, and clings to his new conviction with such firmness that he disregards position, life, and worldly standing, and even drinks the final draught of martyrdom with courageous serenity? The answer becomes clear if one reflects upon the fact that these magicians, who were highly accomplished masters of the art of sorcery, fully recognized the greatness of Moses through their knowledge. They stepped into this arena with complete awareness, and that very awareness became the source of a burning love that surrounded their entire being—an all‑consuming love without limit, transcending all ordinary human desires. They knew precisely which path they had chosen, for what cause they were fighting, against whom they were standing, and what radiant future awaited them as a result of this struggle. For this reason we see that, with remarkable clarity and courage, they declared—as reported in Sūrat Ṭā Hā, verse 72—that they would never give preference to Pharaoh over the clear signs that had come to them from their Lord. They proclaimed that Pharaoh could do whatever he wished, but should know that his authority was confined solely to this worldly life. Ultimately, as recorded in historical accounts and transmitted reports, these individuals displayed such steadfast courage and endurance on this path that Pharaoh carried out his threat. Their mutilated bodies were hung upon the branches of palm trees along the banks of the Nile. Through this sacrifice, their honorable names were eternally inscribed among the champions of freedom. As the eminent exegete ʿAllāmah Ṭabrisī states: “کانوا اول النهار کفاراً سحرة وآخر النهار شهداء بررة” “They were disbelieving magicians in the morning, and by evening they had become righteous martyrs.” Yet it must be remembered that such a transformation and such steadfastness are not possible without divine assistance. It is an undeniable truth that when people set forth upon the path of God with sincerity of heart, the help of God comes forward to meet them.

See ayat 129 for tafseer.

See ayat 129 for tafseer.

In these verses, yet another dialogue between Pharaoh and his inner circle concerning Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) is reported. As indicated by the verses, this exchange took place after the confrontation between Moses and the magicians. The first verse states that the chiefs of Pharaoh’s people objected to him, saying: “Will you leave Moses and his people free so that they may spread corruption in the land and abandon you and your gods?” (وَقَالَ الْمَلَأُ مِنْ قَوْمِ فِرْعَوْنَ أَتَذَرُ مُوسَىٰ وَقَوْمَهُ لِيُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَيَذَرَكَ وَآلِهَتَكَ) From this it becomes clear that after suffering defeat at the hands of Moses, Pharaoh had for some time left Moses and the Children of Israel relatively free (although that freedom was very limited). Meanwhile, Moses and his followers did not remain idle; they were actively engaged in preaching the message of Moses. Eventually, Pharaoh’s people became aware of these activities and grew apprehensive. They came to Pharaoh and sought to persuade him to take harsh action against Moses and his people. Was this brief leniency due to the miracle Pharaoh had witnessed with his own eyes, which instilled fear in his heart? Or was it because disagreements had arisen among the Egyptians themselves—even among the Copts—regarding Moses and his message, leading some to incline toward him, thus making Pharaoh hesitant to take drastic action at that time? Both possibilities seem plausible, and it is quite possible that both factors jointly influenced Pharaoh’s thinking. In any case, these concerns had their effect on Pharaoh, and he responded by saying: “We shall soon kill their sons and spare their women, and indeed we have full power over them” (قَالَ سَنُقَتِّلُ أَبْنَاءَهُمْ وَنَسْتَحْيِي نِسَاءَهُمْ وَإِنَّا فَوْقَهُمْ قَاهِرُونَ) What is meant by “your gods” (آلِهَتِكَ)? Exegetes have discussed this point. The interpretation most consistent with the apparent meaning of the verse is that Pharaoh himself had idols and deities which he worshipped. Although verses such as “أَنَا رَبُّكُمُ الْأَعْلَىٰ” (al‑Nāziʿāt 24) and “مَا عَلِمْتُ لَكُم مِّنْ إِلَٰهٍ غَيْرِي” (al‑Qaṣaṣ 38) indicate that the Egyptians regarded Pharaoh as the supreme god—or at least that Pharaoh regarded himself as such and acknowledged no rival to his status—nevertheless, he still maintained certain deities for worship. A second point worth noting is that Pharaoh initiated a deeply calculated political strategy at this juncture, one intended to permanently break the power of the Children of Israel. His plan was to kill their male children, thereby eradicating their men entirely so they could never confront him, while keeping the women and girls alive for enslavement and service. This has always been a powerful technique of both ancient and modern colonialism: to remove or destroy the productive and active elements of a nation, or else strip them of courage and vitality through various tactics, while allowing only the passive elements to survive. It is also possible that Pharaoh aimed to crush the morale of the Children of Israel in two ways: first, through the killing of their sons, and second, through the threat to their honor by sparing their women. The objective was to terrify them through these twin assaults so that they would become firmly subjugated to the enemy’s grip. In any case, the statement “وَإِنَّا فَوْقَهُمْ قَاهِرُونَ” reflects Pharaoh’s attempt to dispel any anxiety from the hearts of his followers and to reassure them that the situation remained entirely under his control.

Here a question arises: why did Pharaoh not kill Moses himself, and instead prepare to kill only the Children of Israel? The answer is clearly found in the verses of Sūrat al‑Muʾmin, which state that initially Pharaoh did indeed intend to put Moses to death. However, when the believing man from Pharaoh’s household warned him with a threatening admonition—that killing Moses might prove disastrous if he were truly a prophet of God and if the punishment of which he warned were to descend upon them—this counsel deeply affected Pharaoh’s heart, and he lost the courage to kill Moses. Moreover, when Moses gained victory over the magicians, this had the inevitable consequence of causing division among the Egyptians. They split into two camps concerning Moses: supporters and opponents. At such a juncture Pharaoh reasoned that if he were to take aggressive action against Moses, the reaction might become dangerous for his rule. Consequently, he refrained from killing him. The following verse mentions the program Moses presented to the Children of Israel, explaining how they should confront Pharaoh and how victory could be achieved. Moses said that success was guaranteed if they fulfilled three conditions: First: place your trust solely in God and seek help from Him (قَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِقَوْمِهِ اسْتَعِينُوا بِاللّٰهِ) Second: never abandon perseverance and steadfastness, and do not abandon the battlefield under the intimidation of threats (وَاصْبِرُوا) To emphasize this matter and provide its rationale, Moses said to them: the entire earth belongs to God; He alone is its true owner and master, and He grants it to whom He wills among His servants (إِنَّ الْأَرْضَ لِلّٰهِ يُورِثُهَا مَنْ يَشَاءُ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ) The final condition is to adopt piety, because the ultimate outcome belongs to the God‑fearing (وَالْعَاقِبَةُ لِلْمُتَّقِينَ) These three conditions—one related to belief (seeking help from God), the second to character (patience and steadfastness), and the third to action (piety and self‑restraint)—were not conditions only for the victory of the Children of Israel. Rather, any nation that seeks victory over its enemy cannot succeed without adhering to this three‑fold program. For faithless people, the lazy and cowardly, and nations immersed in sin and corruption—even if they achieve victory—will enjoy only a temporary and short‑lived success. It should also be noted that these three principles are branches of one another. Piety cannot be attained without patience and steadfastness in the face of desires, just as patience cannot endure without faith in the One God. Finally, the complaint born of hardship is mentioned—the suffering the Children of Israel endured as a result of Moses’ mission. They said to Moses: “We were afflicted before you came to us, and even after you have come, the oppression continues. When will relief come for us?” (قَالُوا أُوذِينَا مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ تَأْتِيَنَا وَمِنْ بَعْدِ مَا جِئْتَنَا) Like many people even today, the Children of Israel expected that Moses’ uprising would instantly eliminate all their troubles—that Pharaoh would perish overnight, his followers would vanish, and the vast Egyptian empire with its treasures would fall into their hands, all miraculously and without any effort or hardship on their part. But Moses explained to them that although victory would certainly come in the end, they would have to traverse a long and difficult path, and that success—according to the divine law—comes only after demonstrating patience and perseverance. As the verse states, Moses said: “It may be that your Lord will destroy your enemy and make you successors in the land” (قَالَ عَسَىٰ رَبُّكُمْ أَنْ يُهْلِكَ عَدُوَّكُمْ وَيَسْتَخْلِفَكُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ) The word “عَسَىٰ” (“perhaps” or “it may be”)—like “لَعَلَّ” in many verses—indicates that this victory and success are conditional and cannot be achieved without fulfilling those conditions. The verse concludes: God will grant you these blessings and restore your lost freedom so that He may see how you act in response (فَيَنْظُرَ كَيْفَ تَعْمَلُونَ) That is, after success, your period of trial will begin—the trial of a nation that once possessed nothing, but whose hands then became filled with divine blessings. Implicit in this expression is an allusion that, in the future, you will fail this trial, and once power and authority come into your hands, you too—like others—will descend into oppression and corruption. A narration recorded in al‑Kāfī from Imām Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (peace be upon him) states: قال وجدنا في كتاب علي صلوات الله عليه أن الأرض لله يورثها من يشاء من عباده والعاقبة للمتقين، أنا وأهل بيتي الذين أورثنا الله الأرض ونحن المتقون That is, “We found written in the book of ʿAlī (peace be upon him) that in the verse ‘Indeed the earth belongs to God…’, it is we and our Ahl al‑Bayt who are intended—those whom God will ultimately inherit the earth—and we are the true God‑fearing ones.” This narration indicates that the meaning of the verse is general and that, even today, there exist among the people those who truly embody piety.

See ayat 131 for tafseer.

As has already been mentioned earlier in verse 94 of this same sūrah, there exists a universal law applicable to all prophets: whenever they confronted the persistent opposition of their people and those people did not return to the right path by any means, God afflicted them with hardships and calamities in order to awaken them—so that they might feel their need and dependence, their innate monotheistic nature, which had become veiled by comfort and luxury, might re‑emerge, and they might realize their weakness and turn toward that All‑Powerful Being who is the source of every blessing and every punishment. The first verse indicates this point: “And indeed We afflicted the people of Pharaoh with years of drought and shortage of produce, so that they might take heed” (وَلَقَدْ أَخَذْنَا آلَ فِرْعَوْنَ بِالسِّنِينَ وَنَقْصٍ مِّنَ الثَّمَرَاتِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَذَّكَّرُونَ) The word “السِّنِينَ” is the plural of “سنة” (year), but when it appears together with the verb “أَخَذْنَا”, it commonly signifies years of famine. Thus the expression indicates that Pharaoh’s people were seized by drought and scarcity. This usage likely stems from the fact that years of famine are comparatively rare; therefore, when it is stated that “years” seized them, it signals an unusual and extraordinary period—namely, years of severe drought. The term “آل” originally derives from “أهل”, after undergoing phonetic change. “Ahl” refers to a person’s close and special associates—whether they be relatives or ideological companions and supporters. Although famine enveloped the entire population of Egypt, this verse specifically mentions Pharaoh’s inner circle, indicating that if they were awakened, all others would follow, since the pulse of society ultimately lay in their hands. Moreover, as the true beneficiaries and land‑holders, they were in fact the most affected by these calamities. It is also evident that this drought persisted for multiple years, as indicated by the plural “السِّنِينَ”, and further reinforced by the phrase “نقص من الثمرات” (shortage of fruits). Temporary droughts do not usually have such devastating effects on trees; prolonged drought, however, leads even to their destruction—although it is possible that additional calamities may also have affected the crops. The expression “لَعَلَّهُمْ يَذَّكَّرُونَ” (“so that they might remember”) implies that awareness of divine unity is inherently embedded within human nature. However, due to improper upbringing or intoxication with worldly blessings, people forget it. When they are seized by hardship, remembrance of God resurfaces. The verb “يَذَّكَّرُونَ”, rooted in remembrance, reflects precisely this idea. It is noteworthy that the phrase “لَعَلَّهُمْ يَضَّرَّعُونَ” (“so that they might humble themselves”) mentioned under verse 94 logically follows this remembrance, since remembrance is the first stage, which then leads to humility, submission, and supplication. Yet instead of taking heed from these divine warnings and awakening from their slumber of heedlessness, Pharaoh’s people misused them and offered self‑serving interpretations of events: whenever prosperity came to them, they said: “This is rightfully ours” (فَإِذَا جَاءَتْهُمُ الْحَسَنَةُ قَالُوا لَنَا هَٰذِهِ). But whenever hardship struck them, they immediately blamed Moses and those with him, claiming that such misfortune was caused by his presence (وَإِن تُصِبْهُمْ سَيِّئَةٌ يَطَّيَّرُوا بِمُوسَىٰ وَمَن مَّعَهُ). The verb “يَطَّيَّرُوا” derives from “تطيّر”, meaning superstition or ill‑omen. Its root is “طير” (bird), since the Arabs used to seek omens from birds—considering, for example, the crow’s cry or a bird flying from left to right as a bad sign. Thus, “تطيّر” came to denote all forms of superstitious pessimism. In response, the Qur’an declares: “Indeed, their misfortune is from God; but most of them do not know” (أَلَآ إِنَّمَا طَائِرُهُمْ عِندَ اللَّهِ وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ). This mindset was not exclusive to Pharaoh’s people. Even in modern times, self‑centered and arrogant nations display the same negative trait: whenever success comes their way, they attribute it to their own merit and capability—even if they had no real role in it. And whenever calamity befalls them, they blame hidden or open enemies, even when they themselves are the true cause. The Qur’an mentions that the enemies of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny expressed similar attitudes (al‑Nisāʾ 78), and elsewhere states that this is the hallmark of misguided people (Fuṣṣilat 50). In truth, this reflects an extreme manifestation of arrogance, stubbornness, and pride. (Explanatory note): It is also worth noting that the article “ال” appears with “الحسنة” (the good), whereas “سيئة” (evil) appears in an indefinite form. This subtly indicates that blessings came to them abundantly and repeatedly, while hardships occurred only intermittently.

The custom of taking good and bad omens has existed among various nations since ancient times. People would regard certain things as “good omens” and consider them signs of success, while other things were taken as “bad omens” and seen as portents of failure—although in reality success or failure had no real connection with such matters. Especially in the case of bad omens, the practice has always contained an entirely superstitious aspect and an extreme degree of irrationality, which remains the case even today. Although neither good nor bad omens have any actual natural effect in reality, their psychological impact cannot be denied. A good omen generally inspires hope and becomes a motivation for proactive effort, whereas a bad omen produces despair, lethargy, and weakness. Perhaps for this reason, Islamic traditions do not prohibit the taking of good omens, while they strongly condemn bad omens. There is a well‑known saying of the Noble Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny in which he stated: “تَفَأَّلُوا بِالْخَيْرِ تَجِدُوهُ” “Take good omens and you will find goodness.” This highlights its positive and constructive dimension. In fact, incidents from the life of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the Imams (peace be upon them) show that they sometimes acted upon good omens. For example, during the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah, when the Muslims encountered the polytheists of Mecca, Suhayl ibn ʿAmr came as the representative of the Meccans. When someone said, “Suhayl has come,” the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny immediately remarked: “قَدْ سَهُلَ عَلَيْكُمْ أَمْرُكُمْ” “Your affair has now become easy,” taking a good omen from the man’s name Suhayl (meaning ease). [al‑Mīzān, vol. 19, p. 86] The famous historian al‑Damīrī (8th century AH) also points out that the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny favored good omens because when a person hopes for divine grace, he advances along the path of righteousness, whereas when hope is cut off, he tends toward evil. Bad omens, on the other hand, lead to pessimism, the anticipation of calamity, and expectations of misfortune. [Safīnat al‑Biḥār, vol. 2, p. 102] For these reasons, bad omens—known among the Arabs as ṭiyarah or taṭayyur—have been strongly condemned in Islamic traditions, as noted earlier. The Qur’an also mentions and censures this attitude repeatedly (for example: Yā‑Sīn 19, al‑Naḥl 47, and the present verse in Sūrat al‑Aʿrāf). There is a prophetic saying in which the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny stated: “الطِّيَرَةُ شِرْكٌ” “Taking bad omens (and believing them to affect destiny) is a kind of polytheism.” [al‑Mīzān, under the verse in question] Even if a bad omen appears to have an effect, it is in fact nothing more than the result of psychological conflict created at the moment the omen is taken. Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) said: “الطِّيَرَةُ عَلَى مَا تَجْعَلُهَا؛ إِنْ هَوَّنْتَهَا هَانَتْ، وَإِنْ شَدَّدْتَهَا تَشَدَّدَتْ، وَإِنْ لَمْ تَجْعَلْهَا شَيْئًا لَمْ تَكُنْ شَيْئًا” “The effect of a bad omen depends on how you treat it: if you consider it insignificant, it becomes insignificant; if you take it seriously, it becomes serious; and if you ignore it completely, it has no effect at all.” [al‑Mīzān, under the verse in question] Islamic traditions also report that the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny taught that the best way to counter bad omens is simply to ignore them. Another reported saying of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny states: “ثَلَاثٌ لَا يَسْلَمُ مِنْهَا أَحَدٌ: الطِّيَرَةُ، وَالْحَسَدُ، وَالظَّنُّ. قِيلَ: فَمَا نَصْنَعُ؟ قَالَ: إِذَا تَطَيَّرْتَ فَامْضِ، وَإِذَا حَسَدْتَ فَلَا تَبْغِ، وَإِذَا ظَنَنْتَ فَلَا تُحَقِّقْ.” “There are three things from which no one is completely safe: bad omens, envy, and suspicion.” People asked: “Then what should we do?” He replied: “When you encounter a bad omen, ignore it and proceed with your work; when envy arises in your heart, do not act upon it; and when you harbour suspicion, do not pursue it.” It is striking that belief in both good and bad omens exists even in advanced and industrialized societies, and was also present among famous historical personalities. For example, in Western countries, people commonly regard passing under a ladder, spilling salt, or giving a knife as a gift as bad omens. However, good omens are not as problematic, because—as already noted—their effects are generally positive. In contrast, the custom of bad omens should always be confronted and eliminated from the minds of people. The most effective way to combat this harmful practice is to strengthen the spirit of faith and cultivate trust and reliance upon God in people’s hearts—precisely what is emphasized in Islamic teachings and traditions.

See ayat 133 for tafseer.

In these verses, another stage of the awakening lessons that God gave to the people of Pharaoh is presented. When the first stage—namely famine, drought, and economic losses—failed to awaken them, the second stage followed, which was more severe than the first. This time, God subjected them to a series of crushing calamities one after another. Yet, regretfully, even then their eyes did not open. In the first verse, as a prelude to the descent of these calamities, it is stated that they continued their obstinacy in the face of Moses’ call and said: “No matter what sign you bring us—by which you seek to bewitch us—we shall never believe in you” (وَقَالُوا مَهْمَا تَأْتِنَا بِهِ مِنْ آيَةٍ لِتَسْحَرَنَا بِهَا فَمَا نَحْنُ لَكَ بِمُؤْمِنِينَ). The word “آيَة” may have been used mockingly, since Moses had described his miracles as divine signs, whereas they labeled them sorcery. The tone of the verses and other contextual indications clearly show that Pharaoh’s propaganda machinery—fully equipped for its time—had become active on all fronts against Moses. As a result, the entire populace echoed one slogan: “O Moses! You are nothing but a powerful magician!” This was the only “answer” they had to counter Moses’ argument, and by means of it they sought to dominate people’s hearts. ❖ However, since God does not unleash His final punishment upon any nation until He has fully completed the argument against it, the following verse states that He first sent various calamities upon them so that perhaps they might regain awareness. First, “We sent upon them the flood” (فَأَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمُ الطُّوفَانَ). The word “طوفان” derives from the root طوف (to circulate or surround). Later, any calamity that completely envelops a people came to be called a flood. In Arabic usage, طوفان usually refers to devastating floods that destroy houses and uproot trees (although in modern Persian and Urdu it is often used for violent storms). Then “We sent upon them the locusts” (وَالْجَرَادَ). Narrations report that God sent such vast numbers of locusts that they stripped trees entirely of leaves and branches. They even caused such torment to people’s bodies that they cried out in pain. Whenever a calamity descended, they pleaded with Moses to pray to God to remove it. During both the flood and the locust plague, they made this request, which Moses accepted, and both calamities were lifted. But afterward they returned to their obstinacy. As a result, a third calamity—“القمل”—was inflicted upon them (وَالْقُمَّلَ). What is meant by “قمل” has been discussed among exegetes, but the most apparent meaning is that it was a type of agricultural pest that destroyed crops. When this affliction also ended and they still did not believe, God caused frogs to multiply to such an extent that they became a new plague in their lives (وَالضَّفَادِعَ). The word “ضفادع” is the plural of “ضفدع” (frog). This term appears in the plural form, whereas the previous calamities are mentioned in the singular—perhaps indicating that multiple kinds of frogs were unleashed upon them. Frogs were seen everywhere: inside houses, in rooms, on beds, on dining tables, and even in food vessels, making life unbearable. Yet even then they did not submit to the truth or believe. At that point, God sent blood upon them (وَالْدَّمَ). Some commentators have said this refers to a widespread epidemic of nose‑bleeding, but many have written that the water of the Nile itself turned into blood, rendering it unusable. Finally, the Qur’an states: We showed them clear and distinct signs proving the truth of Moses, but they responded with arrogance and refused to accept the truth; they were a sinful and criminal people (آيَاتٍ مُفَصَّلَاتٍ فَاسْتَكْبَرُوا وَكَانُوا قَوْمًا مُجْرِمِينَ). Some narrations state that each calamity lasted for an entire year—one year the flood, the next the locusts, the third the agricultural pest, and so on—while other reports say the interval between calamities was no longer than one month. In any case, it is clear that there was an interval between each, as indicated by the word “مُفَصَّلَات”, so that they would have ample opportunity to reflect. It is noteworthy that these calamities afflicted only Pharaoh and his people, while the Children of Israel remained protected. For example, when the water turned into blood, it was blood for the Egyptians but remained water for the Israelites. Egyptians would request that Israelites put water from their mouths into theirs; the water stayed water in the Israelite’s mouth but turned into blood when it entered the Egyptian’s mouth. The same distinction applied in the case of the frogs and other plagues. Undoubtedly, this was miraculous; however, from another angle, some of these calamities may also be given a natural explanation. Egypt, flourishing along the Nile, had its most fertile, vibrant regions close to the river—areas rich in water, agriculture, and trade. These regions were controlled by Pharaoh and the Copts, where they built their palaces and gardens. By contrast, the Israelites were settled in distant, dry, and water‑poor regions and endured harsh living conditions due to their status as slaves. Thus, when floods occurred, it was natural that the Nile‑adjacent regions suffered the most. Likewise, frogs originate in water, which abounded around the homes of the Copts. The same is true of blood (since the Nile’s water was affected), and of locusts and agricultural pests, which attack cultivated lands and fertile areas. Consequently, the damage from these plagues was inflicted primarily upon the Copts. What has been described in these verses is also mentioned in the current Torah, though with some variation. (See: Book of Exodus, chapters 7–12)

See ayat 136 for tafseer.

See ayat 136 for tafseer.

In these verses, the response of the Pharaoh’s people to the awe‑inspiring and awakening punishments sent by the Lord of the worlds is described. All these verses show that whenever they were caught in the grip of calamity, as is usually the way of those bent on destruction, they would temporarily awaken from their slumber of heedlessness, begin lamenting and crying, and implore Moses (peace be upon him) to pray to God for their deliverance. Moses would pray for them, and the calamity would be lifted, but their condition was such that as soon as the affliction was removed, they would forget everything and return to their former state of disobedience and rebellion. The first verse states that when punishment descended upon them, they said: “O Moses! Pray for us to your Lord, according to the covenant He has made with you” (وَلَمَّا وَقَعَ عَلَيْهِمُ الرِّجْزُ قَالُوا يَا مُوسَى ادْعُ لَنَا رَبَّكَ بِمَا عَهِدَ عِندَكَ). “If you remove this affliction from us, we certainly promise that we will believe in you, and we will surely send the Children of Israel with you” (لَئِن كَشَفْتَ عَنَّا الرِّجْزَ لَنُؤْمِنَنَّ لَكَ وَلَنُرْسِلَنَّ مَعَكَ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ). The word “رجز” has been used with many meanings, such as: severe punishments, plague, idols and idol‑worship, satanic whisperings, snow, or severe hail. However, all these meanings are manifestations of a single underlying sense, which is their common root. As al‑Rāghib notes in al‑Mufradāt, the root meaning of rijz is disturbance (اضطراب), and according to ʿAllāmah Ṭabrisī in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, its fundamental meaning is deviation from the truth. Accordingly, punishments are called rijz because they arise as a result of turning away from the truth. Likewise, idol‑worship stems from deviation from the truth and instability in belief. For this reason, the Arabs also use rijz to refer to a disease in camels which causes trembling in the legs, leading them to walk with difficulty. War chants are similarly called rajaz because their lines are usually short and closely paced. In the present verse, rijz apparently refers to those five awakening punishments already mentioned in the previous verses, although some commentators have suggested that it may also include other calamities not explicitly mentioned earlier, such as plague, snow, or deadly hailstorms—punishments that are also noted in the Torah. Regarding the phrase “بِمَا عَهِدَ عِندَكَ”, commentators have discussed what is meant by the divine “covenant.” The view most in accordance with the context is that it refers to God’s promise to Moses that whenever he supplicated, God would answer him. Another view is that it refers to the covenant of prophethood, meaning: “O Moses! We appeal to you by virtue of your prophetic covenant to pray to God to remove these afflictions.” ❖ The following verse mentions their betrayal of this promise: “When We lifted the affliction from them until a term which they were destined to reach, they immediately broke their pledge” (فَلَمَّا كَشَفْنَا عَنْهُمُ الرِّجْزَ إِلَىٰ أَجَلٍ هُمْ بَالِغُوهُ إِذَا هُمْ يَنكُثُونَ). They neither believed themselves nor released the Children of Israel from bondage. The word “نكث” literally means to untwist a rope, and later came to be used for breaking a covenant. The phrase “إِلَىٰ أَجَلٍ هُمْ بَالِغُوهُ” indicates that Moses would specify a fixed time for the removal of the affliction, so that it would become clear to them that the calamity was not coincidental but was removed through Moses’ supplication. The phrase “إِذَا هُمْ يَنكُثُونَ” is in the imperfect tense, indicating repeated and continuous action—that is, each time they made a covenant before Moses, they subsequently broke it, until covenant‑breaking became a habitual part of their lives. The final verse summarizes their arrogance, rebellion, and treachery in two brief statements. First it says, in general terms: “So We took vengeance upon them” (فَانتَقَمْنَا مِنْهُمْ). Then it explains this vengeance in detail: “We drowned them in the sea, because they denied Our signs and remained heedless of them” (فَأَغْرَقْنَاهُمْ فِي الْيَمِّ بِأَنَّهُمْ كَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِنَا وَكَانُوا عَنْهَا غَافِلِينَ). The term “يَمّ” means sea, and it is also used for great rivers such as the Nile. Some scholars have discussed whether the word is Arabic, Syriac, or hieroglyphic. The author of al‑Manār, one of Egypt’s renowned scholars, after examining similarities between hieroglyphic and Arabic vocabulary in his work al‑Muʿjam al‑Kabīr, states that yam is an ancient Egyptian word meaning “sea.” Since the events described occurred in Egypt, the Qur’an here employs terminology familiar to that environment. They were not ignorant in an absolute sense, for Moses repeatedly endeavored to awaken them by various means; rather, their conduct was that of the heedless, for they paid no attention to God’s signs at all. God’s “vengeance” should not be understood as akin to the vindictiveness of resentful individuals who seek retaliation out of spite. Rather, divine vengeance means that God first employs every possible means to reform people, completes the proof against them fully, repeatedly admonishes them, and when all hope of reform is lost—when it becomes clear that their existence is entirely corrupt and a grave danger to society, and that they have forfeited the right to continue—He then destroys them through punishment. The lexical meaning of intiqām, as noted earlier, is requital or retribution; it does not carry the emotional connotations attached to the term in some languages.

After the destruction of the people of Pharaoh, the Children of Israel—who had for long years been crushed beneath their oppression and tyranny—were set free and became the inheritors of the vast and expansive lands of the Pharaohs. The verse under discussion alludes to this reality, stating: “And We made the people who had been oppressed the inheritors of the eastern and western regions of the land which We had blessed” (وَأَوْرَثْنَا الْقَوْمَ الَّذِينَ كَانُوا يُسْتَضْعَفُونَ مَشَارِقَ الْأَرْضِ وَمَغَارِبَهَا الَّتِي بَارَكْنَا فِيهَا). As noted earlier, the word “inheritance” (إرث) in lexical usage refers to property or authority that passes from one group to another without trade, sale, or mutual transaction—whether from the living or the dead. The expression “يُسْتَضْعَفُونَ”, derived from استضعاف, is the opposite of استعمار. The term استعمار is widely used in our time and refers to powerful nations weakening others in order to exploit them. The distinction between the two lies in the fact that استعمار outwardly denotes “development” but inwardly implies destruction, whereas استضعاف denotes weakness both in outward and inward meaning. The phrase “كانوا يُستضعفون” signifies that Pharaoh and his people kept the Children of Israel perpetually in a state of weakness—intellectually, morally, and economically. The phrase “مشارق الأرض ومغاربها” refers to the vast territories under the control of Pharaoh and his followers. Small regions do not contain multiple “east and west,” but large territories do, due to the spherical nature of the earth and the variation of horizons. Thus, this expression is clearly a figurative reference to extensive lands. The phrase “التي باركنا فيها” points to the extraordinary fertility and abundance of that land—namely, Egypt and the regions of Syria, which were then and remain among the most blessed areas of the world. Some exegetes have written that at that time the Egyptian empire was so extensive that regions such as Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon were also included within it. Thus, the verse does not refer to dominion over the entire globe—which would contradict historical facts—but rather to the former lands of the Pharaohs. The verse continues: “And the good promise of your Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel, because of their patience” (وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَةُ رَبِّكَ الْحُسْنَىٰ عَلَىٰ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ بِمَا صَبَرُوا). This is the same divine promise mentioned earlier in verses 128–129 of this sūrah. Although these verses speak specifically of the Children of Israel’s patience and perseverance in confronting Pharaoh, this reality is not exclusive to them. Any oppressed nation that rises, struggles to break the chains of enslavement, and demonstrates steadfastness and endurance will ultimately be granted victory. (Provided that such a nation also possesses legitimate leadership—just as the Children of Israel could not achieve success against Pharaoh until they were led by Moses and Aaron, peace be upon them.) The verse concludes by stating: “And We destroyed what Pharaoh and his people had constructed, and what they used to erect” (وَدَمَّرْنَا مَا كَانَ يَصْنَعُ فِرْعَوْنُ وَقَوْمُهُ وَمَا كَانُوا يَعْرِشُونَ). Al‑Rāghib writes in al‑Mufradāt that the term “صنع” is most often used for refined and aesthetically impressive constructions; thus, in this verse it refers to the elegant architectural achievements of the Pharaonic era. The phrase “وما كانوا يعرشون” refers specifically to gardens and cultivated structures supported by trellises and elevated frameworks—such as vineyards, gourds, and similar crops—that enhance scenery and beauty. The word “دَمَّرْنَا”, derived from تدمير, means complete destruction and annihilation. A question is raised here: how were these buildings and gardens destroyed, and why was such destruction necessary? The response is that it is not implausible that repeated earthquakes and recurring floods gradually brought about this devastation. Moreover, not all Pharaoh’s people perished in the sea—only Pharaoh himself and a select group who pursued Moses were drowned. The remaining population, which was large and spread across Egypt, would have regained their former economic power and once again oppressed the Children of Israel had their wealth and resources remained intact. Therefore, divine wisdom required that their material power be stripped away so that their rebellion and tyranny might be eliminated permanently.

See ayat 141 for tafseer.

See ayat 141 for tafseer.

See ayat 141 for tafseer.

In these verses, attention is drawn to another important episode in the history of the Children of Israel. This event occurred after their victory over the Pharaohs and reveals their inclination toward idolatry. The beginning of this tendency is mentioned in these verses, while its outcome is described in detail in Sūrat Ṭā Hā, verses 86–97, and briefly again in verse 148 of this same sūrah. The fact is that once Moses (peace be upon him) had emerged from the confrontation with Pharaoh, another internal crisis began—one generated by the ignorant, rebellious, and obstinate elements among the Children of Israel themselves. As will become clear, this internal struggle was even more difficult and grievous for Moses than his confrontation with Pharaoh and the Egyptians, as is generally the case with internal conflicts in the life of nations. The first verse states: “And We caused the Children of Israel to cross the sea” (وَجَاوَزْنَا بِبَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ الْبَحْرَ). But “on the way they came upon a people who were devoted—humbly absorbed—around their idols” (فَأَتَوْا عَلَىٰ قَوْمٍ يَعْكُفُونَ عَلَىٰ أَصْنَامٍ لَهُمْ). The word “عَاكِف”, derived from “عكوف”, means to devote oneself attentively and reverently to something. When the ignorant members of the community of Moses (peace be upon him) witnessed this scene, they were so impressed that they immediately came to Moses and said: “O Moses, make for us a god just as they have gods” (قَالُوا يَا مُوسَى اجْعَلْ لَنَا إِلَٰهًا كَمَا لَهُمْ آلِهَةٌ). Moses (peace be upon him) was deeply angered by this ignorant and foolish request. He said to them: “Indeed, you are an ignorant and unaware people” (قَالَ إِنَّكُمْ قَوْمٌ تَجْهَلُونَ).

1. From this verse it becomes clear that the fundamental cause of idol‑worship is human ignorance and lack of understanding. One form of this ignorance is ignorance of the true Creator—that is, failure to recognize His pure essence and to understand that any likeness or analogue to Him is utterly impossible. Another aspect of this ignorance is ignorance of the primary cause of the universe and unawareness of the true causes of events. As a result of such ignorance, the human mind fabricates imaginary causes for events, to the point that it even considers idols to be causal agents. A third cause is ignorance of the realm beyond nature, whereby a person accepts only sensory objects—those that can be seen with the eyes and perceived through the five senses—and denies everything else. History testifies that when these three forms of ignorance are combined, the substance of idol‑worship comes into being. Otherwise, how could it be conceivable that a person who is aware and perceptive—who knows God and His essential attributes, understands the causes of events, and recognizes both the natural and supernatural realms—would take a piece of stone from a mountain, use one part of it for a practical purpose such as building steps, fashion another part into an idol, call it his deity, prostrate before it, and consider it the master of his destiny? It is noteworthy that in the verse cited above, Moses (peace be upon him) said to them that they are a people who remain continuously immersed in ignorance, as indicated by the use of the verb تَجْهَلُونَ in the imperfect tense, which commonly denotes continuity. Moreover, ignorance is mentioned here without specification, indicating its general and all‑encompassing nature. Most striking is that when the Children of Israel said اجعل لنا إلها (“make for us a god”), they demonstrated the belief that something which had never possessed agency, benefit, or harm could suddenly become a source of effects merely through designation or convention—by giving it the name of a god or idol. According to this mindset, worshipping it would draw a person closer to God, disrespecting it would distance one from God, honoring it would be a source of benefit and prosperity, and belittling it would bring loss and harm. This represents the height of ignorance and unawareness. It is true that the intention of the Children of Israel was not for Moses (peace be upon him) to create a deity that was the creator of the entire universe; rather, they wanted an object whose worship might bring them closer to God and become a source of blessing. Yet the question remains: can a lifeless, powerless entity suddenly become a source of such properties merely by being named or fashioned into a form? Could there be anything more rooted in superstition, ignorance, and baseless delusion? 2. There is no doubt that before encountering that idol‑worshipping people, the Children of Israel already harbored a latent inclination toward idol‑worship due to their prolonged coexistence with the Egyptians. However, this inclination lay dormant like a spark. As soon as they witnessed idolatry along the way, that hidden spark flared up instantly. This demonstrates how strongly human beings are influenced by their environment, and how deeply surroundings can shape human behavior. An environment can either lead a person toward God‑consciousness or drag him toward idolatry. It is often the environment that becomes the root of many evils and misfortunes, just as it can also guide people toward virtue and piety—although the initial choice of environment itself is the primary cause. This is why Islam places such great emphasis on reforming the social environment. 3. Another noteworthy point evident from this verse is the prevalence of ingratitude among the Children of Israel. Despite having witnessed so many miracles from Moses (peace be upon him), despite receiving such immense divine favors, despite the destruction of their enemy Pharaoh having occurred only recently, and despite safely crossing the sea, they completely forgot all of this and asked Moses to make an idol for them. In Nahj al‑Balāghah, it is recorded that a Jew once objected to the Muslims before Imam ʿAli (peace be upon him), saying: “Your Prophet had not even been buried yet when you fell into disagreement.” Imam ʿAli (peace be upon him) replied: إنما اختلفنا عنه، لا فيه، ولكنكم ما جفت أرجلكم من البحر حتى قلتم لنبيكم اجعل لنا إلها كما لهم آلهة فقال إنكم قوم تجهلون “We disagreed regarding the matters transmitted from the Prophet, not about the Prophet himself or his prophethood. But you—your feet had not yet dried from the sea when you said to your prophet, ‘Make for us a god as they have gods,’ and your prophet told you that you are a people immersed in ignorance.” In the following verse, Moses (peace be upon him) completed his statement by saying to the Children of Israel: the fate of this idol‑worshipping people whom you see is destruction, and all their actions are false and baseless (إِنَّ هَؤُلَاءِ مُتَبَّرٌ مَا هُمْ فِيهِ وَبَاطِلٌ مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ). That is, their efforts are futile, their actions are meaningless, and the ultimate outcome awaiting them is destruction—just as it has been for every idol‑worshipping nation throughout history (since مُتَبَّرٌ derives from تبار, meaning destruction). He then added further emphasis by saying: “Shall I seek for you a deity other than God—He who has favored you over the peoples of your time?” (قَالَ أَغَيْرَ اللَّهِ أَبْغِيكُمْ إِلَهًا وَهُوَ فَضَّلَكُمْ عَلَى الْعَالَمِينَ). The meaning is that if the motive for worship is gratitude, then one should reflect upon the fact that all blessings come from God alone. And if worship is based on recognizing the ultimate cause and true source of effects, that too pertains exclusively to the One God. Therefore, from every perspective, only God is worthy of worship, and none besides Him. In the following verse, God Almighty reminds them of one of His greatest blessings upon the Children of Israel, so that awareness of this immense grace might awaken a sense of gratitude within them and reinforce the recognition that only the One God is deserving of worship and prostration, and that there exists no justification for bowing before idols that bring neither benefit nor harm. It is first stated: “And remember when We delivered you from the people of Pharaoh, who were continuously inflicting upon you the worst of punishments” (وَإِذْ أَنجَيْنَاكُم مِّنْ آلِ فِرْعَوْنَ يَسُومُونَكُمْ سُوءَ الْعَذَابِ). The root of يَسُومُونَ is سوم, which, as al‑Rāghib notes, conveys the meaning of persistent pursuit, and according to the lexicon Qāmūs, also carries the sense of continuity. Thus, يَسُومُونَكُمْ سُوءَ الْعَذَابِ means that they were constantly and relentlessly subjecting you to painful torment. Then, as per Qur’anic style—moving from general to detailed expression—the verse explains the nature of that torment: they would slaughter your sons and spare your women (for servitude and enslavement) (يُقَتِّلُونَ أَبْنَاءَكُمْ وَيَسْتَحْيُونَ نِسَاءَكُمْ). “And in this there was a tremendous trial from your Lord” (وَفِي ذَٰلِكُم بَلَاءٌ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ عَظِيمٌ). From the surrounding verses it appears that Moses (peace be upon him) addressed the Children of Israel with these words after they had crossed the sea and fallen into the temptation of idolatry. Although some commentators suggest that the audience of this verse may have been the Jews contemporary with the Prophet Muhammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny—since the first interpretation would require an implied phrase such as قال ربكم (“your Lord says”)—this interpretation disrupts the coherence of the surrounding verses. Hence, the former interpretation is more consistent. It should also be noted that a very similar expression appears earlier in verse 49 of this sūrah.

In this verse, yet another scene from the life of the Children of Israel is presented. Once again, Moses was required to contend with his own people. The verse alludes to several interconnected events: Moses’ departure to the appointed place of meeting with God, his reception of the commandments of the Torah through revelation, his conversation with God, his bringing along a number of eminent members of the Children of Israel to witness these events at the appointed place, the clarification that God cannot be seen with physical eyes, the subsequent idol‑worship of the Children of Israel and their deviation from the path of monotheism, and the strange episode associated with the Samiri. First it is stated: “And We made an appointment with Moses for thirty nights, and completed them with ten more; thus the appointed time of his Lord was completed as forty nights” (وَوَاعَدْنَا مُوسَىٰ ثَلَاثِينَ لَيْلَةً وَأَتْمَمْنَاهَا بِعَشْرٍ فَتَمَّ مِيقَاتُ رَبِّهِ أَرْبَعِينَ لَيْلَةً). The word “مِيقَات” derives from “وقت” and refers to a specific time fixed in advance for the performance of a particular task. It is commonly applied to a temporal appointment, although at times it may also refer to a designated place where a specific action is to occur, such as ميقات الحج—the location beyond which one may not proceed without entering the state of consecration. The verse then states that Moses said to his brother Aaron: “Take my place among my people, strive to bring about reform, and do not follow the path of the corrupters” (وَقَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِأَخِيهِ هَارُونَ اخْلُفْنِي فِي قَوْمِي وَأَصْلِحْ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ سَبِيلَ الْمُفْسِدِينَ).

1. How many nights was the appointment? The first question that arises concerning the above verse is this: why did God not specify the appointment as forty nights from the outset, but instead first set it for thirty nights and then added ten more, whereas in Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 51, forty nights are mentioned directly? Exegetes have discussed this distinction, but the explanation that appears most plausible—and is also supported by reports from the Ahl al‑Bayt (peace be upon them)—is that although the appointment was in reality for forty nights, God initially summoned Moses for only thirty nights in order to test the Children of Israel. Thereafter, the period was extended, so that the hypocrites might be distinguished from the believers. In this regard, it is reported from Imām Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (peace be upon him) that he said: when Moses went to the appointed place, he had informed the Children of Israel that his absence would not exceed thirty days. But when God added ten more days to this period, the Children of Israel said: Moses has broken his promise. As a result, they committed the acts that are known—that is, they fell into calf‑worship. [Reported in Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 2, p. 33; Nūr al‑Thaqalayn, vol. 2, p. 61] As for the question of which period of the Islamic months these forty nights corresponded to, some narrations indicate that it extended from the first of Dhū al‑Qaʿdah until the tenth of Dhū al‑Ḥijjah. The Qur’an mentions forty nights, not forty days, perhaps because Moses’ intimate supplications with his Lord occurred predominantly during the night. 2. A prophet and succession A second question arises here: since Aaron himself was a prophet, why did Moses appoint him as his deputy for the leadership of the Children of Israel? The answer becomes clear upon reflecting on the distinction between prophethood and leadership (imamate). Although Aaron was indeed a prophet, he did not hold the general leadership of the Children of Israel. That role belonged exclusively to Moses. Therefore, when Moses wished to depart from his people for a period of time, he appointed his brother to assume the position of leadership and guidance in his absence. From this it is understood that the station of leadership is higher than that of prophethood. This point has been explained in detail in the discussion of Abraham (peace be upon him) in the commentary on Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 124. 3. Instructing Aaron? A third question then arises: why did Moses instruct his brother Aaron by saying that he should strive for reform among the people and not follow the path of the corrupters, when Aaron was a true prophet and infallible—why would he ever follow corrupters? The answer is that this instruction was in fact meant as an emphasis, to remind Aaron of the importance of his position among the people. It may also have been intended to impress upon the Children of Israel the necessity of obeying Aaron during Moses’ absence, to accept his leadership fully, not to regard his commands as burdensome or demeaning, and to show him the same obedience they had shown to Moses himself. 4. One appointed meeting or several? A fourth question is whether Moses went to the appointed place only once for these forty days, during which the Torah and all religious laws were revealed, and whether during these same forty days he brought selected members of his people as representatives to witness the revelation of the Torah and to demonstrate that God cannot be seen— or whether there were multiple forty‑day periods: one for receiving the divine commandments, another for bringing the leaders of the Children of Israel, and perhaps yet another for other purposes, as mentioned in the present Torah (Book of Exodus, chapters 19–24). Once again, exegetes have differed on this issue. However, when the preceding and subsequent verses are examined, it becomes evident that all of these matters relate to a single event. The phrase “وَلَمَّا جَاءَ مُوسَىٰ لِمِيقَاتِنَا” clearly applies to both contexts. Moreover, verse 145 of this same sūrah explicitly indicates that the tablets of the Torah and the revelation of Mosaic law occurred during this same journey. Only one verse in this sūrah (verse 155) might suggest multiple appointments (“وَاخْتَارَ مُوسَىٰ قَوْمَهُ سَبْعِينَ رَجُلًا لِمِيقَاتِنَا…”), but when its commentary is addressed, it will be shown that even this verse does not contradict the above conclusion. 5. Ḥadīth al‑Manzilah Many Sunni and Shiʿi exegetes have referred at this point to the Ḥadīth al‑Manzilah (“yā ʿAlī anta minnī bi‑manzilat Hārūn min Mūsā”). The difference lies in interpretation: Shiʿi exegetes have regarded this narration as a clear proof of the immediate succession of ʿAlī (peace be upon him), while some Sunni exegetes, rejecting this conclusion, have raised objections marked by severity and bias. To clarify this issue adequately, it is more appropriate first to present briefly the text and chains of transmission of this narration, and then to address the objections raised by the opposing side at this point.

1. Transmission of the Ḥadīth by the Companions of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny A large number of the Companions of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny have transmitted the incident of the Battle of Tabūk in the following manner: "إنّ رسولَ الله خرج إلى تبوك واستخلف عليّاً، فقال: أتخلّفني في الصبيان والنساء؟ قال: ألا ترضى أن تكون منّي بمنزلة هارون من موسى إلا أنّه لا نبيّ بعدي" When the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny set out for Tabūk, he appointed ʿAlī as his deputy. ʿAlī said: “O Messenger of God! Are you leaving me behind among women and children (and not permitting me to accompany you in battle)?” The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny replied: “O ʿAlī! Are you not content that your position with respect to me is the same as that of Hārūn with respect to Mūsā—except that there is no prophet after me?” This narration appears in the most authoritative ḥadīth collections of Ahl al‑Sunnah. It is reported by Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ in Ṣaḥīḥ al‑Bukhārī. [Ṣaḥīḥ al‑Bukhārī, vol. 6, Dār Iḥyāʾ al‑Turāth al‑ʿArabī edition] It is also narrated by Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, which is counted among the foremost and most reliable works of Ahl al‑Sunnah, in the chapter "فضائل الصحابة", where the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny said to ʿAlī: "أنت منّي بمنزلة هارون من موسى إلا أنّه لا نبيّ بعدي" “Your relationship to me is that of Hārūn to Mūsā, except that there is no prophet after me.” [Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, vol. 4, p. 187, Dār Iḥyāʾ al‑Turāth al‑ʿArabī, second edition, 1972] In this narration of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, the statement is expressed in general terms, without explicit reference to the Battle of Tabūk. However, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim also separately narrates the Tabūk‑specific context of this statement, similar to Ṣaḥīḥ al‑Bukhārī. The same narration is found in Sunan Ibn Mājah with identical wording. [Sunan Ibn Mājah, vol. 1, p. 42, Dār Iḥyāʾ al‑Kutub al‑ʿArabiyyah] In Sunan al‑Tirmidhī, an additional detail is mentioned: one day Muʿāwiyah said to Saʿd, “Why do you not curse Abū Turāb (i.e., ʿAlī)?” Saʿd replied: “I recall that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny said three things regarding ʿAlī. Whenever I remember them, I cannot curse him.” He then cited, among those three, the statement of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny regarding ʿAlī during the Battle of Tabūk. [Sunan al‑Tirmidhī, vol. 1, p. 638, al‑Maktabah al‑Islāmiyyah, Riyāḍ Shaykh Library] In Musnad Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, this narration appears in nearly ten places—sometimes in connection with the Battle of Tabūk and sometimes independently. [Musnad Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, vol. 1, pp. 173, 175, 179, 182, 185, 231; vol. 6, pp. 369, 438] In one of these reports it is stated: Once Ibn ʿAbbās was sitting when some people came to him and said: “Either come outside with us, or ask these people to leave, for we wish to speak to you privately.” Ibn ʿAbbās said: “I shall come with you.” He then went with them and narrated to them the incident of Tabūk and the statement of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny regarding ʿAlī. He added that the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny also said: "إنّه لا ينبغي أن أذهب إلا وأنت خليفتي" “It is not proper for me to depart unless you are my deputy.” [Musnad Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, vol. 1, p. 231] This narration is also contained in Khaṣāʾiṣ al‑Nasāʾī (pp. 4 and 14), in al‑Mustadrak of al‑Ḥākim (vol. 3, pp. 108–109), Tārīkh al‑Khulafāʾ by al‑Suyūṭī (vol. 1, p. 65), al‑Ṣawāʿiq al‑Muḥriqah by Ibn Ḥajar (p. 177), Sīrat Ibn Hishām (vol. 3, p. 163, Egyptian edition), Sīrat al‑Ḥalabī (vol. 3, p. 151, Egyptian edition), and many other works. It is well known that all these books are among the most authoritative and widely recognized Sunni sources. It should be noted that this narration was not transmitted by Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ alone. It has also been narrated by other Companions, including Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh al‑Anṣārī, Abū Saʿīd al‑Khudrī, Asmāʾ bint ʿUmays, Ibn ʿAbbās, Umm Salamah, ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd, Anas ibn Mālik, Zayd ibn Arqam, and Abū Ayyūb al‑Anṣārī. Even more remarkable is that Muʿāwiyah himself and ʿUmar ibn al‑Khaṭṭāb also transmitted this narration from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Muḥibb al‑Dīn al‑Ṭabarī narrates in his book Dhakhāʾir al‑ʿUqbā that: a man once came to Muʿāwiyah and asked him a question. Muʿāwiyah replied: “Ask ʿAlī, for he is more knowledgeable.” The man said: “O Commander of the Faithful (addressing Muʿāwiyah), I prefer your answer to that of ʿAlī.” Muʿāwiyah responded: “You have spoken very wrongly.” He then said: “The Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny said regarding ʿAlī: ‘أنت منّي بمنزلة هارون من موسى إلا أنّه لا نبيّ بعدي’.” Muʿāwiyah further added: “Whenever ʿUmar encountered a difficulty, he would refer it to ʿAlī.” [Dhakhāʾir al‑ʿUqbā, p. 79; al‑Ṣawāʿiq al‑Muḥriqah, p. 177, Cairo edition] Abū Bakr al‑Baghdādī writes in Tārīkh Baghdād that ʿUmar once saw a man speaking ill of ʿAlī. ʿUmar said: “I think you are a hypocrite, for I heard the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny say: ‘إنّما عليّ منّي بمنزلة هارون من موسى إلا أنّه لا نبيّ بعدي’.” [Tārīkh Baghdād, vol. 7, p. 452, Maktabat al‑Saʿādah edition

Second point: The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny did not utter this ḥadīth only on the occasion of the Battle of Tabūk, as is commonly assumed. Rather, on numerous other occasions as well, he used this very formulation regarding ʿAlī (peace be upon him). Some of those occasions are as follows: 1. The first declaration of brotherhood: That is, on the day when the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny first established brotherhood among his Companions in Mecca. On that occasion, the Prophet selected ʿAlī (peace be upon him) as his brother and uttered the following statement: أنت بمنزلة هارون من موسى إلا أنَّه لا نبيَّ بعدي [Reported in: Kanz al‑ʿUmmāl, ḥadīth 918, vol. 5, p. 40; vol. 6, p. 390] 2. The second declaration of brotherhood: That is, when the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny established brotherhood for a second time in Medina between the Muhājirīn and the Anṣār. On this occasion as well, he chose ʿAlī (peace be upon him) for himself and made the following statement about him: وأنت بمنزلة هارون من موسى إلا أنَّه لا نبيَّ بعدي وأنت أخي ووارثي [Reported in: Muntakhab Kanz al‑ʿUmmāl (marginal to Musnad Aḥmad), vol. 5, p. 31] 3. Statement addressed to Umm Sulaym: Umm Sulaym was a renowned woman in early Islamic history and an active preacher of Islam. She was counted among the Companions of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Her father and brother had been martyred in support of the Prophet. Because her husband had not accepted Islam, she separated from him. Her rank was so elevated that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny would personally visit her home to console her. On one such occasion, the Prophet said to her: يا أمَّ سُلَيْم، إنَّ عليًّا لحمُه من لحمي ودمُه من دمي وهو منِّي بمنزلة هارون من موسى [Reported in: Kanz al‑ʿUmmāl, vol. 6, p. 164] “O Umm Sulaym! ʿAlī’s flesh is from my flesh, and his blood is from my blood, and his position relative to me is that of Hārūn relative to Mūsā.” 4. Statement made in the presence of a group of Companions: Ibn ʿAbbās reports that one day ʿUmar ibn al‑Khaṭṭāb said to him: “Do not mention the name of ʿAlī with ill intent, for I heard three statements about him from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. If even one of those were to shine, it would outshine the sun.” Ibn ʿAbbās continues: One day Abū Bakr, Abū ʿUbaydah, a group of Companions, and I were with the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, while the Prophet was leaning upon ʿAlī. At that moment, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny struck ʿAlī upon the shoulder and said: أنت يا عليُّ أوَّلُ المؤمنين إيمانًا وأوَّلهم إسلامًا، ثم قال: أنت منِّي بمنزلة هارون من موسى [Reported in: Kanz al‑ʿUmmāl, vol. 6, p. 395] Meaning: “O ʿAlī! You are the first of the believers in faith and the first of them in Islam; and your relationship to me is that of Hārūn to Mūsā.” 5. Narration reported by al‑Nasāʾī: Al‑Nasāʾī narrates in his book Khaṣāʾiṣ that a discussion arose between ʿAlī, Jaʿfar, and Zayd regarding the guardianship of the son of Ḥamza. Each wished to assume that responsibility. At that moment, the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny said to ʿAlī: أنت بمنزلة هارون من موسى إلا أنَّه لا نبيَّ بعدي [Khaṣāʾiṣ al‑Nasāʾī, p. 19] 6. On the occasion of closing the doors of the Mosque: On the day when the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny commanded that all doors opening into the Mosque (the Prophet’s Mosque) be closed except the door of ʿAlī, Jābir ibn ʿAbd Allāh al‑Anṣārī narrates that the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny said to ʿAlī: إنَّه يحلُّ لك من المسجد ما يحلُّ لي، وإنَّك منِّي بمنزلة هارون من موسى إلا أنَّه لا نبيَّ بعدي [Reported in: Yanābīʿ al‑Mawaddah, ch. 17, end section, p. 88, 2nd ed., Dār al‑Kutub al‑ʿIrāqiyyah] “What is lawful for me in the mosque is lawful for you, for your position with respect to me is that of Hārūn with respect to Mūsā.” The six occasions cited above are in addition to the Battle of Tabūk. All of them have been transmitted from well‑known Sunni sources. Otherwise, Shiʿi works record even more occasions on which the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny repeatedly pronounced this very ḥadīth regarding ʿAlī (peace be upon him). From this it becomes clear that the view expressed by some Sunni scholars, such as al‑Āmidī, who claim that this ḥadīth pertains to a specific circumstance and establishes only temporary succession during the Battle of Tabūk with no relevance to other contexts, is entirely unfounded. The repeated use of this statement on various occasions clearly demonstrates that it was a general and enduring declaration made by the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny regarding the station of ʿAlī (peace be upon him).

If one reflects upon the above‑mentioned ḥadīth without prejudice and removes every lens of bias, this narration clearly conveys that—apart from prophethood—all the positions that Hārūn possessed in relation to Mūsā were likewise possessed by ʿAlī (peace be upon him) in relation to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny. This is because the wording of the ḥadīth is general, and the phrase “إلا أنّه لا نبيَّ بعدي” further reinforces this generality. Beyond this explicit exception, no other restriction or condition appears in the ḥadīth that would justify limiting its scope. Therefore, the following points can be legitimately derived from this narration: 1. ʿAlī (peace be upon him), after the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, was the most excellent and most exalted individual within the community of Muḥammad, just as Hārūn (peace be upon him) was the most excellent and most exalted person in the Mosaic community after Mūsā. 2. ʿAlī (peace be upon him) was the minister of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, his special assistant, supporter, and partner in the mission of guidance, because according to the Qur’an all these positions were established for Hārūn (peace be upon him), as expressed in the supplication of Mūsā: قَالَ رَبِّ اشْرَحْ لِی صَدْرِی وَیَسِّرْ لِی اَمْرِی وَاحْلُلْ عُقْدَةً مِنْ لِسَانِی یَفْقَھُوا قَوْلِی وَاجْعَلْ لِی وَزِیرًا مِنْ اَھْلِی ھَارُونَ اَخِی اشْدُدْ بِہِ اَزْرِی وَاَشْرِکْہُ فِی اَمْرِی (Sūrat Ṭā Hā, verses 29–32) “Appoint for me a minister from my family—my brother Hārūn; strengthen my support through him, and make him a شریک in my mission.” 3. ʿAlī (peace be upon him), in addition to general Islamic brotherhood, also possessed a special and spiritual brotherhood with the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. 4. ʿAlī (peace be upon him) was the successor and caliph of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. In his presence, no one else had the right to become the caliph of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, just as no one else held the right of succession in the presence of Hārūn (peace be upon him).

Some partisans have raised certain frivolous objections against the above‑mentioned ḥadīth that are in fact hardly worth committing to writing. At most, one can only express regret that some people form one‑sided opinions so quickly that their faculty of sound judgment is crippled, rendering them incapable of perceiving clear truths. Nevertheless, among the objections that deserve to be recorded and discussed, a few are briefly noted here. First objection: It is claimed that this ḥadīth conveys only a restricted and specific ruling because it was uttered on the occasion of the Battle of Tabūk—at a time when ʿAlī (peace be upon him) was distressed at being left behind in Medina among women and children. According to this view, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny merely uttered this statement to console ʿAlī, with the intent that his authority and leadership were limited to women and children alone. The response to this objection has already become clear from the foregoing discussion, because the assumption that this ḥadīth was pronounced only on the occasion of Tabūk is entirely incorrect. It has been conclusively established that the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny repeatedly uttered this statement concerning ʿAlī (peace be upon him) on numerous occasions as a general and comprehensive principle, seven of which have already been cited from authoritative Sunni sources. Moreover, ʿAlī’s remaining in Medina was not merely for safeguarding women and children. Had that been the sole purpose, many other individuals could have fulfilled it. Why, then, would someone as brave and formidable as ʿAlī have been required—especially at a time when the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny was facing a major military confrontation (the looming conflict with the Byzantine Empire)? Clearly, the true intent behind appointing ʿAlī as deputy was to prevent enemies around Medina and hypocrites within the city from exploiting the Prophet’s prolonged absence to seize control. The only individual capable of reliably guarding such a critical center was ʿAlī (peace be upon him). Second objection: It is commonly stated—and recorded in well‑known historical works—that Hārūn (peace be upon him) passed away during the lifetime of Mūsā (peace be upon him). Therefore, the analogy of ʿAlī to Hārūn cannot establish that ʿAlī was the Prophet’s successor after his death. This objection appears, at first glance, to be the most substantial among those raised. However, the concluding phrase of the ḥadīth—“إلا أنّه لا نبيَّ بعدي” (“except that there is no prophet after me”)—provides a clear and decisive answer. If the statement “أنت منّي بمنزلة هارون من موسى” were intended to apply only during the Prophet’s lifetime and had no relevance beyond it, there would have been no need to add “إلا أنّه لا نبيَّ بعدي”. In such a case, mentioning what occurs after the Prophet would be entirely inappropriate, and such an exception would be logically incoherent. Thus, the presence of this exception is itself an explicit proof that the Prophet’s statement also pertains to the period after his passing—except that no one should mistakenly believe that ʿAlī was to be regarded as a prophet after him. Accordingly, the meaning of the Prophet’s words is: “O ʿAlī! You possess all the ranks and offices of Hārūn—not only during my lifetime but also after my death—except for prophethood.” It thereby becomes evident that the analogy between ʿAlī and Hārūn pertains to rank and office, not to the duration of office. The proof of this lies in the fact that had Hārūn lived after Mūsā, he would undoubtedly have been his successor and would have remained a prophet. Therefore, when one considers the Qur’anic texts that affirm Hārūn’s role as minister, assistant, and partner in leadership to Mūsā—along with his prophethood—it becomes clear that all of these positions, except prophethood, are established for ʿAlī (peace be upon him), even after the passing of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, as confirmed by the phrase “إلا أنّه لا نبيَّ بعدي”. Third objection: Another objection raised is that accepting this ḥadīth as proof would imply acknowledgment of ʿAlī’s authority over the Muslim community during the Prophet’s lifetime, whereas two independent leaders cannot exist simultaneously. The answer lies in recognizing that although Hārūn also held leadership among the Children of Israel during Mūsā’s lifetime, he was not an independent leader. Rather, he functioned under Mūsā’s authority and supervision. Similarly, ʿAlī (peace be upon him) served as the Prophet’s deputy and assistant in the leadership of the Muslim community during his lifetime, while after the Prophet’s passing, his leadership would become independent. In conclusion, the Ḥadīth al‑Manzilah, which is among the strongest narrations in Islam in terms of transmission and is recorded—without exception—in the authoritative works of all Sunni schools, is also fully sufficient in its meaning to establish both the superiority of ʿAlī (peace be upon him) over the entire community and his immediate succession after the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Yet it is astonishing that some individuals not only refuse to accept its indication regarding succession, but even claim that it establishes no virtue whatsoever for ʿAlī—an assertion that is truly perplexing.

In these verses, as well as in the verses that follow, certain further scenes from the life of the Children of Israel are presented. One of these scenes is that a group among the Children of Israel insisted strongly that they be allowed to see God; otherwise, they declared, they would never believe. Accordingly, Moses (peace be upon him) selected seventy men from among them and took them along to the appointed place of meeting with the Lord. Upon arriving there, he presented their request before God. A response was given from God that made the matter entirely clear for the Children of Israel. Portions of this event are mentioned in Sūrat al‑Baqarah (verses 55–56), other parts in Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ (verse 153), some in the verses under discussion here, and the remainder in verse 155 of this same sūrah. In the verses under discussion, it is first stated that when Moses came to Our appointed place and his Lord spoke with him, he said: “My Lord, show Yourself to me so that I may look upon You” وَلَمَّا جَاءَ مُوسَىٰ لِمِيقَاتِنَا وَكَلَّمَهُ رَبُّهُ قَالَ رَبِّ أَرِنِي أَنظُرْ إِلَيْكَ. Moses immediately received this response from God: “You will never see Me” قَالَ لَنْ تَرَانِي. “But look toward the mountain; if it remains firmly in its place, then you will see Me” وَلَٰكِنِ انظُرْ إِلَى الْجَبَلِ فَإِنِ اسْتَقَرَّ مَكَانَهُ فَسَوْفَ تَرَانِي. “When his Lord manifested Himself to the mountain, He reduced it to dust and leveled it” فَلَمَّا تَجَلَّىٰ رَبُّهُ لِلْجَبَلِ جَعَلَهُ دَكًّا. When Moses witnessed this overwhelming and terrifying scene, such agitation overtook him that he lost consciousness and fell to the ground وَخَرَّ مُوسَىٰ صَعِقًا. “And when he regained consciousness, he said: ‘Glory be to You! I turn to You in repentance, and I am the first of the believers’” فَلَمَّا أَفَاقَ قَالَ سُبْحَانَكَ تُبْتُ إِلَيْكَ وَأَنَا أَوَّلُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ.

1. Why did Moses (peace be upon him) request the vision? The question that arises here is this: how could a prophet of great stature such as Moses (peace be upon him), who knew very well that the Divine Essence is not visible—since God is neither a body nor confined to place or direction—express such a request, which in reality would not even be appropriate for an ordinary human being? Although exegetes have offered various answers to this question, the clearest explanation is that Moses (peace be upon him) made this request on behalf of his people. A group among the ignorant members of the Children of Israel insisted that they would believe only if they saw God openly (as attested by Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ, verse 153). Moses (peace be upon him) was instructed by God to present this request before the Divine Presence so that all might hear the response. A narration reported from Imām al‑Riḍā (peace be upon him) in ʿUyūn Akhbār al‑Riḍā also supports this interpretation. One of the clear indications of this interpretation is found in verse 155 of this same sūrah, where, after this incident, Moses (peace be upon him) supplicates: أَتُهْلِكُنَا بِمَا فَعَلَ السُّفَهَاءُ مِنَّا—“Will You destroy us because of what the foolish among us have done?” This shows that Moses himself did not desire this request, nor did the seventy men who accompanied him to the appointed place, for they were selected elders and scholars of the Children of Israel. Their purpose was to observe the events and later report their observations to the rest of the community. 2. Is seeing God possible? In the verse under discussion, God says to Moses: “Look at the mountain; if it remains in its place, then you will see Me.” Does this imply that seeing God is possible? The answer is no. This wording is intended to demonstrate impossibility, similar to the Qur’anic expression elsewhere: حَتَّىٰ يَلِجَ الْجَمَلُ فِي سَمِّ الْخِيَاطِ The disbelievers will not enter Paradise until a camel passes through the eye of a needle. Since it is impossible for the mountain to remain intact under the Divine manifestation, this conditional phrase serves to illustrate the impossibility of vision. 3. What is meant by Divine manifestation (tajallī)? At this point, much discussion has taken place among exegetes. What appears clear from the context of the verses is that God cast a manifestation of one of His created realities upon the mountain (and the appearance of its effects stands in place of direct appearance). The question then arises: was this manifestation one of God’s immense signs unknown to us, a tremendous form of atomic energy, a powerful seismic wave among hidden forces, or a massive ṣāʿiqah (thunderbolt) that struck the mountain, dazzling the eyes of observers, producing an awe‑inspiring sound and immense force that shattered the mountain? Through this event, God intended to demonstrate two realities to Moses (peace be upon him) and the Children of Israel. First, that if a servant cannot withstand observing a single created manifestation of God, how could he observe the Creator Himself? Second, that this created phenomenon—whatever its nature—was itself a great Divine sign, not directly observable in essence, but known through its effects, such as earthquakes, terrifying sound, and light. The underlying cause of these effects—whether concealed waves or atomic power—was itself not visible or perceptible by the senses. Yet no one denies its existence merely because only its effects are observed. If this is true for created forces, how can one deny belief in God merely because He is not directly observable, when the universe is filled with His effects? Another interpretation has also been mentioned: that Moses (peace be upon him) genuinely sought vision for himself, but not with physical sight—which would imply corporeality and is unsuitable for his rank—but rather an inner, spiritual vision: a complete inner witnessing and intellectual unveiling, as the term ruʾyah is often used metaphorically in this sense. For example, one may say, “I see within myself the capacity to accomplish this task,” although capacity itself is not visible. According to this interpretation, Moses desired a level of spiritual witnessing that is impossible to attain in this world and is reserved for the Hereafter, the realm of full manifestation. God’s response, then, would mean that such vision is not possible in this world, and the manifestation upon the mountain served as proof. Moses then expressed repentance for having made such a request. However, this interpretation conflicts with the apparent meaning of the verse in several respects and requires figurative interpretation on multiple levels. It contradicts the wording رُؤْيَة, لَنْ تَرَانِي, and أَتُهْلِكُنَا بِمَا فَعَلَ السُّفَهَاءُ مِنَّا, and it is also inconsistent with the fact that requesting inner witnessing is not a blameworthy act requiring repentance—especially since Abraham (peace be upon him) made a similar request regarding resurrection and received a positive response. Moreover, if the request were merely for inner witnessing, there would be no basis for reproach even if the response were negative. Additionally, this interpretation contradicts several narrations transmitted regarding this verse. Therefore, the first interpretation remains the correct one. 4. From what did Moses (peace be upon him) repent? The final question is why Moses, upon regaining consciousness, said سُبْحَانَكَ تُبْتُ إِلَيْكَ, even though he had committed no disobedience. If he made the request on behalf of his community, what fault was his? He presented the request by God’s command, and if he had desired inner witnessing for himself, that too was not contrary to divine command. So what was the repentance for? This question can be answered in two ways. First, Moses acted as the representative of the Children of Israel in presenting the question; when the severe divine response clarified the error of the request, his repentance was likewise on their behalf. Second, although Moses was commanded to present the request, once the manifestation occurred and the truth was made evident, his commission ended. At that point, he returned to his own original stance and expressed his faith anew so that no doubt might remain. This return is conveyed through his repentance and the declaration وَأَنَا أَوَّلُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ. 5. God can never be seen in any form. This verse is among the clearest Qur’anic proofs that vision of God is impossible. The word لَنْ is used—according to the well‑known rule—for absolute negation; thus لَنْ تَرَانِي means “you will never see Me,” in this world or the next. Even if one were to deny that لَنْ implies permanent negation, the verse still negates vision without any qualification or condition, which itself proves that the Divine Essence is not visible in any state or time. Rational proofs also confirm this impossibility, since vision pertains only to bodies. Thus, when the Qur’an or Islamic traditions speak of “meeting the Lord,” what is meant is inner vision and intellectual witnessing, as supported by both rational and textual evidence.

See ayat 145 for tafseer.

Finally, at this great appointed meeting, God revealed the laws of His divine law to Moses (peace be upon him). He first said to him: “O Moses! I have chosen you above the people by My messages and by My speaking with you” قَالَ يَا مُوسَىٰ إِنِّي اصْطَفَيْتُكَ عَلَى النَّاسِ بِرِسَالَاتِي وَبِكَلَامِي. Now that this is so, “take hold of what I have given you and be among the grateful ones” فَخُذْ مَا آتَيْتُكَ وَكُن مِّنَ الشَّاكِرِينَ. Does this verse indicate that the honor of divine speech granted to Moses was exclusively his distinction and that no other prophet was granted this honor? In fact, this verse does not establish such exclusivity. Rather, the contextual indication of the word “رسالات” shows that these distinctions were in contrast to ordinary human beings, because the rank of messengership was not exclusive to Moses alone. It is then added: We inscribed for him upon the Tablets, concerning every matter, admonition and detailed clarification of all necessary issues وَكَتَبْنَا لَهُ فِي الْأَلْوَاحِ مِن كُلِّ شَيْءٍ مَّوْعِظَةً وَتَفْصِيلًا لِّكُلِّ شَيْءٍ. Then Moses was commanded: “Take them with strength and firm resolve” فَخُذْهَا بِقُوَّةٍ, and “command your people to adopt what is best in them” وَأْمُرْ قَوْمَكَ يَأْخُذُوا بِأَحْسَنِهَا, and warn them that opposition to these commands and evasion of obedience will lead to a painful end, whose outcome is Hell, and “I shall soon show you the abode of the transgressors” سَأُرِيكُمْ دَارَ الْفَاسِقِينَ.

1. Of what material were the Tablets (al‑Alwāḥ) made? The apparent meaning of this verse is that the Tablets upon which the law and commandments of the Torah were written were themselves revealed by God to Moses (peace be upon him); it was not the case that Moses was holding tablets upon which the commands merely appeared. As for the question of what these Tablets were like or of what substance they were made, the Qur’an provides no explicit clarification. It merely uses the word الواح, in a concise manner, which is derived from the root لاح – يلوح, meaning “to become manifest” or “to shine forth.” Since writing on a surface causes letters to become visible and meanings to be revealed, the surface on which writing appears is called a لوح. Although transmitted reports and exegetical opinions mention various possibilities regarding the nature and substance of these Tablets, since none of these reports is definitive, they are not discussed here. 2. How did the Divine speech occur? From various Qur’anic verses it is understood that God, exalted is He, spoke with Moses (peace be upon him). The Divine speech addressed to Moses took the form of created sound‑waves, either in the surrounding atmosphere or through a physical medium. At times these sound‑waves manifested from the شجرة الوادي الأيمن, and at times they reached Moses’ hearing from طور سيناء. Those who have focused merely on the wording of the verses, without considering the locus from which the speech originated, have imagined that Divine speech implies corporeality. This notion is unfounded, because Divine speech does not mean that speech emanates from God Himself, but rather that God creates speech within a created entity. There is, however, no doubt that whenever Moses heard that speech, he knew with certainty that it was God’s utterance—either through direct inspiration or by other accompanying indications. 3. The Torah was not a final message. Because the Torah is described with the expression من كل شيء موعظة, this indicates that it did not contain every admonition and every ruling in an absolute sense; rather, it contained admonition from every category needed at that time. This is because Moses’ law was not the final divine dispensation, nor was he the final prophet. Accordingly, the divine commandments revealed then corresponded to the capacity of people of that era. When humanity, through successive prophetic teachings, reached the final stage of intellectual and spiritual capacity, the final divine message—encompassing all material and spiritual needs of humankind—was revealed. From this, it becomes clear why some narrations state that the rank of Ali (peace be upon him) is higher than that of Moses (peace be upon him): Ali was endowed with knowledge of the entire Qur’an, concerning which it is stated ونزلنا عليك الكتاب تبياناً لكل شيء, whereas the Torah addressed only certain matters. 4. What is meant by “take what is best”? When the verse states يَأْخُذُوا بِأَحْسَنِهَا, does this mean that among the commandments there were good and bad elements, and the people were commanded to select the good and abandon the bad? Or does it mean that there were degrees of goodness—good and better—and they were instructed to choose the better? The answer is that this expression does not necessarily imply comparison. The form afʿal al‑tafḍīl can also function as a descriptive adjective rather than a comparative one. In this verse, أحسن appears to be used in this latter sense, meaning “good,” indicating that all the commandments are good and virtuous. Another possible reading is that أحسن retains its comparative meaning, indicating that some rulings were permissions (such as retribution), whereas others were preferable options (such as forgiveness). In that case, it would mean that the people were instructed, as much as possible, to adopt what is better. (It is also possible that the pronoun in أحسنها refers back to قوة, meaning that the commandments should be taken up with the best and strongest resolve.) 5. The meaning of “سَأُرِيكُمْ دَارَ الْفَاسِقِينَ”. Apparently, this refers to Hell, the abode of those who have deviated from obedience to God and His commands. Some exegetes have also suggested that it may refer to the worldly fate of rebellious nations such as the people of Pharaoh, meaning that if these commands are violated, the land itself will become the dwelling place of transgressors.

See ayat 147 for tafseer.

In these two verses, the discussion in fact presents the conclusion of the preceding verses in which the fate of Pharaoh, the Pharaohians, and the rebellious elements among the Children of Israel was described. In these verses, God the Exalted clarifies the reality that if Pharaoh or the rebellious individuals among the Children of Israel did not return to the right path after witnessing so many miracles and hearing such abundant divine signs, it was because of Our law: those who deliberately array themselves against the truth are deprived, as a consequence of their own deeds, of the capacity to accept the truth. In other words, persistent rebellion and denial of divine signs exert such an influence upon the human soul that it becomes like a hardened entity upon which nothing has any effect. First it is stated: سَاَصْرِفُ عَنْ آیَاتِی الَّذِینَ یَتَکَبَّرُونَ فِی الْاَرْضِ بِغَیْرِ الْحَقِّ — “I shall soon turn away from My signs those who behave arrogantly on the earth without right.” From this it becomes clear that this verse does not contradict rational principles, such that one would need, as some exegetes have done, to depart from the apparent meaning of the text. Rather, it reflects a divine law: those who persistently oppose the truth and reach the furthest bounds of obstinacy are stripped by God of all forms of divine enablement. In reality, this is a consequence of their own corrupt actions; however, since God is the ultimate cause of all causes, He has attributed this effect to Himself. This matter neither entails compulsion nor gives rise to any other theoretical difficulty that would require reinterpretation. It should also be noted that the qualification بِغَیْرِ الْحَقِّ following the word تکبر is for emphasis, for arrogance, self‑conceit, and contempt for other servants of God are always unjustified. This expression is similar to that found in Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 61: وَیَقْتُلُونَ النَّبِیِّیْنَ بِغَیْرِ الْحَقِّ — “they killed the prophets without right.” The association of this phrase with فِی الْاَرْضِ further emphasizes rebellion and corruption upon the earth, which is invariably illegitimate. Thereafter, three characteristics of such arrogant and rebellious individuals are mentioned, illustrating how the capacity to accept the truth is taken from them. It is stated that even if they witness every divine sign, they will not believe in it: وَإِنْ یَرَوْا کُلَّ آیَةٍ لَایُؤْمِنُوا بِھَا. And if they see the path of guidance, they will not adopt it: وَإِنْ یَرَوْا سَبِیلَ الرُّشْدِ لَایَتَّخِذُوہُ سَبِیلًا. On the contrary, if they see the path of error, they will adopt it: وَإِنْ یَرَوْا سَبِیلَ الغَیِّ یَتَّخِذُوہُ سَبِیلًا. After mentioning these traits, the reason for this condition is stated: ذٰلِکَ بِاَنَّھُمْ کَذَّبُوا بِآیَاتِنَا وَکَانُوا عَنْھَا غَافِلِینَ — this is because they denied Our signs and remained heedless of them. There is no doubt that denying divine signs once or a few times does not in itself render a person unworthy of accepting the truth; the door of repentance remains open. However, when such denial is accompanied by continual insistence and persistence, a stage is eventually reached in which the ability to distinguish between good and evil, guidance and misguidance (رُشد and غیّ), is entirely lost. The following verse explains the punishment of such individuals. It states: وَالَّذِینَ کَذَّبُوا بِآیَاتِنَا وَلِقَاءِ الْآخِرَةِ حَبِطَتْ اَعْمَالُھُمْ — those who denied Our signs and the meeting of the Hereafter, all their deeds are rendered null and void. The word حبط signifies the invalidation and inefficacy of deeds; that is, even if such people perform outwardly good actions, no beneficial outcome will result for them. At the end of the verse, it is emphasized that this outcome is not the result of any personal vengeance, but purely the consequence of their own actions: ھَلْ یُجْزَوْنَ إِلاَّ مَا کَانُوا یَعْمَلُونَ — “Are they recompensed for anything other than what they themselves used to do?” This verse is among those that clearly establish that on the Day of Resurrection, recompense is strictly based upon human deeds, in contrast to doctrines of absolute determinism which claim that actions have no role in reward and punishment.

See ayat 149 for tafseer.

In these verses, one of the most sorrowful and astonishing incidents is mentioned—an incident that occurred among the Children of Israel after Moses (peace be upon him) had departed for the appointed meeting. This incident was the worship of the calf, initiated by a man known as “al‑Sāmirī”, who employed the ornaments and jewelry of the Children of Israel for this purpose. The significance of this episode is such that the Qur’an has mentioned it in four different sūrahs: Sūrat al‑Baqarah (verses 51, 54, 92), Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ (verse 153), Sūrat al‑Aʿrāf (the verses under discussion), and Sūrat Ṭā Hā (verse 88 and the verses that follow). Certainly, like other major collective events, this incident did not occur without prior conditions and preparation; rather, multiple factors contributed to it. Among them were the following: for a long time, the Children of Israel had been witnessing the idol‑worship of the Egyptians. When they crossed the Nile, they encountered a people engaged in idol‑worship, as explicitly mentioned by the Qur’an. In the preceding verses, it was also stated that the Children of Israel asked Moses (peace be upon him) to make idols for them similar to those of that people, for which Moses sternly reproached them. The initial appointment of thirty nights for Moses’ meeting, later extended to forty nights, provided certain hypocrites with the opportunity to spread rumors of Moses’ death. Another factor was the presence of ignorance and lack of understanding among many members of the community of Moses. In contrast, there was the cunning and skill of the Sāmirī, who very cleverly implemented the program of idol‑worship. Altogether, these factors combined in such a way that the majority of the Children of Israel accepted idol‑worship, and turmoil arose around the calf and its worshippers. In the verse under discussion, the Qur’an first states: after Moses went to the appointed place, the people of Moses fashioned from their ornaments a calf—a lifeless body that produced a lowing sound—and adopted it for themselves وَاتَّخَذَ قَوْمُ مُوسَىٰ مِن بَعْدِهِ مِنْ حُلِيِّهِمْ عِجْلًا جَسَدًا لَهُ خُوَارٌ. Although this action was performed by the Sāmirī (as detailed in the verses of Sūrat Ṭā Hā), the act is attributed to the people of Moses because many among them supported him in this deed and were partners in the crime; in addition, a large portion of the people approved of his action. The apparent wording of the verse suggests that the entire community of Moses participated in this calf‑worship. However, when one considers verse 159 of this same sūrah— وَمِنْ قَوْمِ مُوسَىٰ أُمَّةٌ يَهْدُونَ بِالْحَقِّ وَبِهِ يَعْدِلُونَ — it becomes clear that there was also a group among the people of Moses who guided others toward the truth and remained committed to it. Thus, it is evident that the verse under discussion does not refer to the entirety of the community of Moses, but rather that the majority was so large that Aaron (peace be upon him), together with those who supported him, became weak and unable to overcome them.

The word خُوَار refers to the specific sound produced by a cow or a calf. Some exegetes are of the view that al‑Sāmirī, being a technically skilled individual, employed his knowledge to conceal certain pipes (PIPE) within the chest of the golden calf in such a way that when air passed through them, a cow‑like sound was produced due to air pressure. Others hold that the mouth of the calf was fashioned in a complex manner so that when it was placed facing the direction of the wind, this sound emerged from it. Another point deserving attention here is that al‑Sāmirī recognized that the community of Moses (peace be upon him), having lived for a long time under deprivation and oppression, possessed a strong inclination toward materialism and love of wealth—an inclination observable even today among them. He therefore acted cleverly by crafting the idol out of gold so as to attract their attention as much as possible. As for the question of where this deprived and impoverished people obtained such a quantity of gold and jewelry to fashion such a statue, the response found in reports is that on the occasion of a festival, the women of the Children of Israel had borrowed ornaments from the Egyptians. This occurred shortly before the Egyptians were drowned, and the jewelry remained with those women thereafter. Thereafter, the Qur’an reproaches them, saying: did they not see that this calf could neither speak to them nor guide them along a path? اَلَمْ يَرَوْا اَنَّہُ لَايُكَلِّمُهُمْ وَلَايَهْدِيهِمْ سَبِيلًا The meaning is that a true deity must at minimum possess discernment between good and evil and must be capable of guiding its followers. It must be able to speak to those who worship it and instruct them in the manner of worship. How, in principle, can human reason permit the worship of such a lifeless deity that is itself fashioned by human hands? Even if, hypothetically, that gold were transformed into a living calf, it would still not be worthy of worship. A calf is a symbol of foolishness and lack of understanding. In this way, they committed injustice against themselves. Hence the verse concludes: they adopted the calf as their deity, and they were wrongdoers. اتَّخَذُوهُ وَكَانُوا ظَالِمِينَ However, when Moses (peace be upon him) returned and matters became clear, the Children of Israel realized their error and regretted what they had done. They sought forgiveness from God for their wrongful act and said: “If our Lord does not show mercy to us and forgive us, we shall certainly be among the losers.” وَلَمَّا سُقِطَ فِي أَيْدِيهِمْ وَرَأَوْا أَنَّهُمْ قَدْ ضَلُّوا قَالُوا لَئِنْ لَمْ يَرْحَمْنَا رَبُّنَا وَيَغْفِرْ لَنَا لَنَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ The expression وَلَمَّا سُقِطَ فِي أَيْدِيهِمْ—that is, “when the reality came into their hands,” or “when the consequence of their evil deeds came upon them,” or “when all avenues were closed to them”—is an idiomatic expression in Arabic literature signifying remorse and regret. When events come into a person’s grasp and the truth becomes known, or when one encounters the undesirable consequences of one’s actions, or when all means of remedy are exhausted, the inevitable result is regret. Thus, remorse is an inherent implication of this expression. In any case, the Children of Israel repented for what they had done. However, the matter does not end here, as will become evident in the verses that follow.

See ayat 151 for tafseer.

In these two verses, the episode of the confrontation and dispute between Moses (peace be upon him) and the worshippers of the calf is described—an episode that took place when he returned from the appointed meeting, to which the preceding verse had only alluded. In these verses, the intense reaction shown by Moses in order to awaken that group is presented in detail. First it is stated that when Moses returned to his people in anger and sorrow and witnessed the detestable scene of calf‑worship, he said to them: you turned out to be evil successors after me; you ruined my religion وَلَمَّا رَجَعَ مُوسَىٰ إِلَىٰ قَوْمِهِ غَضْبَانَ أَسِفًا قَالَ بِئْسَمَا خَلَفْتُمُونِي مِن بَعْدِي. This verse clearly shows that Moses (peace be upon him), even before meeting the Children of Israel upon his return from the divine appointment, was already overwhelmed by anger and grief. This was because God had informed him of the situation at the appointed meeting; as the Qur’an states: قَالَ فَإِنَّا قَدْ فَتَنَّا قَوْمَكَ مِن بَعْدِكَ وَأَضَلَّهُمُ السَّامِرِيُّ (Sūrat Ṭā Hā, verse 85) It was said: We tested your people after you, but they failed that trial, and al‑Sāmirī led them astray. After this, Moses said to them: did you act hastily regarding the command of your Lord? أَعَجِلْتُمْ أَمْرَ رَبِّكُمْ Although exegetes have discussed this phrase extensively and proposed various interpretations, the apparent meaning of these verses is that you hastily judged God’s command when the appointed time was extended from thirty nights to forty nights; you assumed my delay meant my death or breach of promise, whereas it was necessary to exercise patience for a few more days so that the reality could become clear. At that moment, Moses (peace be upon him) was passing through extremely turbulent and critical moments in the history of the Children of Israel. From head to toe he was aflame with anger and profound sorrow. A great grief overshadowed his entire being, and he was deeply anxious about the future of the Children of Israel, because destruction and corruption occur easily—sometimes a single individual can cause immense ruin—but reform and reconstruction require time. Especially when a false tune is played among an ignorant, fanatical, and obstinate people, eliminating its harmful effects becomes extremely difficult. The Qur’an describes the intense reaction Moses displayed upon witnessing this turbulent and disastrous scene: Moses involuntarily cast the Tablets of the Torah to the ground and seized his brother Aaron by the head, pulling him toward himself وَأَلْقَى الْأَلْوَاحَ وَأَخَذَ بِرَأْسِ أَخِيهِ يَجُرُّهُ إِلَيْهِ. As is evident from other Qur’anic verses—particularly those of Sūrat Ṭā Hā—Moses not only did this, but also reproached Aaron severely and cried out loudly: did you fall short in protecting the beliefs of the Children of Israel and disobey my command? (Sūrat Ṭā Hā, verses 92–93) In reality, Moses’ reaction on the one hand reflected his inner turmoil, agitation, and extreme anger arising from the idolatry of the Children of Israel; on the other hand, it served as an effective means to jolt their intellects and draw their attention to the gravity of their deed. Thus, even if casting down the Tablets and severely reproaching his brother might appear objectionable at first glance, deeper reflection shows that had Moses not displayed such a passionate and forceful reaction, the Children of Israel would never have grasped the seriousness and danger of their error. The harmful effects of this idolatry might have remained entrenched in their minds. Therefore, Moses’ actions were not only free of error, but in fact necessary. This makes it clear that there is no need for those interpretations advanced by some exegetes who attempt to reconcile Moses’ reaction with the concept of prophetic infallibility. Rather, it may be said that Moses became more enraged in this incident than at any other time in the history of the Children of Israel, because before him stood the most dreadful spectacle: the Children of Israel had abandoned monotheism and embraced calf‑worship, thereby nullifying all the immense efforts Moses had made to guide them. In such a situation, letting the Tablets fall from his hands and sharply reprimanding his brother were entirely natural. This intense display of anger and indignation had a powerful educational impact upon the Children of Israel and completely transformed the situation. Had Moses spoken gently, it is possible that it would have produced little or no effect at all. Thereafter, the Qur’an relates that Aaron (peace be upon him), in order to arouse Moses’ compassion and to declare his own innocence, said: O son of my mother! This ignorant people weakened me, and they nearly killed me. So do not allow enemies to rejoice over me, and do not place me among the wrongdoing people قَالَ ابْنَ أُمَّ إِنَّ الْقَوْمَ اسْتَضْعَفُونِي وَكَادُوا يَقْتُلُونَنِي فَلَا تُشْمِتْ بِيَ الْأَعْدَاءَ وَلَا تَجْعَلْنِي مَعَ الْقَوْمِ الظَّالِمِينَ. In this verse the expression ابن أم (or in Sūrat Ṭā Hā, verse 94, يا ابن أم) is used—meaning “O son of my mother”—even though Moses and Aaron shared the same father as well. This was done to evoke affection and soften Moses’ heart. In any case, this strategy proved effective, the Children of Israel became aware of their mistake, and they expressed their desire for repentance. At this point, the fire of anger within Moses subsided, and he turned toward the Divine Presence and said: My Lord, forgive me and my brother, and admit us into Your boundless mercy; You are the most merciful of those who show mercy قَالَ رَبِّ اغْفِرْ لِي وَلِأَخِي وَأَدْخِلْنَا فِي رَحْمَتِكَ وَأَنتَ أَرْحَمُ الرَّاحِمِينَ. His seeking forgiveness for himself and his brother was not due to any sin they had committed; rather, it was an expression of humility and submission before God, a return toward Him, and a declaration of dissociation from the vile acts of the idol‑worshippers. It also serves as a model for all people, prompting reflection: if Moses and his brother—who committed no transgression—stand trembling before God in such humility, then we should surely take lesson, examine our deeds, return to the Lord of the worlds, and seek forgiveness for our sins, just as the Children of Israel themselves did, as indicated in the preceding verses.

As is evident from the above verses as well as from the verses of Sūrat Ṭā Hā, the “calf” was neither fashioned by the Children of Israel themselves nor by Aaron (peace be upon him). Rather, according to the verses of Sūrat Ṭā Hā, this act was carried out by a man from among the Children of Israel named al‑Sāmirī. Aaron (peace be upon him), who was the brother of Moses and his helper, did not remain silent in the face of this deviation; instead, he exerted his utmost effort to prevent it—so much so that he nearly lost his life at their hands. What is striking, however, is that in the present version of the Torah, both the making of the calf and the call to idol‑worship are attributed to Aaron (peace be upon him). Thus, in the Book of Exodus, chapter 32, the following account is found: when the people of Moses saw that Moses delayed in descending from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said to him: “Come, make for us a god who shall go before us; for as for Moses, this man who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him.” Aaron said to them: “Take off the golden earrings which are in the ears of your wives and your sons and your daughters, and bring them to me.” Then all the people took off the earrings from their ears and brought them to Aaron. Aaron took them from their hands and said: “O Children of Israel! This is your god who brought you out of the land of Egypt…” Thereafter, the Torah describes the rituals that Aaron allegedly instituted for offering sacrifices before this idol. Subsequently, regarding the return of Moses and his anger, the Torah records: “And Moses said to Aaron: What did this people do to you that you have brought upon them so great a sin?” Aaron replied: “Let not the anger of my lord burn hot, for you know the people, that they are prone to evil…” What has been quoted above constitutes part of the narrative of the calf‑worship of the Children of Israel as contained in the Torah, reproduced here verbatim. This is noteworthy, especially considering that the Torah itself, in numerous chapters, affirms the elevated station of Aaron (peace be upon him). Among these affirmations are statements that certain of Moses’ miracles were manifested through Aaron (chapter 8 of Exodus) and that Aaron was introduced as a messenger alongside Moses (also in chapter 8 of Exodus). Nevertheless, despite acknowledging Aaron (peace be upon him) as the rightful deputy of Moses and the most knowledgeable authority in Mosaic law, the Torah presents a contradictory portrayal by depicting him not only as a maker of idols, but even as a founder of idol‑worship. Moreover, in accordance with the proverbial saying “an excuse worse than the crime itself,” it attributes to him a faulty justification—namely, that because the people were inclined to evil, he allowed them to follow that path. By contrast, the Qur’an regards both of these noble prophets as entirely pure and free from all forms of polytheism and idol‑worship. This is not the only instance in which the Qur’anic depiction of the lives of prophets reflects their sanctity and purity, while the present form of the Torah contains various myths and irreverent accounts concerning the sacred persons of prophets and messengers. According to our belief, one method of recognizing the authenticity and truth of the Qur’an and the corruption of the extant Torah and Gospel is precisely to compare how each portrays the history of the prophets. Such a comparison, in itself, reveals what is truth and what is falsehood.

As mentioned earlier, the intense reaction of Moses (peace be upon him) produced its effect. Those who had adopted calf‑worship—and they constituted the majority—regretted their deed. Their remorse has already been noted in the previous verse (149). However, because it might be imagined here that such remorse alone was sufficient for their forgiveness, the Qur’an adds the following clarification: “Indeed, those who took the calf as their deity will soon be afflicted by wrath from their Lord and humiliation in the life of this world” إِنَّ الَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا الْعِجْلَ سَيَنَالُهُمْ غَضَبٌ مِّن رَّبِّهِمْ وَذِلَّةٌ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا. Furthermore, in order to dispel the notion that this ruling was limited only to those particular people, it is stated: “And thus do We recompense those who fabricate falsehood” وَكَذٰلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُفْتَرِينَ. The expression اتَّخَذُوا is meant to indicate that idols in themselves possess no reality. It is merely the designation and selection by idol‑worshippers that lends idols an imagined personality and status. For this reason, the word عِجْل immediately follows—meaning that even after being chosen for worship, it remained nothing more than a calf. There remains the question of what is meant by this “wrath” and “humiliation.” The Qur’an does not explicate this here, mentioning it only briefly and moving on. However, it is possible that this refers to the misfortunes and hardships that befell them following this episode and prior to their rule in Jerusalem. Alternatively, it may refer to the divine command issued after this sin, whereby they were ordered, as a form of expiation, to kill one another—details of which have already been discussed earlier in this work. At this point, one might ask: we have heard that true repentance is realized through sincere remorse; when they expressed regret and repentance, why, then, did divine pardon not immediately encompass them? The answer is that there is no evidence to suggest that remorse alone is sufficient for the forgiveness of every sin. It is true that remorse is an essential pillar of repentance, but it is only one of its pillars, not repentance in its complete form. The sin of idolatry—and prostration to the calf—especially on such a broad and pervasive scale, followed by apostasy within such a brief period (forty days), committed by a people who had witnessed so many miracles, was not a trivial offense that could be wiped away by merely uttering استغفر الله. Rather, it was necessary that this community witness the wrath of the Lord with their own eyes, taste humiliation in this worldly life, and feel the lash reserved for those who fabricate lies against God, so that so grave a sin would never again even cross their minds. The following verse completes this subject by presenting it as a general principle: “But those who commit evil deeds, then repent thereafter (fulfilling all the conditions of repentance), and renew faith in God, and refrain from every form of polytheism and disobedience—then indeed your Lord, after that, is surely Forgiving, Merciful” وَالَّذِينَ عَمِلُوا السَّيِّئَاتِ ثُمَّ تَابُوا مِن بَعْدِهَا وَآمَنُوا إِنَّ رَبَّكَ مِن بَعْدِهَا لَغَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ.

See ayat 154 for tafseer.

See ayat 154 for tafseer.

1. Are the two verses above parenthetical statements, or a divine message to Moses (peace be upon him)? A question arises here: are the two verses mentioned above merely parenthetical remarks revealed to the Prophet Muhammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny within the narrative of the Children of Israel, serving as a reminder, or are they part of a divine message addressed to Moses (peace be upon him) after the episode of calf‑worship? Some exegetes have adopted the first view, while others have accepted the second. Those who support the first view argue on the basis of the phrase: إِنَّ رَبَّکَ مِنْ بَعْدِھَا لَغَفُورٌ رَحِیمٌ (“Indeed, your Lord, after that, is Forgiving, Merciful”), claiming that this is an address to the Prophet Muhammad PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Those who opt for the second view rely on the phrase سَیَنَالُھُمْ غَضَبٌ (“wrath will soon afflict them”), noting that it is expressed in the future tense. However, the apparent flow of the verses indicates that these statements form part of God’s address to Moses (peace be upon him) following the episode of calf‑worship, and the use of the future‑tense verb سَیَنَالُھُمْ is a strong indication in this regard. There is no impediment to understanding إِنَّ رَبَّکَ as an address to Moses (peace be upon him). The implied meaning is as if it were stated: “God said to Moses: those who…” 2. Why is faith mentioned after repentance in the verse, when repentance itself presupposes faith? The reason becomes clear when we recognize that after committing sin, the pillars of faith become weakened. Islamic traditions state: “When a person drinks wine, he does not possess faith at that moment; likewise, one who commits adultery is devoid of faith at the time of the act.” This means that faith loses its vitality, becoming dim and weakened. When repentance is sincerely performed, the flame of faith is rekindled and regains freshness and strength. It is also worth noting that in this verse only worldly humiliation is mentioned. This suggests that when these people expressed remorse for their polytheism and accepted worldly punishment, their repentance for this particular sin was accepted and their punishment in the Hereafter was lifted—although the burden of other sins may have remained. The final verse of the passage under discussion states: when the fury of Moses subsided—and when the outcome he had hoped for became evident—he picked up the Tablets of the Torah from the ground, Tablets whose inscription contained pure guidance and mercy, but guidance and mercy specifically for those who are conscious of their responsibility, fear their Lord, and submit to His command: وَلَمَّا سَکَتَ عَنْ مُوسَی الْغَضَبُ اَخَذَ الْاَلْوَاحَ وَفِی نُسْخَتِھَا ھُدًی وَرَحْمَةٌ لِلَّذِینَ ھُمْ لِرَبِّھِمْ یَرْھَبُونَ.

See ayat 156 for tafseer.

As indicated earlier, the intense reaction of Moses (peace be upon him) produced its intended effect. Those who had adopted calf‑worship—and they constituted the majority—repented of their actions. Their repentance has already been mentioned in the previous verse (149). However, since at this point it might be imagined that such remorse alone was sufficient for their forgiveness, the Qur’an adds the following clarification: “Indeed, those who took the calf as a deity will soon be overtaken by wrath from their Lord and humiliation in the life of this world” إِنَّ الَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا الْعِجْلَ سَيَنَالُهُمْ غَضَبٌ مِّن رَّبِّهِمْ وَذِلَّةٌ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا. To remove the misconception that this ruling is exclusive to those people alone, it further states: “And thus do We recompense those who fabricate falsehood” وَكَذٰلِكَ نَجْزِي الْمُفْتَرِينَ. The use of the expression اتَّخَذُوا points to the fact that an idol has no intrinsic reality. It is merely the designation and selection by idol‑worshippers that grants idols an imagined personality and status. For this reason, the term عِجْل immediately follows—indicating that even after being chosen for worship, it remained nothing more than a calf. As for the meaning of this “wrath” and “humiliation,” the Qur’an does not elaborate here and mentions it only briefly. It may allude to the misfortunes and hardships that befell them following this episode and before their establishment in Jerusalem. Alternatively, it may refer to the divine command issued after this sin, requiring them, as a form of expiation, to kill one another—details of which have already been discussed earlier in this work. At this juncture, one may ask: is it not the case that sincere remorse and regret bring about true repentance? Since they expressed remorse, why was divine pardon not immediately granted? The response is that there is no evidence establishing that remorse alone suffices for the forgiveness of every sin. While remorse is indeed a fundamental pillar of repentance, it is only one of its pillars and does not by itself constitute complete repentance. The sin of idolatry—worshipping the calf—especially on such a broad and entrenched scale, followed by apostasy within such a brief period (forty days), and committed by a people who had witnessed numerous miracles, was not a minor offense that could be erased simply by uttering استغفر الله. Rather, it was necessary that this community witness the wrath of the Lord with their own eyes, taste humiliation in this worldly life, and endure a measure of punishment distinctive to those who fabricate falsehood against God—so that the very thought of committing such a grave sin would not arise again. The subsequent verse completes this subject and presents it as a universal principle. It states: “But those who commit evil deeds and then repent thereafter (fulfilling all the conditions of repentance), and renew faith, then indeed your Lord, after that, is Forgiving, Merciful” وَالَّذِينَ عَمِلُوا السَّيِّئَاتِ ثُمَّ تَابُوا مِن بَعْدِهَا وَآمَنُوا إِنَّ رَبَّكَ مِن بَعْدِهَا لَغَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ.

The present verse is in fact an elaboration and completion of the preceding verse, in which the attributes of those who are encompassed by God’s vast mercy were mentioned—namely taqwā, the giving of zakāh, and faith in the divine signs. After listing these three fundamental qualities, this verse adds further clarification by mentioning additional attributes, foremost among them being obedience to the Messenger of Islam. This is because faith in God is inseparable from faith in the Messenger and obedience to him; likewise, taqwā and zakāh cannot attain completeness without following the guidance of the Messenger of God. Hence, it is stated that those who are worthy of this divine mercy are those who follow the Messenger sent by the Lord of the worlds الَّذِينَ يَتَّبِعُونَ الرَّسُولَ. Thereafter, God the Exalted mentions, in addition to his mission, six distinguishing characteristics of this Messenger: 1. He is a prophet of God النَّبِيَّ. A nabī is one who conveys the message of God and upon whom revelation descends, whether or not he has also been commanded to publicly call to the truth and rise for its propagation. In reality, the rank of risālah is higher than that of nubuwwah; therefore, prophethood is necessarily included within messengership. However, since this verse seeks to explain and clarify the rank of the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, both are mentioned explicitly and independently. 2. He is an ummī prophet, raised from among the common people, who did not study under any teacher, and who arose from the land of Mecca—Umm al‑Qurā—as the true sun of monotheism الْأُمِّيَّ. The word ummī—derived either from umm (mother) or from ummah (community)—has been understood by exegetes in several ways: as one who did not receive formal instruction, remaining as he was when born of his mother; as one who emerged from among the general populace rather than elite or tyrannical classes; or as one belonging to Mecca, since Mecca is also called Umm al‑Qurā. Islamic narrations transmitted from multiple sources also do not restrict ummī to the meaning of illiteracy alone; rather, some interpret it as “Meccan.” There is no obstacle to understanding the term as encompassing all these meanings simultaneously, as Arabic usage frequently allows a single word to convey multiple interrelated meanings. 3. He is a prophet whose description, signs, and proofs of truth are found written in earlier heavenly scriptures such as the Torah and the Gospel الَّذِي يَجِدُونَهُ مَكْتُوبًا عِندَهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالْإِنجِيلِ. After completing the commentary on this verse, detailed discussion will be presented concerning the various prophecies and glad tidings found in the former scriptures—even in their present altered forms—that testify to the truthfulness of our Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. 4. He is a prophet whose call conforms to the criterion of reason: he commands what reason recognizes as good and forbids what reason condemns as evil يَأْمُرُهُم بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَاهُمْ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ. 5. His message accords with sound human nature: he makes lawful for people all pure and wholesome things that the upright nature approves, and forbids for them all that is impure and repugnant وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتِ وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْخَبَائِثَ. 6. He is not like false claimants to prophethood whose aim is to exploit simplicity for personal gain. Rather, he not only refrains from imposing burdens upon people, but actively removes from their shoulders heavy loads and the shackles that had bound humanity by means of ignorant beliefs and oppressive customs وَيَضَعُ عَنْهُمْ إِصْرَهُمْ وَالْأَغْلَالَ الَّتِي كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ. The term iṣr signifies restraint or confinement; thus, any obligation or custom that severely restricts human freedom and prevents progress is described by this term. Since these six attributes, together with his being a messenger, form seven clear evidences for the truth of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, the verse concludes by declaring: So those who believe in him, honor him, support him, and follow the manifest light that was sent down with him—such people are the successful فَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا بِهِ وَعَزَّرُوهُ وَنَصَرُوهُ وَاتَّبَعُوا النُّورَ الَّذِي أُنزِلَ مَعَهُ أُولَائِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ. The word عَزَّرُوهُ derives from taʿzīr, meaning assistance accompanied by reverence and respect. It may also imply protection or restraint: restraining an enemy constitutes assistance, and restraining someone from wrongdoing constitutes admonition. Hence light disciplinary measures are also termed taʿzīr. It is noteworthy that the verse uses the expression أُنزِلَ مَعَهُ (sent down with him), although the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny himself did not descend from the heavens; rather, since his prophethood and mission were revealed by God together with the Qur’an, this phrasing is employed.

1. Five proofs of the Prophet’s truthfulness in a single verse In no other verse of the Qur’an are as many proofs of the truthfulness of the Prophet as are gathered together as in this verse. If we reflect on the seven characteristics of the Seal of the Prophets mentioned in this verse, we find at least five clear and decisive proofs of his truthfulness. First: He was ummī—that is, he had not studied under any teacher—yet he presented a book that not only transformed the destiny of the people of the Hijaz but also became a focal point of human history. Even those who do not accept his prophethood have no doubt concerning the greatness of this Book or the universality of its teachings. Can it be imagined, in the ordinary course of events, that a person who neither studied under anyone nor attended any school, and who was raised in an extremely ignorant and harsh environment, could accomplish such a monumental feat? Second: Proofs of his prophethood are found, in various forms, within previous heavenly scriptures. These indications guide any sincere seeker of truth to certainty regarding his authenticity. They are glad tidings and prophecies that apply exclusively to his person and attributes. Third: The principles of his call conform fully to reason and intellect. Calling toward goodness and preventing evil are entirely in accordance with rational judgment, and this is precisely the essence of his message and teachings. Fourth: The principles of his message are also perfectly harmonious with sound human nature and innate disposition. Fifth: If his mission had not been divinely ordained, it would have been inconceivable for him to disregard personal gain while undertaking such an immense task. Had self‑interest motivated him, not only would he have refrained from liberating people from their chains, he would have left them mired in ignorance and heedlessness, thereby exploiting them more effectively. Instead, we witness that he shattered the heavy shackles that bound humanity—an achievement that in itself constitutes a powerful proof of his truthfulness. Among the chains he severed were: – The chains of ignorance, broken by his constant and comprehensive invitation to knowledge and learning. – The chains of idol‑worship and superstition, broken through the call to pure monotheism. – The chains of tribal arrogance, dissolved by establishing Islamic brotherhood. – The chains of social hierarchy and discrimination, destroyed through the principle of equality. Alongside these were many other forms of bondage that he eradicated with decisive finality. This accomplishment alone stands as an overwhelming proof of his authenticity. 2. What does the Prophet’s being ummī mean? As stated earlier, three primary interpretations are commonly given for the word ummī: First: It means “unlettered.” Second: It refers to one born and raised in Umm al‑Qurā, that is, Mecca. Third: It signifies someone who arose from the common people. The first interpretation is the most widely accepted, is most consistent with the contexts in which the word is used, and does not exclude the possibility that all three meanings are intended simultaneously. Historians unanimously agree that the Prophet never learned from any teacher nor attended any school. The Qur’an itself affirms this in Sūrat al‑ʿAnkabūt, verse 48: وَمَا كُنْتَ تَتْلُو مِنْ قَبْلِهِ مِنْ كِتَابٍ وَلَا تَخُطُّهُ بِيَمِينِكَ إِذًا لَارْتَابَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ “You did not read any book before this, nor did you write with your right hand, lest the falsifiers should doubt.” In the land of Hijaz, literacy was exceedingly rare. Even in Mecca—the central city—there were only seventeen literate men, and only one woman who could read and write. Had the Prophet learned from any of these few individuals, the matter would not have remained concealed but would have become common knowledge. Even disregarding belief in his prophethood, it is inconceivable that he could have learned secretly without any of the Meccans ever exposing it. Therefore, this attribute of being ummī firmly establishes the foundations of his prophethood and assures people that his knowledge derived from divine revelation and the unseen realm. This condition applies to his state before prophethood, and history does not record that he studied or learned from anyone after his proclamation either; thus, he remained ummī throughout his life. However, a crucial misconception must be avoided: lack of formal instruction is one thing, ignorance is another. Being ummī does not imply—God forbid—that he was ignorant. It is entirely possible that the Prophet, through divine instruction, possessed the ability to read and write without having learned these skills from any human being. Such capability is itself a human perfection and does not conflict with his prophethood. This understanding is supported by narrations from the Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt, stating that the Prophet either knew how to read and write or possessed the potential to do so. Nevertheless, to eliminate any possibility of doubt regarding his prophethood, he did not make use of this ability. Thus, we may conclude: 1. The Prophet certainly did not learn reading or writing from any human being. 2. No reliable evidence proves that he practically read or wrote before or after his prophetic mission. 3. This does not contradict the possibility that, through divine instruction, he was capable of reading and writing.

Although there exist conclusive indications that the sacred books of the Jews and Christians (the Torah and the Gospel) are not the original scriptures that were revealed from heaven to Moses and Jesus, but that the hand of human alteration has been extended toward them—resulting in the loss of some portions and the survival of others in a mixed and composite form, containing some ideas that are products of the human mind alongside some genuine teachings of Moses and Jesus that had originally been revealed to them and preserved by their disciples—this does not give rise to surprise if explicit statements concerning the prophecy of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny are not found within the present versions of these books. Nevertheless, even within these altered scriptures, passages are found that clearly allude to the advent of this exalted Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny. Some of our scholars have collected such passages in their books and articles devoted to this subject. Since mentioning all of them would be lengthy, we cite here a few representative examples by way of illustration: 1. In the Torah, Genesis, chapter 17, verses 17–20, it states: And Abraham said to God: “O that Ishmael might live before You.” [God replied]: “O Abraham! We have heard your supplication regarding Ishmael. We have blessed him and shall cause him to flourish greatly. From his lineage twelve rulers shall arise, and We shall make him a great nation.” 2. In Genesis, chapter 49, verse 10, it is written: The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a ruler’s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and unto him shall the gathering of nations be. It is noteworthy here that one of the meanings of the word “Shiloh” is “Messenger” or “Messenger of God,” as explicitly stated by Mr. Hawkes in his work A Dictionary of the Bible (Qāmūs‑e Muqaddas). 3. In the Gospel of John, chapter 14, verses 15–16, it is stated: If you love me, keep my commandments, and I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, who shall abide with you forever. 4. In the Gospel of John, chapter 14, verse 26, it is stated: But the Comforter, whom I will send to you from the Father—that is, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father—he shall bear witness concerning me. 5. Also in the Gospel of John, chapter 16, verse 7, it is stated: But I tell you the truth: it is better for you that I go away, for if I do not go, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you… And when he—that is, the Spirit of Truth—comes, he will guide you to all truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will inform you of matters yet to come. It should be noted that all of the above excerpts taken from the Old and New Testaments are drawn from the Persian translation that was produced in London in 1778 CE by prominent Christian scholars, translated from Arabic into Persian. A further point requiring attention here is that in the Persian versions of the Gospels—specifically in the passages quoted above from the Gospel of John—the term “Comforter” is used. However, in the Arabic Gospel published in London (William Watts Press, 1858 CE), the term “Fārāqlīṭ” (Paraclete) appears in place of it.

According to a narration attributed to Imām Ḥasan al‑Mujtaba (peace be upon him), a group of Jews once came into the presence of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and said: “O Muhammad! Are you the one who claims to be God’s envoy, and that revelation descends upon you just as it descended upon Moses (peace be upon him)?” The Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny remained silent for a short while and then said: “Yes, I am the master of the descendants of the Seal (of the prophets), though I do not boast of it. I am indeed the Seal of the Prophets, the leader of the God‑fearing, and the Messenger of the Lord of the worlds.” They asked: “To whom have you been sent? To the Arabs, to the non‑Arabs, or to us?” In response to their question, this verse was revealed, which explicitly states that his messengership is for all the worlds. (Reported in Tafsīr al‑Ṣāfī, under the relevant verse, citing the book Majālis.) Nevertheless, the connection of this verse with the preceding one is undeniable, for the previous verse also mentioned the attributes of the Prophet, and this verse likewise details his qualities. At the outset, the Prophet is commanded: “Say: O people! I am indeed the Messenger of God to you all” قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ جَمِيعًا. Like many other Qur’anic verses, this verse proves that the Prophet’s mission was universal and global. Likewise, in Sūrat Sabaʾ (34:28) it is said: وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا كَافَّةً لِلنَّاسِ “We have not sent you except to all humankind.” And in Sūrat al‑Anʿām (6:19): وَأُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ هَذَا الْقُرْآنُ لِأُنْذِرَكُمْ بِهِ وَمَنْ بَلَغَ “This Qur’an has been revealed to me so that I may warn you by it, and whomsoever it reaches.” And at the beginning of Sūrat al‑Furqān (25:1): تَبَارَكَ الَّذِي نَزَّلَ الْفُرْقَانَ عَلَىٰ عَبْدِهِ لِيَكُونَ لِلْعَالَمِينَ نَذِيرًا “Blessed is He who sent down the Criterion upon His servant so that he may be a warner to all the worlds.” These verses are presented merely as examples demonstrating the universality of his mission. Further discussion of this theme will appear under the commentary of Sūrat al‑Shūrā (42:7), and it has already been treated in detail under Sūrat al‑Anʿām (6:92). Next, the verse describes three attributes of the God to whom the Prophet calls: He is the God to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth الَّذِي لَهُ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ. He is the God besides whom there is no deity worthy of worship لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ. He is the One who gives life and causes death, and the entire system of life and death is in His power يُحْيِي وَيُمِيتُ. Thus, the verse negates every form of alleged divinity that is not the Creator of the heavens and the earth, rejects all idol‑worship and the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and affirms that God possesses the power to send a messenger to all the worlds and to establish the Day of Resurrection. Finally, all people of the world are invited: “So believe in God and His Messenger, the ummī Prophet” فَآمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ النَّبِيِّ الْأُمِّيِّ, “who himself believes in God and His words” الَّذِي يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَكَلِمَاتِهِ. He believes not only in the revelations sent down to him, but also affirms all the true prophets who preceded him. His faith in his own message is clearly manifested in his actions and conduct, which themselves constitute a luminous proof of his truthfulness. The deeds of a claimant are among the strongest indicators of how deeply he believes in his own claim. The life history of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny is the clearest testimony to how faithfully he practiced his own teachings and how complete his certainty in his mission was. Therefore, the verse concludes: “And follow him, so that you may be guided” وَاتَّبِعُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ. This indicates that mere belief is insufficient unless it is accompanied by practical adherence; only then does faith attain completeness. It is noteworthy that this verse was revealed in Mecca at a time when the followers of Islam were extremely few in number—so few that no one could imagine that the Prophet would one day gain control over Mecca, let alone the Arabian Peninsula or a significant portion of the world. Hence, those who claim that the Prophet initially presented his mission as intended only for the people of Mecca, then later conceived the idea of ruling the Hijaz, and only afterward declared a universal mission when his influence expanded, are refuted directly by this verse, revealed in Mecca itself. It openly proclaims that from the very beginning of his mission, the Prophet declared the universality of his messengership.

See ayat 160 for tafseer.

In these verses, once again reference is made to the Children of Israel and their historical narrative. The first verse points to a reality whose parallel has already appeared elsewhere in the Qur’an. It reflects the Qur’an’s profound spirit of justice and truth‑seeking: respect for righteous minorities. That is, it was not the case that all of the Children of Israel were corrupt and inclined toward wrongdoing such that the entire nation should be identified as rebellious and misguided. Rather, alongside their mischief‑making majority, there existed a minority that was righteous and stood in opposition to the prevailing deviation. The Qur’an accords special significance to this righteous minority and states: “And among the people of Moses there is a group that guides by the truth and acts with justice” وَمِنْ قَوْمِ مُوسَىٰ أُمَّةٌ يَهْدُونَ بِالْحَقِّ وَبِهِ يَعْدِلُونَ. It is possible that this verse is referring to the small number of individuals who did not submit to the command of al‑Sāmirī and remained, under all circumstances, supporters of the message of Moses (peace be upon him). Alternatively, it may refer to a righteous group that emerged after Moses’ time. However, this latter interpretation does not align closely with the apparent wording of the verse, because the verbs يَهْدُونَ and يَعْدِلُونَ are in the imperfect tense, which at minimum suggests the present time—that is, the time of the Qur’an’s revelation. This indicates that such a group existed even at that time, unless one were to assume an implicit كان, shifting the meaning into the past, which would be contrary to the apparent meaning without a clear contextual indicator. Another plausible interpretation is that this verse refers to those just and fair‑minded Jews living at the time of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, who paid heed to his call and gradually entered Islam. This interpretation is more compatible with the wording of the verse. As for reports found in some Shiʿi and Sunni narrations claiming that this refers to a small group of the Children of Israel living beyond China who lead lives of justice, piety, God‑consciousness, and worship, such interpretations not only conflict with our established knowledge of the world, but the reports themselves also lack reliable chains of transmission and therefore cannot be depended upon. The verse then proceeds to mention several blessings that God bestowed upon the Children of Israel. First it states: “And We divided them into twelve tribes as distinct communities” وَقَطَّعْنَاهُمْ اثْنَتَيْ عَشْرَةَ أَسْبَاطًا أُمَمًا. It is evident that when a nation is administratively organized into divisions, each under capable leadership, their care, education, and governance become easier, and the establishment of justice among them is facilitated. For this reason, modern states also strive to employ similar organizational principles. The word أسباط is the plural of سبط, whose original meaning is to spread something smoothly and easily; later it came to denote descendants, particularly grandsons, and by extension, branches of a family or clan. A second blessing bestowed upon the Children of Israel occurred when they were traveling through the scorching desert toward Jerusalem and were seized by severe and life‑threatening thirst. When they requested water from Moses (peace be upon him), “We revealed to Moses, when his people asked him for water: strike the rock with your staff. Then twelve springs gushed forth from it” وَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَىٰ مُوسَىٰ إِذِ اسْتَسْقَاهُ قَوْمُهُ أَنْ اضْرِبْ بِعَصَاكَ الْحَجَرَ فَانْبَجَسَتْ مِنْهُ اثْنَتَا عَشْرَةَ عَيْنًا. These springs were arranged in such a manner that “each group knew its own drinking place” قَدْ عَلِمَ كُلُّ أُنَاسٍ مَشْرَبَهُمْ. From this verse it becomes clear that the twelve springs that emerged from the great rock were distinct from one another, enabling each tribe of the Children of Israel to recognize its own spring. This arrangement itself prevented disputes and ensured order and discipline among them, allowing them to drink with ease. Another divine blessing bestowed upon them occurred while they were wandering in an intensely hot and searing wilderness, devoid of any shelter: “We caused clouds to give them shade” وَظَلَّلْنَا عَلَيْهِمُ الْغَمَامَ. Finally, the fourth blessing was that “We sent down upon them manna and quails as two delicious and nourishing foods” وَأَنْزَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمُ الْمَنَّ وَالسَّلْوَىٰ. Exegetes have provided various interpretations concerning الْمَنَّ وَالسَّلْوَىٰ—the two favored foods God granted to the Children of Israel in that desert. These explanations have already been discussed in detail in this work under the commentary on Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 57, where it was stated that it is not unlikely that مَنّ was a kind of honey found in nearby mountains or the sap of certain trees of that desert, while سَلْوَىٰ was a bird similar to quail. They were then commanded: “Eat of the good things We have provided for you” كُلُوا مِنْ طَيِّبَاتِ مَا رَزَقْنَاكُمْ. But they consumed these blessings and displayed ingratitude. They did not wrong Us; rather, they wronged only themselves وَمَا ظَلَمُونَا وَلَكِنْ كَانُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ يَظْلِمُونَ. It should be noted that the content of this verse, with slight variation, has already appeared in Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verses 57 and 60. The only difference is that here the term انْبَجَسَتْ appears instead of انْفَجَرَتْ. According to a group of exegetes, the distinction between the two terms is that انفجرت implies a forceful and abundant outpouring of water, whereas انبجست refers to water emerging in a smaller and more gradual quantity. This suggests that the spring did not burst forth violently all at once—which could have caused panic and disorder—but first appeared gently and in limited measure, then gradually increased in flow. Some exegetes, however, hold that both terms are used here with the same meaning.

See ayat 162 for tafseer.

Continuing the sequence of the previous verses, in these two verses as well the Lord of the worlds recalls certain favors bestowed upon the Children of Israel and explains how they repaid those blessings through rebellion and transgression. First it is stated: remember the time when it was said to them: settle in this land (Bayt al‑Maqdis) and benefit abundantly from its provisions, from wherever and however you wish وَإِذْ قِيلَ لَهُمْ اسْكُنُوا هٰذِهِ الْقَرْيَةَ وَكُلُوا مِنْهَا حَيْثُ شِئْتُمْ. And We said to them: seek the removal of your sins and the forgiveness of your faults from God, and enter the gate of Bayt al‑Maqdis in a state of humility and submission وَقُولُوا حِطَّةٌ وَادْخُلُوا الْبَابَ سُجَّدًا. If you do so, We shall forgive your sins, and We shall grant increased reward to those among you who act with excellence نَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ خَطِيئَاتِكُمْ سَنَزِيدُ الْمُحْسِنِينَ. But despite the doors of divine mercy being opened to them, and despite being given the opportunity to reform both their past and future deeds by taking advantage of this offer, the wrongdoers among the Children of Israel not only failed to benefit from it, but instead acted contrary to the command of the Lord فَبَدَّلَ الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا مِنْهُمْ قَوْلًا غَيْرَ الَّذِي قِيلَ لَهُمْ. As a consequence of this disobedience and their wrongdoing against themselves, We sent down upon them a punishment from the heavens فَأَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ رِجْزًا مِّنَ السَّمَاءِ بِمَا كَانُوا يَظْلِمُونَ. It should also be noted that the purport of these two verses has appeared earlier, with slight variation, in Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verses 58 and 59, where their detailed explanation has already been provided. The only difference between the two passages is that here the conclusion reads بِمَا كَانُوا يَظْلِمُونَ, whereas in Sūrat al‑Baqarah it states بِمَا كَانُوا يَفْسُقُونَ. This distinction may be due to the fact that sin has two dimensions: one related to rebellion against God, and the other related to injustice committed by a person against his own soul. In the verse of Sūrat al‑Baqarah, the term فِسْق is used, denoting departure from the command of the Lord of the worlds, while in the present verse the term ظُلْم is used, pointing to the second dimension—wronging oneself.

What is حِطَّةٌ, and what does it mean? A point worthy of careful attention is that the Children of Israel were commanded, upon entering Bayt al‑Maqdis, to cleanse their hearts and minds of the impurities of sin through sincere and genuine repentance—something encapsulated in the term حِطَّةٌ—and to seek forgiveness from God for their sins, particularly for the pains and harms they had inflicted upon their great prophet, Moses (peace be upon him), prior to reaching Bayt al‑Maqdis. The word حِطَّةٌ, which was to be their proclaimed expression upon entering Bayt al‑Maqdis, was an abbreviated form of مسألتنا حِطَّةٌ, meaning: “We request the removal of our sins.” This usage derives from the root meaning of حِطَّةٌ, which signifies descending or falling down—here indicating the removal or casting off of the burden of sins. However, the intention behind this proclamation was not merely that it be uttered like other slogans that remain on the tongue and never penetrate the depths of the heart. Rather, the intent was that it become the expression of their inner state, the voice of their conscience, and the embodiment of repentance throughout every particle of their being. Yet, as the subsequent verse indicates, many among them distorted this reformative expression, altered its meaning, and turned it into an object of mockery and ridicule.

See ayat 166 for tafseer.

See ayat 166 for tafseer.

See ayat 166 for tafseer.

In these verses, another turbulent episode from the history of the Children of Israel is recounted. This passage concerns the group among the Children of Israel who lived by the seashore. However, the address in these verses is directed to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, commanding him to ask the Jews of his own time about that community. The purpose of this questioning was to revive the memory of that incident in their minds, so that they might take heed from it and refrain from rebellion and defiance, and from the punishment that inevitably follows such conduct. As is indicated in Islamic traditions, this account relates to a Jewish community that lived by a sea—apparently the Red Sea near Palestine—in a town called Ramlah, known today as Eilat. In order to test them, God commanded them not to fish on the Sabbath. They were permitted to fish on all days except that one day, which was designated as a day of rest. However, they openly violated this divine command and, as a result, were subjected to a grievous punishment, the details of which are set forth in these verses. The first verse states: ask them about the town that stood by the sea وَاسْأَلْهُمْ عَنِ الْقَرْيَةِ الَّتِي كَانَتْ حَاضِرَةَ الْبَحْرِ, and remind them of the time when they transgressed with regard to the Sabbath إِذْ يَعْدُونَ فِي السَّبْتِ. The Sabbath was a weekly day of rest for them, on which they were commanded to abstain from worldly labor and devote themselves to worship. Yet they paid no heed to this command. The verse then explains more fully what was previously stated in summary form: remember when the fish came to them openly on their Sabbath day, appearing at the surface of the water, while on other days they were scarcely seen إِذْ تَأْتِيهِمْ حِيتَانُهُمْ يَوْمَ سَبْتِهِمْ شُرَّعًا. In Arabic usage, سَبْت denotes cessation and rest. Thus, in the Qur’an it is stated: وَجَعَلْنَا نَوْمَكُمْ سُبَاتًا, meaning that sleep was made a means of rest. Since trade and work were suspended among the Jews on that day, it came to be called the Sabbath, a designation that has endured to this day. These people lived by the sea, and fishing constituted a major source of both food and livelihood. Because fishing was suspended on the Sabbath, the fish experienced safety on that day and appeared near the surface in large numbers. On other days, however, because they were hunted, they retreated to deeper waters. Whether this phenomenon resulted from a natural process or from a special divine arrangement, its purpose was to test them, as the Qur’an states: كَذَٰلِكَ نَبْلُوهُم بِمَا كَانُوا يَفْسُقُونَ. The phrase بِمَا كَانُوا يَفْسُقُونَ indicates that they were tested through something that strongly attracted them and invited them toward disobedience. All genuine trials are of this nature, for a test only has meaning when there is an internal pull toward sin; without such temptation, the concept of trial would lose significance. When the Children of Israel were confronted with this major trial intimately connected with their livelihood, they divided into three groups: The first group, which constituted the majority, resolved to violate the divine command. The second group, a small minority as is often the case, fulfilled the religious duty of commanding what is right and forbidding what is wrong. The third group remained silent and neutral; they neither participated in sin nor attempted to dissuade others from it. The next verse records the dialogue between the latter two groups: remember when one group among them said to another, “Why do you admonish a people whom God is about to destroy or punish with a severe punishment?” وَإِذْ قَالَتْ أُمَّةٌ مِّنْهُمْ لِمَ تَعِظُونَ قَوْمًا اللَّهُ مُهْلِكُهُمْ أَوْ مُعَذِّبُهُمْ عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا. They replied: “So that we may acquit ourselves before your Lord, and perhaps they may become God‑fearing” قَالُوا مَعْذِرَةً إِلَىٰ رَبِّكُمْ وَلَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَّقُونَ. From this response it is clear that the admonishers were motivated by two aims: first, that perhaps the sinners might be influenced and abandon their rebellion; and second, to fulfill their duty before God so that no reproach could be directed at them. This shows that in certain circumstances, enjoining good and forbidding evil becomes obligatory even when the likelihood of immediate influence is minimal—particularly when silence would cause divine commands to be forgotten altogether. The following verse states that worldly desire ultimately prevailed over them, and they forgot what they had been reminded of. Consequently, God saved those who forbade evil, and seized the wrongdoers with a severe punishment because of their disobedience فَلَمَّا نَسُوا مَا ذُكِّرُوا بِهِ أَنْجَيْنَا الَّذِينَ يَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ السُّوءِ وَأَخَذْنَا الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا بِعَذَابٍ بَئِيسٍ بِمَا كَانُوا يَفْسُقُونَ. This “forgetfulness” was not genuine forgetfulness that might excuse them, but rather deliberate disregard, as though the command had been entirely erased from their memory. The verse then describes the manner of their punishment: when they arrogantly persisted in what they had been forbidden, God said to them, “Become despised apes” فَلَمَّا عَتَوْا عَنْ مَا نُهُوا عَنْهُ قُلْنَا لَهُمْ كُونُوا قِرَدَةً خَاسِئِينَ. The command كُونُوا is a creative, ontological command, as indicated by the Qur’anic principle: إِنَّمَا أَمْرُهُ إِذَا أَرَادَ شَيْئًا أَنْ يَقُولَ لَهُ كُنْ فَيَكُونُ. This transformation was the direct consequence of their obstinate rebellion against the divine prohibition.

There has been discussion among exegetes regarding the exact manner in which the Children of Israel violated the divine law. Some narrations indicate that they resorted to a stratagem: they constructed numerous pools along the seashore and connected these pools to the sea by means of channels. On the Sabbath day, they opened the channels, and fish would enter the pools along with the inflowing water. At sunset, when the fish attempted to return to the sea, they blocked the channels. Then, on Sunday, they would catch the trapped fish and justify their actions by claiming that they had not actually hunted on the Sabbath; rather, they had merely confined the fish on that day, and the real act of hunting took place on Sunday. This report is cited in Tafsīr al‑Burhān (vol. 2, p. 42), and Ibn ʿAbbās has also transmitted a similar account, as recorded in Tafsīr Majmaʿ al‑Bayān under this verse. Some exegetes state that they would place fishing hooks into the sea on the Sabbath day, and when fish became caught on the hooks, they would retrieve them the following day, thereby hunting fish through this deceptive method. Other narrations indicate that they hunted openly and boldly on the Sabbath itself, without striving for any subterfuge. It is possible that all of these reports are accurate in a cumulative sense: initially, they may have engaged in fishing through indirect means such as pools or hooks; once the gravity of the sin diminished in their perception, they gradually proceeded to commit the act openly, disregarding the sanctity of the Sabbath altogether, and ultimately enriched themselves through fish trade by violating the sanctity of that sacred day.

From the above verse it becomes evident that the Israelites were divided into three groups: 1. the transgressing sinners, 2. those who remained silent,and 3. those who admonished and warned. Among them, the third group attained deliverance from divine punishment. As is known from narrations, when they observed that the people did not heed their counsel and persisted in sin, they were deeply grieved and said that they would now leave the city, declaring that they could no longer remain among such people. Accordingly, they departed from the city by night, and after their departure, God’s punishment descended and encompassed the remaining two groups. Some exegetes have held the view that this punishment descended only upon the sinful group, while those who remained silent were also spared. However, this interpretation does not appear to be consistent with the apparent wording and implication of the verse cited above.

From the above verses it is evident that the punishment of transformation (maskh) was specific to the sinners, because the verse states: فَلَمَّا عَتَوْا عَنْ مَا نُهُوا عَنْهُ (“when they obstinately transgressed against what they had been forbidden”). At the same time, other verses indicate that deliverance from punishment was granted only to those who forbade evil, as it is stated: أَنْجَيْنَا الَّذِينَ يَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ السُّوءِ (“We saved those who forbade wrongdoing”). When these two sets of verses are considered together, the conclusion emerges that punishment befell both remaining groups, but the punishment of transformation was restricted to the sinners alone. As for the other group, their punishment—at least as one possibility—was limited to their destruction without transformation, although even the sinners themselves, after being transformed, perished a few days later. (Explanatory note: if certain narrations appear to suggest otherwise, they cannot be relied upon in light of the evident meaning of the verse, and moreover they are considered weak from the standpoint of transmission. It is possible that an error occurred on the part of the narrator.)

“Maskh”, in other words the transformation of a human form into the form of an animal, is unquestionably an extraordinary and non‑natural phenomenon. Although mutation (MUTATION)—where certain animals develop altered characteristics—has been observed on rare occasions and forms the scientific basis of biological evolution, such mutations are exceedingly infrequent and are limited only to partial traits, not to an animal’s entire species identity. It has never occurred that through mutation one species—for example, a monkey—has completely transformed into another species such as a goat. At most, certain characteristics may undergo alteration, and even then such changes appear in offspring, not as an instantaneous transformation of an already‑existing creature. Therefore, a human or animal completely changing its species form is distinctly outside ordinary natural law. We have repeatedly emphasized that there are events that occur contrary to habit and ordinary natural processes. Sometimes these appear as miracles granted to prophets, and at other times as extraordinary occurrences manifested through certain individuals even if they are not prophets. (There is, of course, a clear distinction between miracles and other extraordinary acts.) Once the occurrence of miracles and extraordinary events is accepted, then transformation (maskh)—that is, a human assuming the form of another creature—cannot be considered irrational or logically impossible. As explained in discussions on prophetic miracles, such extraordinary events do not negate the principle of cause and effect, nor do they contradict reason. Rather, they represent a rupture of customary natural laws, examples of which have been observed repeatedly in exceptional human cases. Accordingly, there is no difficulty in adopting the literal meaning of the term “maskh” as it appears in this verse and in other Qur’anic passages—a meaning that the majority of exegetes have also accepted. However, a minority of exegetes have suggested an alternative interpretation, arguing that maskh refers to a spiritual or moral transformation, not a physical one. According to this view, rebellious individuals acquired the moral traits of animals such as monkeys or pigs—traits like blind imitation, gluttony, and indulgence—which are characteristic of those animals. This opinion has been attributed to the early exegete Mujāhid. Some have objected that maskh contradicts the law of evolutionary progress, since it implies regression rather than advancement. This objection is unfounded, because the law of evolution applies only to those beings who remain committed to the path of growth and perfection—not to those who deviate from it. A healthy human being ordinarily develops progressively from childhood; however, if severe physical or psychological damage occurs, not only may development cease, but regression may follow, resulting in gradual decline. In all cases, whether the transformation was physical or qualitative, it corresponds to the specific sins committed. Those driven by sensual indulgence and appetitive excess were held accountable in one manner, while those guilty of blind imitation were answered in another. Thus, at the moment of maskh, each group appeared in a form corresponding to its actions. Although the verses under discussion mention only قِرَدَة (apes), other passages—such as Sūrat al‑Māʾidah, verse 60—also mention خَنَازِير (swine). According to certain exegetes, including Ibn ʿAbbās, that verse too concerns the people of the Sabbath: the gluttonous and lust‑driven elders were transformed into pigs, while the blindly imitative youth became apes. It must also be observed that narrations indicate that those who underwent maskh lived only a few days thereafter and left no surviving progeny, so that this transformation did not enter the chain of biological lineage.

Although the verses discussed above do not explicitly mention the stratagems employed by the Aṣḥāb al‑Sabat (the People of the Sabbath), it has already been noted that many exegetes, in explaining these verses, have narrated accounts describing the construction of small pools or the placing of hooks in the sea on the Sabbath day. Islamic traditions likewise point to such acts. Accordingly, the severity of the punishment inflicted upon them makes it clear that resorting to stratagems or hiding behind the guise of religious law does not alter the true reality of sin. A sin remains a sin, whether it is committed openly or under the pretext of religious technicalities. Those who imagine that prohibited acts can be rendered lawful by twisting them into seemingly permissible forms are in reality afflicted with self‑deception. Unfortunately, such behavior has at times been observed even among certain ignorant individuals who outwardly associate themselves with religion. It is precisely this conduct that causes the image of religion to appear distorted and repugnant in the eyes of observers. Beyond tarnishing the face of religion, one of the gravest harms of such behavior is that it trivializes sin in the perception of others, thereby emboldening further transgression. In Nahj al‑Balāghah, it is narrated that Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (peace be upon him), quoting the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, said: A time will come when people will be tested through their wealth. They will claim gratitude toward God for being religious, while still hoping for His mercy and feeling secure from His punishment. “يستحلون حرامه بالشبهات الكاذبة والأهواء الساهية، فيستحلون الخمر بالنبيذ، والسحت بالهدية، والربا بالبيع.” They will deem God’s unlawful things lawful through false doubts and vain desires: they will label wine as نبيذ, bribery as هدية, and usury as بيع. (Nahj al‑Balāghah, sermon 156, concluding section) The term نبيذ, it is noted, refers to a drink prepared by soaking a small amount of dates or raisins in water for several days. Although it was not explicitly called wine, the sugars it contained would, through heat and fermentation, transform into a mild form of alcohol. It should be carefully recognized that the motivation behind such stratagems was either an attempt to conceal one’s inner corruption from public scrutiny or an effort at self‑deception.

It is true that for people living along a river or seashore, fishing is not in itself a reprehensible act. However, it is entirely possible that at certain times God, by way of testing, forbids a particular practice to some people in order to ascertain the extent of their devotion and self‑sacrifice. This is a form of divine trial and examination. Moreover, the Sabbath held a sacred status in the Jewish religion, and one purpose behind prohibiting fishing on that day was to ensure that they would set aside worldly occupations and turn wholeheartedly toward God, engaging in worship and devotion. Yet the coastal inhabitants of the city of Eilat disregarded all of these considerations and openly violated God’s command. As a consequence of this blatant disobedience, they were subjected to a punishment of such severity that it became a lasting lesson and a source of admonition for generations to come.

See ayat 168 for tafseer.

In reality, these verses describe a portion of the worldly punishments inflicted upon the Jewish people because they confronted the divine command with disobedience and rebellion, trampling truth and justice underfoot. First it is stated: Remember the time when your Lord declared that He would certainly appoint over them, until the Day of Resurrection, people who would subject them to severe torment وَإِذْ تَأَذَّنَ رَبُّكَ لَيَبْعَثَنَّ عَلَيْهِمْ إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ مَنْ يَسُومُهُمْ سُوءَ الْعَذَابِ. The terms تَأَذَّنَ and إذن both convey the meaning of announcement and declaration, and can also denote the taking of an oath. Accordingly, the verse implies that God solemnly declared—or swore—that He would impose upon this sinful community people who would continue to afflict them with suffering until the Day of Resurrection. This verse indicates that this rebellious group will not attain lasting peace or rest until the Day of Judgment; even if they succeed in establishing a government or dominion for themselves, they will still remain under constant pressure, subjugation, and hardship at the hands of others—unless the community truly changes its conduct and refrains from oppression and corruption. At the end of the verse it is added: Indeed, your Lord is swift in punishment, and indeed He is Forgiving, Merciful إِنَّ رَبَّكَ لَسَرِيعُ الْعِقَابِ وَإِنَّهُ لَغَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ. This statement shows that God has left the door of return open for them, so that no one may claim that their misfortune and liability to divine punishment were the result of blind fate or destiny with no possibility of redemption. The following verse points out how the Jews became scattered throughout the world: We dispersed them across the earth into various communities; among them are righteous people, and among them are others less so وَقَطَّعْنَاهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ أُمَمًا مِّنْهُمُ الصَّالِحُونَ وَمِنْهُم دُونَ ذَٰلِكَ. This verse again makes manifest the reality that Islam holds no inherent hostility toward the Jewish people as a race, nor does it condemn them merely for belonging to a particular religion or school of thought. Rather, their worth and standing are assessed according to their deeds. It is further stated: And We tested them with blessings and hardships, so that perhaps they might return وَبَلَوْنَاهُمْ بِالْحَسَنَاتِ وَالسَّيِّئَاتِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْجِعُونَ. At times, God granted them prosperity, comfort, and blessings so that a sense of gratitude might awaken within them and lead them back toward the truth. At other times, He subjected them to difficulties and hardships so that they might dismount from the steed of pride and arrogance, recognize their weakness and dependence, awaken, and turn back to God. The sole objective behind employing both of these methods was moral and spiritual reformation and their return to the path of truth. Accordingly, the term حسنات encompasses all forms of blessing, prosperity, ease, comfort, and well‑being, while سیئات refers to all kinds of hardship, distress, and affliction. There is therefore no justification for restricting these terms merely to abstract notions of “good deeds” and “evil deeds.”

See ayat 170 for tafseer.

In the preceding verses, reference was made to the elders of the Jewish community, whereas in the present verse attention is turned to their descendants and progeny. First, it is recalled that after them there came successors who inherited the Book, yet despite receiving the Torah from their forefathers, they became infatuated with the paltry adornments of this worldly life and sold truth and guidance in exchange for fleeting material gain فَخَلَفَ مِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ خَلْفٌ وَرِثُوا الْكِتَابَ يَأْخُذُونَ عَرَضَ هٰذَا الْأَدْنَىٰ. The term خَلَف (pronounced with the vowel pattern of ḥarf) is understood by some exegetes as referring to unrighteous successors, whereas خَلْف (with the vowel pattern of sharaf) signifies righteous and virtuous descendants. It is then added that whenever these people found themselves torn between conscience, which restrained them, and material interests, which pulled them toward wrongdoing, they would seek refuge in false hopes and say: “We shall be forgiven” وَيَقُولُونَ سَيُغْفَرُ لَنَا. This statement indicates that after committing such acts, they would experience a transient sense of regret accompanied by a superficial and deceptive form of repentance. Yet, as the Qur’an notes, this remorse was unstable and short‑lived. Accordingly, if a similar worldly gain presented itself again, they would readily seize it وَإِن يَأْتِهِمْ عَرَضٌ مِّثْلُهُ يَأْخُذُوهُ. The word عَرَض (with the vowel pattern of gharaḍ) denotes something incidental, temporary, and impermanent. It is therefore applied to material possessions of the worldly life, since such things are inherently transient and ultimately slip from human control, leaving one in regretful longing even for a fragment of them. Moreover, all worldly enjoyments are fleeting and destined to perish. This passage thus alludes to the Jews’ acceptance of bribes, their distortion of divine verses, and their deliberate neglect of commandments that conflicted with their personal interests. Hence it is immediately asked: Was not the covenant of the Book taken from them, that they should not say anything about God except the truth? أَلَمْ يُؤْخَذْ عَلَيْهِم مِّيثَاقُ الْكِتَابِ أَنْ لَا يَقُولُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ إِلَّا الْحَقَّ. It is then emphasized that had these people acted in ignorance, without knowledge of the divine signs, some excuse might have been conceivable. Yet the problematic reality is that they had repeatedly studied and understood the contents of the Torah, and even so they cast them aside and neglected its rulings وَدَرَسُوا مَا فِيهِ. The word دَرَس in its lexical sense means repetition, which is why lessons transmitted by a teacher and repeatedly reviewed are called dars. Similarly, the erosion and decay of buildings is referred to as indiras, due to repeated exposure to wind, rain, and other forces. Finally, it is stated that these people are deluded: their acts and possessions will benefit them nothing, whereas the abode of the Hereafter is better for those who possess taqwā. Do they not then reflect? وَالدَّارُ الْآخِرَةُ خَيْرٌ لِّلَّذِينَ يَتَّقُونَ أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ. In contrast to this group, the Qur’an then points to another category—those who refrain from all forms of distortion and concealment of the divine signs, who firmly adhere to them and implement them in practice. The Qur’an refers to this group as the agents of reform and promises them a great reward, stating: Those who hold fast to the Book and establish prayer—indeed, We do not allow the reward of the reformers to be lost وَالَّذِينَ يُمَسِّكُونَ بِالْكِتَابِ وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ إِنَّا لَا نُضِيعُ أَجْرَ الْمُصْلِحِينَ. Whether the Book here refers to the Torah or the Qur’an has been interpreted both ways by exegetes. However, in light of the preceding verses, it is more consistent to understand this as referring to that group among the Children of Israel who distinguished themselves from the misguided. There is no doubt that holding fast to the Torah and Gospel—especially in view of the prophecies they contain concerning the Prophet of Islam—cannot be separated from faith in that Prophet. The term يُمَسِّكُونَ (to hold firmly) carries a subtle and significant implication, for tamassuk means not merely to grasp something, but to cling to it in order to preserve and protect it. Sensory clinging corresponds to moral and spiritual commitment; thus, holding fast to the divine Book does not mean merely preserving its physical pages, but rather allowing no aspect of one’s life to diverge from its teachings, striving wholeheartedly to realize its meanings and commands in practice. These verses also demonstrate that true reform upon the earth is impossible without sincere adherence to divine revelation. This expression reiterates the truth that religion is not confined to metaphysical concerns alone, but constitutes a comprehensive system governing all aspects of human life. Through religion, justice, reconciliation, social welfare, tranquility, and every dimension of reform become attainable. The specific mention of prayer among all divine commands is due to the fact that genuine prayer so firmly connects a person to their Lord that, in every moment, one perceives God as ever‑present and ever‑watchful. It is precisely this quality of prayer that, as stated in other verses, restrains from indecency and wrongdoing—a matter closely bound to social reform. All of this shows that the described principle is not limited to the Jewish people alone, but represents a universal law operative among all nations. Thus, those who conceal truths, distort divine teachings for transient advantage, and then display a false repentance that melts away at the slightest glimmer of worldly gain—like snow dissolving under the heat of the sun—are in reality adversaries of social reform. Such individuals sacrifice communal welfare for personal gain, whether they be Jews, Christians, or Muslims.

The root of the word نَتَقْنَا is نَتْق (on the pattern of qalʿ), which means to uproot or wrench something from its place and cast it elsewhere. Women who give birth frequently are also described as ناتِق, because they detach the child from the womb and bring it forth with ease. The account of the Jewish people narrated in this sūrah reaches its final link with this verse. Here, another episode from their history is alluded to—one that contains both a lesson of admonition and a reference to a solemn covenant. It states: And remember when We raised the mountain above them as though it were a canopy وَإِذْ نَتَقْنَا الْجَبَلَ فَوْقَهُمْ كَأَنَّهُ ظُلَّةٌ, and they thought that it was about to fall upon them وَظَنُّوا أَنَّهُ وَاقِعٌ بِهِمْ. In that state we said to them: Hold firmly to what We have given you خُذُوا مَا آتَيْنَاكُمْ بِقُوَّةٍ, and remember what is contained therein, that you may become God‑fearing وَاذْكُرُوا مَا فِيهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَّقُونَ. This verse, together with Sūrat al‑Baqarah, verse 63, refers—with slight variation—to the same incident. The well‑known exegete al‑Ṭabrisī relates it in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān from Ibn Zayd: this incident took place when Moses (peace be upon him) returned from Mount Sinai carrying the commandments of the Torah. When he informed his people of their obligations and of what was lawful and unlawful, they deemed adherence to all these commands too onerous and resolved to resist. At that moment, a massive rock separated from the mountain, rose into the air, and stood above their heads. Overwhelmed by fear, they began to implore Moses. Moses said to them that if they pledged to obey these commandments, the danger would be removed. They immediately accepted, fell prostrate, and the threat was lifted. Two questions arise in connection with this event, which were already addressed in the commentary on Sūrat al‑Baqarah; here their essence is summarized. The first question: is it valid to take a covenant in such a manner? Does this not involve compulsion? The answer is that while compulsion was indeed present at that moment, once the danger passed their freedom of choice returned; the remainder of the path lay before them to traverse by their own will. Moreover, one may add that coercion in matters of belief is meaningless, but in matters related to conduct—especially when human welfare is at stake—coercion may be justified. If someone is forcibly prevented from intoxication or from walking into a lethal danger, this is hardly to be condemned. The second question: how did the mountain remain suspended above them? Some exegetes hold that by God’s command Mount Sinai was uprooted and held above them like a canopy. Others suggest that a violent earthquake caused the mountain to tilt in such a manner that its peak cast a shadow over those standing at its base. Yet another possibility proposed is that an enormous rock separated from the mountain and hovered above them briefly before falling elsewhere. In any case, there is no doubt that this was a miraculous and extraordinary occurrence, beyond the scope of ordinary natural processes. Another noteworthy point in the verse is that God does not state that the mountain became a canopy, but rather that it was as though it were a canopy (كأنّه ظلّة). This expression may be used because a canopy is ordinarily erected for protection out of benevolence, whereas this “canopy” was meant as a threat; or because a canopy is usually permanent, whereas the suspension of the mountain was temporary. As noted earlier, the varied episodes—bitter and sweet—of the Children of Israel’s history reach their conclusion in this sūrah, marking the final segment of prophetic narratives presented here. The mention of this covenant at the end, though it is not the last chronological event, appears deliberate: the ultimate purpose of recounting all these episodes was to underscore adherence to divine revelation and faithfulness to the covenant with God, thereby attaining taqwā, as emphasized in this verse and the one preceding it. In essence, the entire mission of Moses (peace be upon him), as well as the struggles of other divine prophets against falsehood and the hardships they endured, had but one aim: to ensure reverence for God’s commands, so that as a result, the principles of truth, justice, purity, and God‑consciousness might become fully established among all humankind, guiding people to walk upon the straight path of God.

See ayat 174 for tafseer.

See ayat 174 for tafseer.

The above verses indicate the truth that affirmation of divine unity (tawḥīd) is a natural and innate demand, and that within the depths of every human soul there exists a testimony to the existence of God. For this reason, the discussion of rationally demonstrable monotheism presented in the preceding verses of this sūrah is here brought to its completion. Although, during the interpretation of this first verse, intense debates have taken place among exegetes and a variety of narrations have also been transmitted concerning it, our method will be as follows: first, to present a concise explanation of the verse; then to mention the most significant exegetical discussions; and finally, in the light of all these considerations, to set forth a cautious and reasoned interpretive conclusion. In this verse, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny is addressed. It is first stated: remember the time when your Lord took from the loins of the Children of Adam their offspring, brought them forth, and made them bear witness against themselves, asking: “Am I not your Lord?” They replied: “Yes, indeed; we bear witness” وَإِذْ أَخَذَ رَبُّكَ مِنْ بَنِي آدَمَ مِنْ ظُهُورِهِمْ ذُرِّيَّتَهُمْ وَأَشْهَدَهُمْ عَلَىٰ أَنْفُسِهِمْ أَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ قَالُوا بَلَىٰ شَهِدْنَا. According to lexicographers, the word ذُرِّيَّة is used in its original sense for “small or young offspring,” though it is very often applied to “offspring in general.” At times it is used in a singular form, and at times in a collective sense; nevertheless, in essence it carries a collective meaning. Various views exist regarding the root of this word. Some derive it from ذرأ (on the pattern of زرع), meaning creation and origination; accordingly, ذُرِّيَّة fundamentally denotes “created beings” or “those brought into existence.” Others derive it from ذرّ (on the pattern of شر), signifying extremely small entities such as dust particles or minute insects. Since human progeny begin life from an extremely small particle (the drop of sperm), they are called ذُرِّيَّة. A third opinion derives it from ذرو (on the pattern of مرو), meaning dispersion and spreading, because human offspring, upon reaching maturity, spread across the earth. Thereafter, referring to the questioning concerning divine unity and the covenant taken from the Children of Adam, the verse explains the purpose of this act: it was done so that on the Day of Resurrection they would not say, “Indeed, we were heedless of this truth” أَنْ تَقُولُوا يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ إِنَّا كُنَّا عَنْ هٰذَا غَافِلِينَ. Another purpose underlying this covenant is indicated in the following verse, where God states: this covenant was taken so that they would not say, “Our forefathers associated others with God before us, and we were merely their descendants after them; will You destroy us for what the falsifiers did?” أَوْ تَقُولُوا إِنَّمَا أَشْرَكَ آبَاؤُنَا مِنْ قَبْلُ وَكُنَّا ذُرِّيَّةً مِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ أَفَتُهْلِكُنَا بِمَا فَعَلَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ. Yes, We thus set forth Our signs in detail so that they may reflect and perhaps return to the truth وَكَذٰلِكَ نُفَصِّلُ الْآيَاتِ وَلَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْجِعُونَ. The meaning is that the light and awareness of divine unity and God‑consciousness were present in the human soul from the very beginning; and it is for this reason that no one can plead ignorance of tawḥīd on the Day of Resurrection. By clarifying the signs in this manner, God establishes the foundation for accountability and leaves open the path of return for those who, by reflecting upon these primordial truths, turn back toward the truth.

As has been noted, the verses under discussion refer to the covenant (ʿahd) taken by God from the progeny of Adam. This covenant was taken in a subtle and implicit manner, yet the detailed modality of that covenant is not explicitly described in the text of the verse itself. The Islamic source literature contains a variety of narrations concerning these verses, and based upon those narrations exegetes have proposed several interpretations. Among them, two interpretations have acquired particular prominence: 1. When Adam (peace be upon him) was created, all of his offspring—up to the last human being—were brought forth from his loins in the form of particles (dharrāt) (and according to some narrations, these particles emerged from Adam’s clay). They possessed sufficient consciousness and understanding to hear and respond. At that moment, God addressed them, saying: أَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ “Am I not your Lord?” All of them replied: بَلَىٰ شَهِدْنَا “Yes, indeed; we bear witness.” Thereafter, all of these particles returned to the loins (or the clay) of Adam. On this basis, that realm is called ʿĀlam al‑Dharr, and that covenant is known as Mīthāq al‑Alast, because it was a legislative covenant and a conscious agreement establishing awareness between humanity and their Lord. 2. The intended meaning of this realm and covenant is not a separate world, but rather the realm of predisposition and capacity, that is, the covenant of innate nature (fiṭrah) and the existential covenant (ʿahd takwīnī). According to this view, when the progeny of Adam emerge from the loins of their fathers and the wombs of their mothers in the form of a nuṭfah, while they are no more than minute entities, God grants them the capacity and aptitude to testify to divine unity. He then deposits within their innate constitution this divine secret as an inner, intrinsic faculty, preserving it in their consciousness as a self‑evident reality. This is why all human beings possess an innate familiarity with the spirit of tawḥīd. The divine questioning was conducted in the language of creation and constitution, and the response was likewise given in that same existential language. This manner of expression is common in everyday speech as well. For example, we say: “The color of a person’s face reveals his inner condition,” or “The closing of someone’s eyes indicates that he did not sleep at night.” An Arab literary figure once said: “Ask the earth who carved the courses of your rivers, who planted your trees, and who ripened your fruits. If it does not answer you in spoken words, it will answer you through its state.” The Qur’an itself employs this figurative mode of expression in several verses. For example: فَقَالَ لَهَا وَلِلْأَرْضِ ائْتِيَا طَوْعًا أَوْ كَرْهًا قَالَتَا أَتَيْنَا طَائِعِينَ “He said to it and to the earth: come willingly or unwillingly. They said: we come willingly.” (Ḥā‑Mīm Sajadah / 41:11) This summarizes the two well‑known interpretations presented concerning these verses. However, several objections have been raised against the first interpretation: First, the text of the verse speaks of taking the progeny from the loins of the Children of Adam—not directly from Adam himself (مِنْ بَنِي آدَمَ مِنْ ظُهُورِهِمْ ذُرِّيَّتَهُمْ)— whereas the first interpretation speaks of emergence from Adam’s own substance. Second, if this covenant was taken with full awareness and consciousness, how is it that all human beings have entirely forgotten it, to the extent that no trace of its memory remains in anyone’s heart? The temporal distance between that event and our present life is, relatively speaking, not greater than the distance between this world and the Hereafter, and yet the Qur’an affirms in numerous verses that human beings—whether destined for Paradise or Hell—will remember their worldly lives clearly on the Day of Resurrection. Such complete forgetfulness regarding ʿĀlam al‑Dharr therefore appears difficult to justify. Third, what was the purpose of such a covenant? If its purpose was that people recall it and advance along the path of truth and exclusive God‑consciousness, then it must be said that such a purpose has not been achieved at all, since everyone has forgotten it. Without realization of its intended aim, this covenant appears purposeless and redundant. Fourth, belief in such a realm, as described in the first interpretation, effectively entails a form of reincarnation, because it requires accepting that the human soul existed in a prior realm before this worldly life and then returned from that realm after traversing a short or extended duration. Consequently, the standard objections against reincarnation would apply. By contrast, if the second interpretation is adopted, none of these objections arise, since the questioning and covenant are then understood as innate and existential, whose traces still remain perceptible within every human soul. Indeed, even according to modern psychological research, the religious sense is regarded as one of the fundamental intrinsic dispositions of conscious human beings. This is precisely what continually directs humanity toward God‑consciousness, and so long as this innate nature exists, no one can claim: “Our forefathers were idol‑worshippers.” As the Qur’an states: فِطْرَتَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهَا (the innate nature of God upon which He created humankind) (al‑Rūm / 30) Only one principal objection is raised against the second interpretation, namely that the questioning and response would then be figurative rather than literal. However, as discussed above, such expressions are common in Arabic and other languages alike, where states and dispositions speak through their effects. With this understanding, the objection loses its force, and the second interpretation appears more compelling and closer to the intended meaning than the others.

In the Shiʿi and Sunni scholarly sources, numerous narrations concerning ʿĀlam al‑Dharr have been transmitted. At first glance, these narrations appear to constitute a continuous and coherent body of reports. For example, Tafsīr al‑Burhān cites thirty‑seven narrations, and Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thiqlayn cites thirty narrations under the verses discussed above. Some of these narrations overlap, while others differ, and when all variations are counted together, their total number exceeds forty. However, if these narrations are properly classified, critically examined, and analyzed both in terms of content and chains of transmission, it becomes evident that they cannot be relied upon as a single authoritative narration—let alone as a mutawātir report. Careful consideration shows that many of these narrations originate from the same individuals. A number are attributed to Zurārah, others to Ṣāliḥ ibn Sahl, some to Jābir, and others to ʿAbdullāh ibn Sinān. Obviously, when a single individual transmits several narrations conveying the same theme, they ultimately amount to a single report in substance. As a result, the apparently large number of narrations is significantly reduced, perhaps to no more than ten to twenty reports from the perspective of transmission. From the standpoint of content and meaning, however, the narrations differ markedly from one another. Some clearly support the first interpretation, others accord with the second interpretation, and yet others do not correspond decisively with either. For instance, the narrations transmitted from Zurārah—as cited in Tafsīr al‑Burhān under items 3, 4, 8, 11, and 29—align with the first interpretation. By contrast, the narrations transmitted from ʿAbdullāh ibn Sinān, cited in Tafsīr al‑Burhān under items 7 and 12, point toward the second interpretation. Some of these narrations are ambiguous and do not yield a clear meaning except in a figurative or symbolic sense. Examples include the eighteenth and twenty‑third narrations in Tafsīr al‑Burhān, transmitted from Abū Saʿīd al‑Khudrī and ʿAbdullāh al‑Kalbī. Other narrations merely refer to the spirits of the Children of Adam without further clarification, such as the narration attributed to al‑Mufaḍḍal, recorded as item 20. Furthermore, among these reports, some possess reliable chains of transmission, while others are narrated without complete or trustworthy chains. Due to the contradictions among these narrations, they cannot be relied upon as decisive authoritative evidence—or, at the very least, as senior scholars have stated, their deeper understanding should be left to the specialists in hadith, who can render appropriate judgments concerning them. In this situation, what remains decisive for us is the Qur’anic text itself. As previously noted, the second interpretation is closer to the apparent meaning of the verses. Had the scope of this discussion permitted extensive exegetical elaboration, we would have presented all relevant narrations with detailed references and subjected each of them to thorough analysis. Those interested may consult Tafsīr Nūr al‑Thiqlayn, Tafsīr al‑Burhān, and Bihār al‑Anwār, and on the basis of the foregoing discussion, independently classify the narrations and examine their chains of transmission.

See ayat 178 for tafseer.

See ayat 178 for tafseer.

See ayat 178 for tafseer.

In this verse, reference is made to yet another episode from the history of the Children of Israel, which serves as an example and a paradigm for all those who possess similar characteristics. As will become clear in the course of interpreting these verses, exegetes have raised numerous viewpoints concerning the individual about whom these verses were revealed. Nevertheless, it is certain that, like many other Qur’anic verses revealed in specific historical contexts, the meaning of this verse is general and universal. In the first verse, addressing the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, it is stated: Recite to them the account of the one to whom We granted Our signs, but who then detached himself from them; Satan pursued him, and he became one of the misguided وَاتْلُ عَلَيْهِمْ نَبَأَ الَّذِي آتَيْنَاهُ آيَاتِنَا فَانْسَلَخَ مِنْهَا فَأَتْبَعَهُ الشَّيْطَانُ فَكَانَ مِنَ الْغَاوِينَ. This verse clearly refers to an individual who was initially among the believers, possessing faith in divine signs and sacred knowledge, but who later deviated from that path. As a consequence, Satan cast his whispers upon him, and his end was misguidance, wretchedness, and misery. The word فَانْسَلَخَ derives from انسلاخ, which originally means to emerge from or shed one’s skin. This expression suggests that the divine signs and sacred knowledge had initially encompassed him as closely as a skin envelops the body. Suddenly, however, he slipped out of this protective covering and, through a sharp reversal, completely altered his direction. From فَأَتْبَعَهُ الشَّيْطَانُ, it appears that Satan had earlier lost hope in misleading him, as he was firmly upon the path of truth. Yet after this deviation, Satan swiftly pursued him, constantly lying in wait, planting doubts in his heart, and eventually placing him among the ranks of the misguided, miserable, and ruined. The next verse completes this meaning by stating that had We willed, We could have elevated him by means of those signs وَلَوْ شِئْنَا لَرَفَعْنَاهُ بِهَا. However, it is established that the divine method grants human beings freedom of will and choice. Forcing individuals to walk upon the path of truth does not conform to this divine principle, nor does it produce genuine moral elevation. Therefore, it is immediately added that He was left to his own choice, and instead of using his knowledge and insight to ascend spiritually, he inclined toward degradation and was drawn downward due to his submission to base desires وَلَكِنَّهُ أَخْلَدَ إِلَى الْأَرْضِ وَاتَّبَعَ هَوَاهُ. The verb أَخْلَدَ comes from إخلاد, meaning to settle permanently in one place. Thus, أَخْلَدَ إِلَى الْأَرْضِ signifies that he clung permanently to the earth—an expression used metaphorically for becoming engrossed in the glitter, illicit pleasures, and comforts of material life. Thereafter, the Qur’an likens him to a dog whose tongue is perpetually extended like that of a thirsty animal. The divine statement reads: His likeness is that of a dog: if you chase it, it pants; and if you leave it alone, it still pants فَمَثَلُهُ كَمَثَلِ الْكَلْبِ إِنْ تَحْمِلْ عَلَيْهِ يَلْهَثْ أَوْ تَتْرُكْهُ يَلْهَثْ. Overcome by the intensity of pleasure‑seeking and excessive love for worldly life, he entered a state of insatiable and endless thirst, perpetually chasing material desires—not out of genuine necessity, but like a sick being. Much like a rabid dog afflicted with a false sensation of thirst that can never be quenched, such individuals are never satisfied, regardless of the comforts and delights they acquire. It is further emphasized that this simile is not confined to a single individual; rather, it applies to all groups who deny the signs of God ذَٰلِكَ مَثَلُ الْقَوْمِ الَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِنَا. Finally, it is commanded that these accounts be narrated before them, so that perhaps they may reflect deeply and arrive at the certainty of the correct path فَاقْصُصِ الْقَصَصَ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ.

As can be seen, in the verses discussed above no individual is named; rather, the account concerns a learned person who was initially firmly established upon the path of truth, such that no one could have imagined that he would ever deviate from it. Yet ultimately, worldliness and base desires gained such dominance over him that he was cast down to the lowest depths, joining the ranks of the misguided and the followers of Satan. From numerous narrations and the statements of exegetes, it appears that this refers to a man named Balʿam Bāʿūr, who lived in the time of Moses (peace be upon him) and was counted among the eminent scholars of the Children of Israel. So highly regarded was he that Moses (peace be upon him) availed himself of him as a major preacher, and he had attained a rank at which his supplications were accepted in the Divine Presence. However, he became so captivated by the outward splendor of Pharaoh and his promises that he strayed from the path of truth. As a result, he lost all honor and distinction, and even joined the ranks of those opposed to Moses (peace be upon him). (It is noteworthy that the present Torah also contains an account of Balʿam Bāʿūr, but with the difference that it ultimately absolves him of deviation. For further details, see the Book of Numbers, chapters 22 onward.) As for the possibility that the person referred to might be Umayyah ibn Abī al‑Ṣalt, the well‑known poet of the pre‑Islamic period, who was knowledgeable of earlier scriptures and initially awaited the advent of the final Prophet but later, imagining that he himself might become the prophet, allowed envy to turn into opposition after the Prophet’s mission—this interpretation is remote. Likewise, the suggestion that this refers to the famous monk Abū ʿĀmir, who in the pre‑Islamic era foretold the coming of the Prophet of Islam but later opposed him after his appearance, is also far‑fetched. This is because the expressions وَاتْلُ (recite), نَبَأَ (the account), and فَاقْصُصِ الْقَصَصَ (relate the narratives) clearly indicate that this story does not pertain to contemporaries of the Prophet of Islam, but rather to the history of past communities. Moreover, Sūrat al‑Aʿrāf is among the chapters revealed in Mecca, whereas Abū ʿĀmir and Umayyah ibn Abī al‑Ṣalt were associated with Medina. In Tafsīr al‑Manār, a narration is reported from the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny stating that the example of Balʿam Bāʿūr among the Children of Israel is comparable, in this community, to Umayyah ibn Abī al‑Ṣalt. Similarly, it is narrated from Imām al‑Bāqir (peace be upon him), who said: “The verse originally concerns Balʿam, and thereafter God made it a parable for all those among the people of the Qiblah who give precedence to their desires over the guidance of God.” In principle, there is hardly any danger to human societies greater than that posed by scholars who hand over their knowledge and intellectual capital to the Pharaohs and tyrants of their age. Overawed by lust for power and the splendor of material life—وَأَخْلَدَ إِلَى الْأَرْضِ—they surrender their entire intellectual and moral capital into the hands of despots. Tyrants, in turn, take maximum advantage of such individuals to deceive the masses. This phenomenon is not confined to the time of Moses (peace be upon him) or other prophets; rather, from the era of the Prophet of Islam to the present day, figures like Balʿam Bāʿūr, Abū ʿĀmir, and Umayyah ibn Abī al‑Ṣalt have sold their knowledge, insight, and social influence either for wealth and status or, driven by rancor and envy, have placed themselves at the service of hypocrites, enemies of truth, Pharaohs, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, and other tyrannical powers. The verses under discussion outline several characteristics by which this group of scholars can be recognized: they are materialistic individuals who, out of love for the world, have forgotten God; they are so lacking in spiritual capacity that instead of seeking honor in the sight of God and His creation, they choose a life of humiliation. Because of this moral smallness, they lose everything. They are surrounded by intense satanic temptations and can be easily bought and sold. They resemble diseased, rabid dogs that are never satiated. For these reasons, they abandon the truth, adopt deviation, and become leaders of the misguided. Recognizing such individuals is essential so that one may remain firmly protected from their harm. In the two verses that follow, drawing a general and universal conclusion from the story of Balʿam and worldly scholars, it is stated: how evil is the example of the people who deny Our signs, and how wretched and humiliating is the end that awaits them سَاءَ مَثَلًا الْقَوْمُ الَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِنَا. Yet they do not wrong Us; rather, they wrong only themselves وَأَنْفُسَهُمْ كَانُوا يَظْلِمُونَ. What injustice could be greater than this: that the capital of spiritual knowledge—capable of elevating both themselves and their society—is surrendered to the wealthy and powerful, sold cheaply, and used to plunge both oneself and society into degradation? Therefore, remain vigilant against such lapses and satanic snares, for deliverance from them is not possible without divine grace and guidance. The trap is exceedingly strong unless the mercy of God comes to one’s aid. “Whomsoever God guides, he is truly the rightly guided” مَنْ يَهْدِ اللَّهُ فَهُوَ الْمُهْتَدِي. And whoever God leaves to himself as a consequence of his deeds—by withdrawing the means of success and divine assistance in the face of satanic whispers—such individuals are indeed the losers وَمَنْ يُضْلِلْ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْخَاسِرُونَ. As repeatedly emphasized, divine guidance and misguidance are neither arbitrary nor coercive; rather, they consist of providing or withholding the means to guidance, always in accordance with a person’s prior good or evil actions. Ultimately, the decisive resolve lies with the human being himself. Thus, the present verse is in full harmony with the preceding verses that affirm freedom of will, and there is no contradiction between them. Provide your feedback on BizChat

See ayat 181 for tafseer.

See ayat 181 for tafseer.

These verses complete the discussion presented in the preceding passages regarding worldly‑minded scholars and the factors that lead to guidance or misguidance. In these verses, humanity is divided into two groups, and the characteristics of each are clearly explained: the people of Hell and the people of Paradise. First, concerning the people of Hell—the first group—the Qur’an employs emphasis and solemn assertion, stating: Indeed, We have created many of the jinn and humankind for Hell وَلَقَدْ ذَرَأْنَا لِجَهَنَّمَ كَثِيرًا مِنَ الْجِنِّ وَالْإِنسِ. The word ذَرَأْنَا derives from ذرء (on the pattern of زرع), which here means creation. In its original sense, however, it signifies scattering and dispersing, as in the Qur’anic expression: تَذْرُوهُ الرِّيَاحُ – the winds scatter it (al‑Kahf / 45). Since the creation of beings results in their distribution and spread upon the earth, the word is also used in the sense of creation. A significant question arises here: how can it be said that many jinn and humans were created for Hell, while elsewhere the Qur’an declares: وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالْإِنسَ إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُونِ (al‑Dhāriyāt / 56), according to which all jinn and humans were created for worship, growth, and obedience? It was on the basis of this verse that some proponents of predestination, such as Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī and others, attempted to argue for their doctrine. However, when the Qur’anic verses are examined together with care—and superficial conclusions are avoided—the answer to this question becomes clear, both from the context of the verse itself and from other explicit Qur’anic statements, leaving no room for misunderstanding. The matter may be clarified by analogy: suppose a carpenter says, “I will use strong, sound wood for my primary work, and the defective pieces for a secondary purpose.” Clearly, the carpenter has two aims: one primary and intentional, and the other secondary and consequential. His true objective is to produce fine doors and furniture; however, when he encounters unusable wood, he reluctantly sets it aside for burning. The latter is not his essential purpose, but an unavoidable outcome. The difference between this example and the matter under discussion is that the quality of the wood is not voluntary, whereas the divergence among human beings arises from their own choices and deeds. The best proof of this lies in the very verses under discussion, which describe the characteristics of the people of Hell and the people of Paradise, showing that their ultimate fate originates from their own actions. In other words, God has explicitly declared in many verses that He created all beings pure and sound, and that it is within human choice to walk the path of virtue and ascend. Yet one group, by its own conduct, chooses the path that leads to Hell—an abode of misery—while another group, through righteous deeds, qualifies itself for Paradise, whose end is felicity. The Qur’an then summarizes the traits of the people of Hell in three statements: First, they possess hearts, yet they do not use them for understanding and reflection لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ لَا يَفْقَهُونَ بِهَا. In Qur’anic usage, the heart signifies the faculty of reason and reflection. Although these people have intellectual capacity and are not devoid of awareness like cattle, they fail to make use of this gift. They neither think deeply nor analyze causes and consequences, nor do they employ their abilities to escape the net of misery. Second, they possess eyes capable of perceiving truth, yet they do not use them to observe reality; they pass by truths as though blind وَلَهُمْ أَعْيُنٌ لَا يُبْصِرُونَ بِهَا. Third, despite having sound ears, they do not listen to the voice of truth and deprive themselves of hearing guidance وَلَهُمْ آذَانٌ لَا يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَا. In reality, such people resemble cattle, for what distinguishes human beings from animals is reflective intellect, seeing eyes, and attentive ears. Tragically, they have squandered all of these capacities أُولَٰئِكَ كَالْأَنْعَامِ. Rather, they are even more misguided than cattle بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ. This is because animals lack these faculties, whereas humans possess sound reason, vision, and hearing, enabling every form of growth and felicity. Yet due to their inclination toward passion and degradation, they fail to benefit from their superior capacities—and here begins their downfall. They are described as truly heedless and unaware أُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْغَافِلُونَ. The spring of the water of life lies before them, yet they cry out in thirst; the doors of goodness stand open, yet they do not even raise their gaze toward them. From this exposition it becomes evident that such people invite their own misery and fail to benefit from priceless gifts such as intellect, sight, and hearing. It is not that God has forcibly assigned them to the ranks of the people of Hell; rather, it is they themselves who have chosen that destination through neglect and misuse of the faculties bestowed upon them.

In the Holy Qur’an, heedless and negligent people are repeatedly compared to irrational cattle and animals. This comparison may be intended because such creatures remain occupied solely with eating, drinking, sleeping, and sexual desire—much like those nations and communities that, under the guise of alluring slogans, define the ultimate aim of social justice and human law as nothing more than the attainment of bread, water, and a materially comfortable life. In this regard, Imām ʿAlī (peace be upon him) states in Nahj al‑Balāghah: كالبَهِيمَةِ المربوطةِ همُّها علفُها، والمرسَلَةِ شُغلُها تَقَمُّمُها “Like tethered beasts whose concern is their fodder, or like untethered animals whose occupation is merely grazing.” (Nahj al‑Balāghah, Sermon 45) In other words, affluent and comfortable groups resemble domesticated livestock nurtured within enclosures, while those who lack prosperity resemble animals wandering the wilderness in search of water and grass. Yet the aim of both groups extends no further than filling the belly. What has been described above may apply to an individual or to an entire nation. Societies that have rendered their intellectual faculties useless and are immersed in crude and uncivilized pursuits neither reflect upon the fundamental causes of their misery nor contemplate the foundations of their progress. Their ears do not truly hear, nor do their eyes truly see. Such people are indeed among the inhabitants of Hell—not only destined for Hell in the Hereafter, but already trapped in the hell of worldly existence. In the verse that follows, attention is turned to the people of Paradise, and their defining qualities are outlined. First, in order to extricate people from the ranks of the people of Hell, they are called to profound attentiveness to the Divine Beautiful Names. It is stated: To God belong the most beautiful names, so call upon Him by them وَلِلّٰهِ الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَىٰ فَادْعُوهُ بِهَا. The اسماءُ الحسنىٰ refer to God’s various attributes, all of which are beautiful and perfect. We know that God is Knowing, Powerful, Sustaining, Just, Generous, Noble, Merciful, and possesses many other such attributes. Calling upon God by these names does not mean merely uttering such words with the tongue—such as saying: “O Knowing One,” “O All‑Powerful,” or “O Most Merciful of the merciful.” Rather, it requires that, insofar as possible, these attributes be developed within ourselves. We are reflections of God’s knowledge, sparks of His power, and recipients of His vast mercy; these qualities should take on practical form within our own lives and societies. In other words, one should cultivate these attributes within oneself, adopt God’s noble moral qualities, and make them a guiding path, so that under the shade of knowledge, power, justice, and mercy, both the individual and the society in which one lives may be removed from the ranks of the people of Hell. Thereafter, God warns people not to distort His names, stating: And leave those who deviate concerning His names; they will soon be recompensed for what they used to do وَذَرُوا الَّذِينَ يُلْحِدُونَ فِي أَسْمَائِهِ سَيُجْزَوْنَ مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ. The word الحاد derives from لحد (on the pattern of mahd), meaning a niche inclined to one side; hence the niche in a grave is called lahd. Thereafter, the term came to signify any deviation from moderation toward excess or deficiency. For this reason, polytheism and idol‑worship are also described as ilhād. Deviating with regard to God’s names means altering their meanings or attributing to God qualities that are unworthy of Him. This includes the doctrines of Christians who affirm three gods, or the practice of idolaters who derived the names of idols from God’s names—such as calling one idol al‑Lāt, another al‑ʿUzzā, and a third Manāt, derived respectively from الله, العزيز, and المنّان. It also includes attributing God’s names to created beings, as when Christians assign divine attributes to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Deviation also occurs when God’s attributes are manipulated in a manner leading to anthropomorphism, negation of attributes, or similar distortions, or when one is content with mere verbal affirmation of divine names without applying their implications to oneself or one’s society. In the final verse, two defining qualities of the people of Paradise are mentioned: And among those We created is a community that guides by the truth and acts with justice وَمِمَّنْ خَلَقْنَا أُمَّةٌ يَهْدُونَ بِالْحَقِّ وَبِهِ يَعْدِلُونَ. In truth, they possess two fundamental programs. Their thought, aim, call, culture, and civilization are oriented toward truth and in its direction; and their conduct, governance, and practical agenda are founded upon truth and reality.

In Shiʿi and Sunni books and commentaries, extensive discussions are found concerning the concept of al‑Asmāʾ al‑Ḥusnā. What follows is a concise summary of those discussions together with the position adopted here. There is no doubt that the phrase “al‑Asmāʾ al‑Ḥusnā” means “the most beautiful names,” and since all of God’s names carry noble and exalted meanings, all of His names are indeed ḥusnā. This applies whether they belong to the affirmative attributes of the Divine Essence, such as ʿAlīm and Qadīr; to the negative attributes, such as Quddūs; or to the attributes of action, which describe Divine acts, such as Khāliq, Ghafūr, Raḥmān, and Raḥīm. At the same time, it is certain that the attributes of God cannot be fully enumerated or encompassed, since His perfections are infinite. For every perfection, a name or attribute can be selected. However, as the narrations indicate, some of these divine attributes carry particular importance. The phrase al‑Asmāʾ al‑Ḥusnā mentioned in the above verse appears to refer especially to those most eminent attributes. This is supported by numerous traditions transmitted from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and the Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt (peace be upon them), in which it is repeatedly stated that God has ninety‑nine names, that whoever supplicates Him by these names will have his prayer answered, and that whoever enumerates them will be among the people of Paradise. For example, in Kitāb al‑Tawḥīd by Shaykh al‑Ṣadūq, Imām al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) narrates from his forefathers, from Amīr al‑Muʾminīn (peace be upon him), that the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: “Indeed God, Blessed and Exalted, has ninety‑nine names—one hundred minus one. Whoever enumerates them will enter Paradise.” Likewise, in the same book, Imām ʿAlī ibn Mūsā al‑Riḍā (peace be upon him), narrating from his forefathers from Amīr al‑Muʾminīn (peace be upon him), reports that the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny said: “God Almighty has ninety‑nine names. Whoever calls upon God by them will be answered, and whoever enumerates them will enter Paradise.” The same meaning is recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ al‑Bukhārī, Sunan al‑Tirmidhī, and other Sunni hadith collections. Some narrations further indicate that these ninety‑nine names are found within the Qur’an itself. Among these is the narration transmitted from Ibn ʿAbbās, in which the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny stated: “God has ninety‑nine names; whoever enumerates them will enter Paradise, and they are in the Qur’an.” For this reason, some scholars attempted to extract these names specifically from the Qur’an. However, the divine names mentioned in the Qur’an exceed ninety‑nine in number. Therefore, it is evident that the ninety‑nine names form a distinguished subset among the divine names, not an exhaustive list. It would be incorrect to claim that God has no names beyond these ninety‑nine. Some narrations explicitly list these ninety‑nine names. One such narration, recorded in Tawḥīd al‑Ṣadūq and transmitted from Imām al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) through his forefathers to the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny, enumerates them as follows (with the clarification that although some of these names do not appear verbatim in the Qur’an, their meanings are clearly present therein): God, the Deity, the One, the Unique, the Eternal Refuge, the First, the Last, the All‑Hearing, the All‑Seeing, the All‑Powerful, the Possessor of Power, the Most High, the Ever‑Exalted, the Ever‑Remaining, the Originator, the Fashioner, the Creator, the Most Honorable, the Inward, the Living, the Wise, the All‑Knowing, the Forbearing, the Preserver, the Truth, the Reckoner, the Praiseworthy, the Gracious, the Lord, the All‑Merciful, the Ever‑Merciful, the Creator of beings, the Provider, the Watchful, the Kind, the Seeing, the Source of Peace, the Giver of Security, the Protector, the Mighty, the Compeller, the Supremely Great, the Master, the All‑Pure, the Witness, the Truthful, the Maker, the Manifest, the Just, the Pardoner, the All‑Forgiving, the Self‑Sufficient, the Succor, the Originator, the Unique, the Opener, the Splitter, the Pre‑Eternal, the King, the All‑Holy, the Powerful, the Near, the Self‑Subsisting, the Withholder, the Expander, the Fulfiller of needs, the Glorious, the Patron, the Bestower, the All‑Encompassing, the Clear, the Rescuer, the Fashioner, the Generous, the Great, the Sufficient, the Remover of harm, the Affectionate, the Light, the Bestower, the Helper, the All‑Encompassing, the Loving, the Guide, the Faithful, the Trustee, the Inheritor, the Beneficent, the Resurrector, the Accepter of repentance, the Majestic, the Most Generous, the All‑Aware, the Creator, the Best of Helpers, the Judge, the Most Appreciative, the Magnificent, the Subtle, and the Healer. What is of primary importance here is that calling upon God by His names or enumerating al‑Asmāʾ al‑Ḥusnā does not mean merely uttering words without regard to their meanings. Nor does it mean that salvation or accepted supplication is achieved by verbal repetition alone. Rather, the intended meaning is to believe in these names, and to strive to actualize their meanings within one’s own existence—reflecting knowledge, power, mercy, forbearance, forgiveness, strength, generosity, and provision in one’s conduct. It is self‑evident that such a person will be among the people of Paradise, will have his supplications answered, and will attain goodness. From what has been stated, it becomes clear that narrations mentioning divine names beyond the ninety‑nine, or supplications in which up to a thousand divine names are invoked, do not contradict this discussion. God’s names have no limit, just as His Essence is infinite and eternal. Nevertheless, some names and attributes are especially distinguished. Other narrations further illuminate this point. For example, in al‑Kāfī, Imām al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), in explanation of this verse, states: “By God, we are the al‑Asmāʾ al‑Ḥusnā.” This indicates that the divine attributes are powerfully reflected in the existence of the Imams, and that knowledge of them acts as a means of knowing God. Such narrations do not conflict with the understanding presented above. Likewise, narrations stating that all al‑Asmāʾ al‑Ḥusnā are ultimately encompassed in pure monotheism (tawḥīd khāliṣ) are explained by the fact that all divine attributes ultimately return to the One, Unique Essence of God. Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī, in his commentary, points out a subtle idea worthy of reflection: all divine attributes indicate one of two fundamental realities—either God’s absolute independence from all things, or the absolute dependence of all things upon Him.

As stated in the verses above, one group among the servants of God invites people toward the truth and judges in accordance with truth. This raises the question: who exactly is meant by this group? In the narrations found in Islamic hadith literature, various explanations are encountered. Among them is a narration attributed to Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (peace be upon him), in which he stated: By this is meant the community of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him and his household. (Nūr al‑Thiqlayn, vol. 2, p. 105) That is, those who are the true followers of the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny and who refrain from any alteration, distortion, innovation, or deviation with respect to his teachings. Accordingly, in another narration reported from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, he said: “By Him in whose hand is my soul, this community will divide into seventy‑three sects; all of them will be in the Fire except one sect.” And then he recited: وَمِمَّنْ خَلَقْنَا أُمَّةٌ يَهْدُونَ بِالْحَقِّ وَبِهِ يَعْدِلُونَ, and added: “This is the group that will be saved among this community.” (same reference) It is possible that the number seventy‑three is used here to indicate multiplicity rather than a precise numerical count, and that it refers to the many groups holding strange and divergent beliefs that have emerged throughout Islamic history. Fortunately, most of these have disappeared, leaving only their names preserved in books dealing with the history of doctrines. In another narration—found in Sunni sources and attributed to ʿAlī (peace be upon him)—it is stated regarding the various groups that would arise within the Islamic community: The group that will attain salvation consists of my Shiʿa and the followers of my school. (Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 2, p. 53) Some narrations also state that this verse refers to the Imams of the Ahl al‑Bayt. (Nūr al‑Thiqlayn, vol. 2, pp. 104–105) It is clear that all of these narrations testify to a single underlying truth and present different aspects of it. That is, the verse points to a group that calls toward the truth, whose speech and action—from governance to practical programs—are entirely based on truth, and which walks the path of authentic and genuine Islam. It is noteworthy that despite differences in knowledge, lineage, and language, this group constitutes one single community, not multiple communities, for the Qur’an refers to them using the singular term أُمَّة, not أُمَم. This indicates unity in essence and direction: a single community distinguished by commitment to truth, justice, and faithful adherence to divine guidance.

In some narrations related to the episode of Balʿam Bāʿūrā, which has already been discussed, it is stated that he possessed knowledge of the Greatest Name of God (Ism al‑Aʿẓam). In view of the preceding verses, which addressed the Beautiful Names of God (al‑Asmāʾ al‑Ḥusnā), it is appropriate to say a few words about this subject. Numerous narrations exist concerning the Ism al‑Aʿẓam, from which it is understood that whoever possesses knowledge of this Name not only has his supplications answered, but also attains such a degree of divine favor that, by God’s permission, he is able to exercise influence over the realm of nature and accomplish extraordinary tasks. Many Islamic scholars have discussed which of God’s Names constitutes the Greatest Name, and most of these discussions revolve around identifying a particular name among the divine attributes that possesses this tremendous effect. However, our view is that greater attention should be given not merely to identifying such a name verbally, but to identifying those attributes and qualities whose internal realization within the human being leads to spiritual perfection, through which such effects manifest. In other words, the essential matter is embodying those attributes, possessing their meanings within oneself, and becoming characterized by them. Otherwise, how could it be possible for a person tainted by sin to become one whose prayers are answered or who attains divine proximity? Thus, when we hear that Balʿam possessed the Ism al‑Aʿẓam and later lost it, the meaning is that through self‑discipline, faith, awareness, and piety, he had reached a spiritual station at which his prayer was not rejected in the Divine Presence. Yet, as a result of moral lapses—inevitable dangers for the human soul—and by succumbing to base desires and serving Pharaohs and tyrants, he completely lost that spirituality and inward illumination, forfeiting that rank and station. In this sense, forgetting the Ism al‑Aʿẓam may be understood as the loss of that spiritual state. Similarly, when it is stated that the Greatest Messenger and the rightly guided leaders were aware of the Ism al‑Aʿẓam, the meaning is that they had fully absorbed the reality of God’s most exalted Name into their very being. Because of this inner condition and spiritual perfection, God granted them such a lofty rank and authority—something that cannot be attained merely through outward knowledge or verbal formulas.

See ayat 183 for tafseer.

After the discussion in the preceding verses concerning the people of Hell, these two verses refer to a type of divine punishment that God, as a consistent law (sunnah), applies to many rebellious sinners. This is the punishment known as “ʿadhāb al‑istidrāj” or gradual punishment. The term استدراج appears in the Qur’an in two places: once in the verse under discussion and once in Sūrat al‑Qalam, verse 44. In both cases, it is used in connection with those who deny the signs of God. Lexically, استدراج has two related meanings. One is to take or seize something gradually and step by step, as the word derives from درج, meaning a stair or step. Just as a person ascends or descends gradually by the steps of a staircase, so too is gradual capture or seizure referred to as istidrāj. The second meaning is to fold or wrap up, like rolling a bundle of papers. Both meanings ultimately convey a single comprehensive concept: a gradual and carefully staged outcome. Once the meaning of istidrāj is clear, we may turn to the interpretation of the verse. In the first verse, God the Exalted states: Those who deny Our signs—We shall gradually draw them (into punishment) from where they do not know, and We shall fold up the fabric of their lives وَالَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِنَا سَنَسْتَدْرِجُهُمْ مِنْ حَيْثُ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ. In the following verse, this meaning is emphasized further by explaining that God does not hasten to punish such people immediately. Rather, He grants them respite and time so that they might awaken and return to the straight path. When they persist in heedlessness, only then are they seized: وَأُمْلِي لَهُمْ. Haste is the attribute of those who lack sufficient power and fear losing their opportunity, whereas God states: Indeed, My plan is firm and unassailable إِنَّ كَيْدِي مَتِينٌ. The word متين means strong and firm, and originates from متن, referring to the powerful muscles of the back. The terms كيد and مكر are synonymous; as explained in Sūrat Āl ʿImrān, verse 54, makr in Arabic denotes strategy and measured planning, not the malicious sense of deceit attached to the term in modern usage. The explanation of istidrājī punishment, to which the verse refers, is clarified through other Qur’anic verses and narrations as well. God does not punish arrogant sinners and transgressors immediately. Rather, He opens the doors of blessings before them, enabling them to grow increasingly defiant. They accumulate wealth and power in excess. This occurs for one of two purposes: either these blessings become a means of reform and return to the right path, or, when they persist in defiance, the punishment reaches a far more painful stage—because once the sinner is fully immersed in divine favors, God suddenly withdraws those blessings and folds up the entire structure of life. This form of punishment is extremely severe. This meaning, though not fully contained in the word istidrāj alone, becomes clear when combined with the phrase مِنْ حَيْثُ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ. In summary, this verse serves as a warning to all sinners: they must not interpret the delay of divine punishment as evidence of their righteousness or as weakness on the part of God. Nor should they understand the blessings they enjoy as signs of divine pleasure or closeness. Quite often, the very successes and comforts they experience are in fact the prelude to istidrājī punishment. God allows them to luxuriate in blessings and grants them respite, raising them higher and higher—only to finally cast them down with such force that their very trace is erased, and the entire narrative of their worldly glory is rolled up. Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (peace be upon him) states in Nahj al‑Balāghah: “Whoever is granted abundance in wealth and resources and fails to see it as istidrāj, has truly felt secure from a danger that should have made him fear.” Similarly, in Rawḍat al‑Kāfī, it is narrated from ʿAlī (peace be upon him) that he said: “A time will come when nothing will be more concealed than the truth, nothing more manifest than falsehood, and nothing more prevalent than lies attributed to God and His Messenger.” He further stated that in that time, some people would distort even a single Qur’anic verse and stray from God’s religion, constantly shifting loyalties—from one ruler to another, from one allegiance to another—until they are seized by God’s istidrājī punishment from directions they did not anticipate. Imām al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) is reported to have said: “How many people are deluded by the favors God has bestowed upon them; how many sinners does God conceal while they persist in sin, moving step by step toward punishment; and how many are deceived by the praise of others.” In explanation of this verse, Imām al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) also said: “The meaning is that a servant commits a sin, and God renews the blessing for him, yet that very blessing distracts him from seeking forgiveness for that sin.” In al‑Kāfī, he further states: “When God intends good for a servant and he commits a sin, He follows it with hardship and reminds him of repentance. But when God intends ill for a servant (as a consequence of his deeds) and he commits a sin, He follows it with blessing so that he forgets repentance and persists in sin. This is the meaning of the divine word: سَنَسْتَدْرِجُهُمْ مِنْ حَيْثُ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ, that is, We gradually draw them into punishment through blessings while they are in disobedience.” This is precisely the reality to which the Qur’an draws attention: gradual punishment through blessings, delivered in a manner that the sinner neither perceives nor anticipates.

See ayat 186 for tafseer.

See ayat 186 for tafseer.

Exegetes relate that when the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny was still in Mecca, one night he ascended Mount Ṣafā and called the people to belief in the One God and to worship Him alone. In particular, he summoned all the tribes of Quraysh and warned them of divine punishment. He continued calling them from evening until a considerable part of the night had passed. At that point, the idol‑worshippers remarked mockingly: “Their companion has gone mad; he has been shouting from night until morning.” On this occasion, the above verse was revealed, giving them a decisive and forceful response. Although this verse has a specific occasion of revelation, its content concerns the introduction of the Prophet, the purpose of his mission, and the call to prepare for the life to come. For this reason, it is closely connected with the preceding discussions regarding the groups of the people of Hell and the people of Paradise, and forms a coherent continuation of those themes.

In this verse, God the Exalted first responds decisively to the unfounded allegation of madness that the idol‑worshippers directed at the Prophet. He says, in effect: do they not reflect and use their reason so that they may realize that there is no trace whatsoever of madness in their companion, the Prophet? اَوَلَمْ يَتَفَكَّرُوا مَا بِصَاحِبِهِمْ مِنْ جِنَّةٍ. As the leading lexicographers have explained, جِنَّة means madness, and its original meaning is concealment or covering—implying that at the time of madness, a veil falls over the intellect. This verse points out that the Prophet of Islam PBUH & His Pure Progeny was not a stranger among them, but rather their ṣāḥib—their companion and familiar associate. For more than forty years he had lived among them; they had always observed his sound judgment and thoughtful conduct, and had consistently witnessed signs of wisdom in him. How, then, could they suddenly fabricate such a baseless accusation against one who, prior to this call, had been regarded as among the most prudent members of their society? Would it not have been more reasonable for them to reflect and consider that perhaps he was speaking the truth and had truly been commissioned by God to convey the call to truth? After refuting the accusation, the Qur’an clarifies the Prophet’s role, stating that he is nothing but a manifest warner, who openly alerts his people to the dangers that lie ahead. إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا نَذِيرٌ مُّبِينٌ. In the next verse, to further complete this argument, the Qur’an invites them to contemplate the universe, the heavens, and the earth, saying: have they not looked into the dominion of the heavens and the earth and everything that God has created? اَوَلَمْ يَنظُرُوا فِي مَلَكُوتِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْاَرْضِ وَمَا خَلَقَ اللَّهُ مِنْ شَيْءٍ. The purpose of this call to reflection is that they may understand that the creation of this vast universe and the establishment of its astonishing order were not purposeless. Rather, creation has a profound aim, and the Prophet’s call to truth is itself a link in the fulfillment of that purpose—the moral cultivation and spiritual growth of human beings. The term مَلَكُوت is derived from مُلْك, meaning dominion or sovereignty. The additional letters wāw and tāʾ convey emphasis and intensity, and the term is generally used to denote God’s absolute and comprehensive sovereignty over existence. Reflecting upon the perfect order of this universe—which embodies the breadth of God’s dominion—not only strengthens faith in God and commitment to truth, but also reveals that this magnificent system is directed toward a deliberate goal. Both realizations compel the human being toward seeking God’s guidance and grace, so that the purpose of creation may be fulfilled. The verse then seeks to awaken them from their slumber of heedlessness by saying: have they not considered that perhaps the final moments of their lives are near? And if they do not believe today, and do not accept the Prophet’s call and the Qur’an revealed to him—with all the clear signs it contains—then in what discourse will they believe thereafter? وَأَنْ عَسَىٰ أَنْ يَكُونَ قَدِ اقْتَرَبَ أَجَلُهُمْ فَبِأَيِّ حَدِيثٍ بَعْدَهُ يُؤْمِنُونَ. This statement conveys two essential points. First, human life is neither eternal nor guaranteed. Moments of opportunity pass swiftly, and no one knows whether he will be alive tomorrow. In such circumstances, postponement and neglect can never be considered wise. Second, if they refuse to believe in the Qur’an—despite its clear divine signs—then what message greater or more compelling do they imagine they will ever accept? Thus, the verse effectively closes all paths of evasion for the polytheists. On one side, it draws their attention to the Prophet’s well‑known intelligence and integrity prior to his mission, so that they may not use false accusations as an excuse to avoid listening to him. On another side, it directs them to contemplate the system of creation, the Creator, and the purpose of existence. On a third side, it reminds them of the fleeting nature of worldly life. And on a fourth side, it declares that refusal to accept this manifest Book leaves no ground for faith in anything else, since nothing surpasses it. Finally, the last verse among those under discussion summarizes the matter by stating: whoever God lets go astray—as a consequence of persistent, reprehensible deeds—has no guide, and God leaves them wandering blindly in their rebellion and transgression. مَنْ يُضْلِلِ اللَّهُ فَلَا هَادِيَ لَهُ وَيَذَرُهُمْ فِي طُغْيَانِهِمْ يَعْمَهُونَ. As repeatedly emphasized, such expressions do not apply to all disbelievers or sinners indiscriminately. Rather, they are specific to those who, in the face of evident truths, persist in stubbornness, bigotry, and hostility, as though veils had fallen over their eyes, ears, and hearts. These dark veils are themselves the product of their deeds, and this is precisely what is meant by divine misguidance—not arbitrary compulsion, but abandonment resulting from persistent rejection of truth.

According to certain narrations (see Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 2, p. 54), the Quraysh appointed several individuals to travel to Najrān and consult the Jewish scholars there (for besides Christians, Jews also resided in Najrān). They were instructed to ask the scholars complex and challenging questions so that these could then be presented to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, assuming that he would be unable to answer them. Among those questions was: when will the Hour (the Day of Resurrection) be established? When this question was put to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, the response was given through the verse presently under discussion. (Explanatory note: Some exegetes—such as the late al‑Ṭabrisī—have mentioned that the occasion of revelation of this verse involved the Jews, who came before the Messenger and questioned him about the Hour. However, since this sūrah was revealed in Mecca, and the Prophet PBUH & His Pure Progeny did not generally encounter Jews there, this account appears unlikely.)

Although a specific occasion of revelation has been mentioned for this verse, it is nonetheless clearly connected with the preceding verses. The earlier passages spoke of the Resurrection and emphasized the necessity of preparing for it. Naturally, after such a discussion, a question arises in the minds of many: when will the Resurrection occur? Accordingly, the Qur’an states: They ask you about the Hour—when will it be anchored? يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ السَّاعَةِ أَيَّانَ مُرْسَاهَا. The word السَّاعَة sometimes appears in the sense of “the final moment of departure from this world,” yet for the most part—and according to some views, always—it is used in the Qur’an to signify the establishment of the Day of Resurrection. Various contextual clues affirm this meaning, including the phrasing of the occasion of revelation: “متى تقوم الساعة” (when will the Hour be established?). The word أَيَّان is equivalent to متى and is used to ask about time. The term مُرْسَاهَا is a verbal noun (maṣdar mīmī) derived from أَرْسَى, and is used to denote establishment or setting in place. For this reason, firm and unmoving mountains are described as جبال راسيات. Thus, أَيَّانَ مُرْسَاهَا means: at what time will the Resurrection be fixed and take place? The verse then continues by instructing the Prophet to answer clearly: Say: its knowledge belongs only to my Lord; none can reveal it at its appointed time except Him قُلْ إِنَّمَا عِلْمُهَا عِنْدَ رَبِّي لَا يُجَلِّيهَا لِوَقْتِهَا إِلَّا هُوَ. However, allusion is made, indirectly, to two aspects of it. First, it is said: The Hour weighs heavily upon the heavens and the earth ثَقُلَتْ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ. What event could be more grave and overwhelming than this? At the threshold of the Resurrection, celestial bodies will disintegrate and collapse, the sun will lose its light, the moon will be darkened, the stars will be stripped of their radiance, and the particles of the universe will scatter apart. From whatever remains of this cosmic dissolution, a new world will emerge. (Explanatory note: Some exegetes have interpreted this statement as meaning that knowledge of the Resurrection is burdensome and difficult for the inhabitants of the heavens and the earth. However, the interpretation presented above is more sound, since assuming the omission of words such as “knowledge” or “inhabitants” contradicts the apparent wording of the verse.) The verse then states: They ask you as though you were fully informed about it يَسْأَلُونَكَ كَأَنَّكَ حَفِيٌّ عَنْهَا. (Explanatory note: حَفِيّ originally refers to someone who persistently inquires about a matter with insistence; because repeated inquiry can indicate in‑depth knowledge, the term is sometimes used to mean “well‑informed.”) It then concludes: Say: its knowledge belongs solely to God, but most people do not know قُلْ إِنَّمَا عِلْمُهَا عِنْدَ اللَّهِ وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ. One might ask: why has this knowledge been reserved exclusively for God, and why has it not been disclosed even to the prophets? The answer is that withholding knowledge of the exact timing of the Resurrection ensures its suddenness and gravity, so that people never consider it distant or irrelevant. This perpetual sense of expectancy urges them to remain constantly prepared and vigilant. Such uncertainty plays a powerful and constructive role in moral training, in awakening a sense of responsibility, and in restraining people from sin. In this way, the concealment of the timing of the Resurrection is not a deprivation of knowledge, but a deliberate pedagogical measure designed for the spiritual refinement and ethical awareness of humankind.

Although a specific occasion of revelation has been mentioned for this verse, its connection with the preceding verse is clear, because the previous verse stated that no one besides God knows the time of the Resurrection, and the present verse categorically negates complete knowledge of the unseen for anyone other than God. In the first statement, addressing the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, it is said: Say: I possess no power over benefit or harm for myself except what God wills قُلْ لَا أَمْلِكُ لِنَفْسِي نَفْعًا وَلَا ضَرًّا إِلَّا مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ. There is no doubt that a person can, to some extent, secure benefit or ward off harm for himself; nevertheless, as we observe in this verse, such power is absolutely negated for all human beings. This is because, in reality, the human being does not possess independent power over his actions; rather, all power belongs to God, and He is the One who grants such abilities to human beings. In other words, ownership of all power and absolute authority in the realm of existence belongs intrinsically to God alone. All others—even prophets and angels—derive their power from Him, and their ownership and capability are contingent and derivative. The phrase إِلَّا مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ (except what God wills) clearly testifies to this meaning. Many other Qur’anic verses also negate ownership of benefit and harm for anyone other than God. For this reason, worship of idols and anything besides God has been categorically prohibited. For example, in Sūrat al‑Furqān, verse 3, it is stated: وَاتَّخَذُوا مِنْ دُونِهِ آلِهَةً لَا يَخْلُقُونَ شَيْئًا وَهُمْ يُخْلَقُونَ وَلَا يَمْلِكُونَ لِأَنْفُسِهِمْ ضَرًّا وَلَا نَفْعًا “They have taken besides Him gods who create nothing, while they themselves are created, and who possess no power over harm or benefit for themselves—let alone for others.” Every Muslim believes that no one besides God is the Creator, the Provider, or the true possessor of benefit and harm. Therefore, even when a believer asks something of another person, he remains fully aware that whatever that person possesses is from God alone. From here it becomes clear that those who cite this verse as evidence to deny tawassul (seeking a means) through the prophets and Imams, or who label such acts as a form of polytheism, are mistaken. They have imagined that seeking benefit from the Prophet or the Imam implies independent power on their part, whereas in reality, whatever they seek is sought from God through those whom He has honored. In this sense, seeking intercession and mediation is pure monotheism and sincere devotion. The phrase إِلَّا مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ itself alludes to this very meaning. Likewise, the expression إِلَّا بِإِذْنِهِ in the verse “Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission?” points to the same truth. Accordingly, two groups fall into error concerning tawassul. One group ascribes independent, intrinsic power to the prophets or Imams alongside God—this is clearly a form of polytheism. The other group denies even derivative, God‑granted power for the prophets and Imams—this too contradicts the explicit verses of the Qur’an. The correct path is that the prophets and Imams intercede by God’s command and seek relief for those who turn to them, entirely through God. After clarifying this matter, the Qur’an addresses another important issue—one that had also been raised by a group who questioned the Messenger of God. The Qur’an responds: Say: I do not possess knowledge of the unseen; had I known the unseen, I would have amassed much good, and no harm would have touched me وَلَوْ كُنْتُ أَعْلَمُ الْغَيْبَ لَاسْتَكْثَرْتُ مِنَ الْخَيْرِ وَمَا مَسَّنِيَ السُّوءُ. (Explanatory note: In reality, the clause “ولا أعلم الغيب” is implicit here, as indicated by the conditional statement that follows.) For a person who possesses complete knowledge of hidden realities would naturally choose whatever brings benefit and avoid whatever causes harm. The verse then concisely and clearly defines the true position of the Messenger: I am nothing but a warner and a bearer of glad tidings for a people who believe إِنْ أَنَا إِلَّا نَذِيرٌ وَبَشِيرٌ لِقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ. This statement affirms that the Prophet’s mission is not founded upon independent control over outcomes or possession of unseen knowledge, but upon faithfully conveying warning and guidance, and delivering good news to those receptive to faith.

Some individuals, whose study is limited and who examine only a single verse in isolation—without considering other Qur’anic verses, and without even paying due attention to the internal indicators present within the same verse—reach hasty conclusions. The above verse has also been used by such people as supposed evidence for the absolute negation of knowledge of the unseen (ʿilm al‑ghayb) for the prophets (peace be upon them). Whereas, in reality, this verse negates intrinsic and independent knowledge of the unseen for the Prophet, not knowledge granted by God. There is no doubt that human beings, even in ordinary matters, possess some degree of control over benefit and harm for themselves and others. Accordingly, the earlier statement in the verse itself stands as clear evidence that the negation of ownership over benefit and harm—or the negation of knowledge of the unseen—does not imply an absolute negation; rather, the intended negation is that of independence. In other words, the Prophet did not know anything from himself; whatever he knew of the unseen and hidden realities was granted to him by God. This is precisely what is stated in Sūrat al‑Jinn, verses 26–27: عَالِمُ الْغَيْبِ فَلَا يُظْهِرُ عَلَىٰ غَيْبِهِ أَحَدًا، إِلَّا مَنِ ارْتَضَىٰ مِن رَّسُولٍ God is the Knower of the unseen, and He does not disclose His unseen to anyone except to such a messenger as He chooses. In principle, the completion of leadership—especially universal leadership—requires awareness of many material and spiritual realities. For a leader at such a level, familiarity with numerous matters that remain hidden from ordinary people is essential. Such a leader requires not only knowledge of laws and commands, but also acquaintance with the secrets of existence, the affairs of human civilization, and events of the past and future. God grants some measure of such knowledge to His chosen representatives; otherwise, the completeness of their leadership would not be realized. In other words, it may be said that if the prophets were entirely unaware of the unseen, their actions and teachings would remain confined within the limitations of time and place, restricted to a particular era and environment. However, when a portion of the unseen is disclosed to them, they are able to formulate programs and guidance that remain beneficial and sufficient for people of later times and diverse circumstances. For further elaboration on the subject of awareness of the unseen, see Tafsīr‑e Namūnah, volume 5, p. 206.

See ayat 193 for tafseer.

See ayat 193 for tafseer.

See ayat 193 for tafseer.

See ayat 193 for tafseer.

In these verses, another aspect of the conditions and mindset of the polytheists is addressed, and a response is given to one of their misunderstandings. In the preceding verse, ownership of benefit and harm and knowledge of the unseen were confined exclusively to God, which in reality pointed to the doctrine of divine unity in actions (tawḥīd al‑afʿālī). The present verses complete that theme, as they likewise draw attention to the same principle. First it is stated: It is He who created you from a single soul and made from it its spouse, so that he might find tranquility with her هُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُمْ مِنْ نَفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ وَجَعَلَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا لِيَسْكُنَ إِلَيْهَا. The two lived together in calm companionship. Then, when the man had intimate relations with his wife, she conceived a light burden, and she continued with it without difficulty فَلَمَّا تَغَشَّاهَا حَمَلَتْ حَمْلًا خَفِيفًا فَمَرَّتْ بِهِ. (Explanatory note: تَغَشَّاهَا is derived from تَغَشِّي, meaning to cover or envelop, and is used in Arabic as a refined allusion to marital intimacy.) As time passed, the burden of pregnancy gradually grew heavier, until she felt its weight فَلَمَّا أَثْقَلَتْ. At that stage, both were awaiting the birth of a child and were eager that God grant them a righteous offspring. They therefore turned sincerely toward the Divine Presence and called upon their Lord, saying: If You grant us a righteous child, we shall surely be among the grateful دَعَوَا اللَّهَ رَبَّهُمَا لَئِنْ آتَيْتَنَا صَالِحًا لَنَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الشَّاكِرِينَ. But when He granted them a sound and well‑formed child, they associated partners with Him regarding what He had given them. Yet God is exalted and far above what they associate with Him فَلَمَّا آتَاهُمَا صَالِحًا جَعَلَا لَهُ شُرَكَاءَ فِيمَا آتَاهُمَا فَتَعَالَى اللَّهُ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ. These verses thus emphasize once again that all stages of human existence—from origin and companionship to reproduction and progeny—are entirely dependent upon divine will, and that attributing any share of this creative act to others constitutes a deviation from pure monotheism.

Who are the husband and wife referred to in the above verses? Exegetes have differed greatly on this matter. Are the “single soul” and its spouse meant to be Adam and Eve, while Adam was a prophet and Eve a righteous, believing woman? Is it conceivable that they would have deviated from the path of monotheism toward polytheism? And if someone other than Adam is intended—if the verse applies to all human beings—how does the term “واحدة” (single) accord with that meaning? Moreover, what act or belief is being described here as shirk (associating partners with God)? The answers are as follows: In interpreting these verses, two main approaches present themselves, and the various opinions of exegetes can largely be understood as stemming from these two approaches. 1. The first approach is that “واحدة” refers to a single individual, as it does in some other Qur’anic verses, such as the opening verse of Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ. The expression “نفس واحدة” appears in five places in the Qur’an: in the present verse, in the first verse of Sūrat al‑Nisāʾ, in al‑Anʿām verse 98, in Luqmān verse 28, and in al‑Zumar verse 6. Some of these contexts are unrelated to the present discussion, but others resemble it. According to this view, the verse briefly alludes to Adam (peace be upon him) and his spouse. In this case, the shirk mentioned would not mean worship of other than God or belief in divinity besides the Lord. Rather, it may refer to a kind of attachment or inclination toward one’s child, since even certain natural inclinations can distract a person from God. 2. The second interpretation understands “واحدة” here as referring to a single species, meaning that God created all of you from one type of being and made your spouses from the same kind. According to this view, both these verses and the following ones address the human species in general. That is, during the period of awaiting the birth of a child, people fervently raise their hands in supplication, asking God for righteous and capable offspring. Like those who, in times of fear and difficulty, turn to God with complete sincerity and pledge gratitude if their needs are met, they too ask earnestly. But when the child is born, or their difficulty is resolved, they forget all their pledges. Sometimes they say: “If our child is sound and beautiful, it is because he takes after his parents; that is simply the law of heredity.” At other times they attribute it to proper nutrition, favorable conditions, and other circumstances. And sometimes they turn toward the idols they worship and claim that their child was blessed by those deities. In doing so, they ignore all the signs of divine creation and attribute the blessing either to natural causes or to their false gods. (Explanatory note: Some exegetes have interpreted the beginning of the verse as referring to Adam (peace be upon him) and the latter part as referring to the descendants of Adam. However, this interpretation does not accord with the apparent meaning of the verse and requires assuming omissions or shifting the antecedent of pronouns in an unnatural way.) There are several contextual indications within these verses that align more closely with the second interpretation, including the following: First, the verses describe the condition of a husband and wife who already lived within a society and had observed good and bad offspring with their own eyes. Thus they prayed for good offspring. If the verses referred to Adam and Eve, they would not yet have had any children, nor would concepts such as righteous and unrighteous children have been applicable. Second, the subsequent verse and those that follow use plural pronouns, which indicates that the dual form (تثنیہ) refers to two groups rather than to two individuals. Third, the later verses clearly indicate that the shirk in question refers to idol‑worship, not to natural affection for children or similar inclinations—something inconceivable with respect to Adam (peace be upon him) and his spouse. Considering these contextual clues, it becomes clear that the verses speak about human beings in general, and about husbands and wives as a class. As has been noted earlier (see volume 3, p. 182 of this commentary), the statement that a man’s spouse is created from him does not mean that a literal part of a man’s body was separated to form the woman—as claimed in certain fabricated Israelite narrations that Eve was created from Adam’s left rib. Rather, it means that the woman is from the same species as the man, just as stated in Sūrat al‑Rūm, verse 21: وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ أَنْ خَلَقَ لَكُمْ مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا لِتَسْكُنُوا إِلَيْهَا “And among His signs is that He created for you spouses from your own kind, so that you may find tranquility with them.” This interpretation preserves both the coherence of the verses and their broader moral message concerning gratitude, responsibility, and sincere monotheism.

In some Sunni sources and in certain unreliable books, a narration has been transmitted in the interpretation of the above verses that bears no compatibility whatsoever with Islamic beliefs concerning the prophets (peace be upon them). According to this report, Samurah ibn Jundub narrates from the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny: “When Eve gave birth to a child, Iblīs began circling around her. None of her children had survived previously. Iblīs said to her: name this child ʿAbd al‑Ḥārith. She did so, and the child survived. This occurred through the revelation and command of Satan.” (al‑Manār, vol. 9, citing Musnad Aḥmad) In some variations of this report, it is also stated that Adam (peace be upon him) consented to this act. Whether the transmitter of this narration is the well‑known liar Samurah ibn Jundub, or individuals such as Kaʿb al‑Aḥbār and Wahb ibn Munabbih—figures renowned for their Jewish background and later conversion to Islam, and whom many scholars hold responsible for introducing Israelite myths into Islamic literature—its content alone suffices as proof of its falsehood. Adam (peace be upon him), who was the vicegerent of God, a great prophet, and the bearer of ʿallama al‑asmāʾ, even if he descended from Paradise due to tark al‑awlā, was not a person who would adopt polytheism or name his child “servant of Satan.” Such an act is only conceivable from an idol‑worshipping, ignorant, and heedless individual. Even more astonishing is that this narration attributes a form of miracle or charisma to Satan, suggesting that naming the child after him caused the infant to survive, unlike previous children. It is deeply unfortunate that some earlier exegetes were so influenced by such narrations that they incorporated them directly into their commentaries. In any case, since this report contradicts both the Qur’an and sound reason, it must be discarded entirely. After rejecting such distortions, the Qur’an once again condemns idolatry in forceful terms, stating: Do they associate with God entities that cannot create anything, while they themselves are created? اَيُشْرِكُونَ مَا لَا يَخْلُقُ شَيْئًا وَهُمْ يُخْلَقُونَ. Moreover, these fabricated deities possess no ability to aid their worshippers in any difficulty—indeed, they cannot even help themselves وَلَا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ لَهُمْ نَصْرًا وَلَا أَنْفُسَهُمْ يَنْصُرُونَ. They are such entities that if you call them to guidance, they will not follow you وَإِنْ تَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَى الْهُدَىٰ لَا يَتَّبِعُوكُمْ. They neither hear the call of those who summon them to guidance nor can they guide others. Some exegetes have offered another interpretation of this verse, holding that the pronoun هُمْ refers not to the idols but to the idol‑worshippers themselves. That is, some among them are so obstinate and fanatically resistant that no matter how much they are invited to monotheism, they refuse to accept it. Another possible interpretation is that even if one seeks guidance from them, it has no effect upon them whatsoever. In either case, the meaning is summed up as follows: It is all the same whether you invite them to the truth or remain silent; stubborn idol‑worshippers will not abandon their course سَوَاءٌ عَلَيْكُمْ أَدَعَوْتُمُوهُمْ أَمْ أَنْتُمْ صَامِتُونَ. According to a different reading, the verse may mean: it is equal for you whether you request something from the idols or remain silent—both lead to the same result, for idols have no influence over destiny and no power to fulfill wishes. Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī, commenting on this verse, writes that when the polytheists encountered hardship, they would cry out before their idols; and when they felt secure, they would remain silent. The Qur’an thus addresses them: whether you supplicate before them or remain silent, it makes no difference—neither course yields any result. This passage thus concludes by dismantling, on intellectual and theological grounds, all forms of belief in powerless intermediaries, and by re‑affirming that guidance, creation, benefit, and harm belong exclusively to God alone.

See ayat 195 for tafseer.

In these two verses, the discussion of monotheism (tawḥīd) and confrontation with polytheism (shirk) continues, completing the argument presented in the preceding passages. They describe associating partners in worship and the reverence of beings other than God as actions devoid of reason and logic. From the content of these verses it becomes clear that idol‑worshippers’ logic is refuted through four distinct arguments. The Qur’an employs varied modes of reasoning to address this issue, presenting a new proof at each stage. The underlying reason is that polytheism is the most dangerous enemy of faith and of individual and collective human felicity. Since human thought has diverse roots and branches, and polytheism appears in new forms in every age, posing fresh threats to human societies, the Qur’an seizes every opportunity to cut off its corrupt roots and branches. Here it states: Indeed, those whom you call besides God—whom you worship and from whom you seek help—are servants like yourselves إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَدْعُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ عِبَادٌ أَمْثَالُكُمْ. Therefore, there is no justification for a human being prostrating before something that is essentially like himself, or for imagining that his destiny lies in its hands. In other words, the verse means that if you reflect, you will find that these supposed deities also possess bodies, are bound by time and space, are subject to the laws of nature, and are limited in life and capacity. In short, they possess no real distinction from you; it is only your illusion that has fabricated a sense of superiority for them. In the verse, the idols worshipped by polytheists are called عِبَاد, the plural of عَبْد, which means “servant,” even though ʿabd typically refers to a living being. Why is this expression used? Several explanations have been given: First, it may refer to deities who were originally human beings, such as Jesus for Christians or angels for certain Arab idol‑worshippers. Second, it may be said in response to their misconception: even supposing these idols possessed intellect and awareness, they would still not be superior to you. Third, in Arabic usage, ʿabd is sometimes applied to anything that is subjugated, controlled, or humbled before another—even if it lacks intellect—such as a frequently travelled road being called مَعْبَد. The verse then presents a second argument to invalidate their logic: If you believe they possess power or awareness, call upon them and see whether they respond to you, if you are truthful فَادْعُوهُمْ فَلْيَسْتَجِيبُوا لَكُمْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ صَادِقِينَ. Their death‑like silence itself demonstrates their worthlessness and utter lack of power. The argument is then intensified: Consider carefully—do they even have feet with which to walk? أَلَهُمْ أَرْجُلٌ يَمْشُونَ بِهَا Or do they have hands with which they can grasp or act? أَمْ لَهُمْ أَيْدٍ يَبْطِشُونَ بِهَا Or do they have eyes with which they can see? أَمْ لَهُمْ أَعْيُنٌ يُبْصِرُونَ بِهَا Or do they have ears with which they can hear? أَمْ لَهُمْ آذَانٌ يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَا. They are so feeble that they depend upon you to be moved from one place to another and require protection even for their own existence. They possess neither seeing eyes nor hearing ears, nor any other sensory capacity. Finally, a fourth argument is presented. The Prophet is instructed to say: Call upon your alleged partners and then conspire against me, all together, without granting me any respite قُلِ ادْعُوا شُرَكَاءَكُمْ ثُمَّ كِيدُونِي فَلَا تُنْظِرُونِ. That is, if I am lying, and if these beings are truly close to God and I have insulted their sanctity, then why do they not unleash their wrath upon me? Why are you and they together powerless to have any effect upon me? Therefore, realize that these are ineffective entities whose imagined power exists only in your delusions. Thus, with rational, experiential, and challenge‑based reasoning, the Qur’an exposes the emptiness of polytheism and affirms that all power, creation, guidance, and authority belong to God alone.

See ayat 198 for tafseer.

See ayat 198 for tafseer.

In the previous verse it was stated: You and your idols can cause me no harm whatsoever. In the first verse under discussion, allusion is made to the reason for this statement, where it is declared: Indeed, my protector and guardian is God, who has sent down the Book to me إِنَّ وَلِيِّيَ اللَّهُ الَّذِي نَزَّلَ الْكِتَابَ. Not only is He my protector, but He also takes charge of all righteous and upright people, encompassing them with His grace and care وَهُوَ يَتَوَلَّى الصَّالِحِينَ. Thereafter, once again emphasizing the invalidity of idol‑worship, the Qur’an states: Those whom you call upon besides Him have no power to aid you, nor can they even aid themselves وَالَّذِينَ تَدْعُونَ مِنْ دُونِهِ لَا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ نَصْرَكُمْ وَلَا أَنْفُسَهُمْ يَنْصُرُونَ. And even beyond this, it adds: If you call upon them for guidance in times of difficulty, they are not even capable of hearing you وَإِنْ تَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَى الْهُدَىٰ لَا يَسْمَعُوا. Indeed, even with their fabricated eyes—which may appear as though they are looking toward you—they in fact see nothing at all وَتَرَاهُمْ يَنْظُرُونَ إِلَيْكَ وَهُمْ لَا يُبْصِرُونَ. As mentioned earlier, this final verse may be interpreted as referring either to the idols or to the idol‑worshippers themselves. According to the first interpretation, its meaning is exactly as described above. According to the second interpretation, its meaning is: if you, O Muslims, invite these obstinate polytheists and idol‑worshippers to the correct monotheistic path, they will not accept the invitation. They do look at you with their eyes, and they even perceive signs of truth and reality in you, yet they still fail to truly “see” the truth. The themes of the final two verses have already appeared in earlier passages; this repetition serves the purpose of strong emphasis—so that idol‑worship may be confronted decisively and uprooted from the thoughts and spirits of the polytheists.

See ayat 203 for tafseer.

See ayat 203 for tafseer.

See ayat 203 for tafseer.

See ayat 203 for tafseer.

In these verses, the conditions for propagation (tablīgh) and guidance/leadership (hidāyah and imāmah) are presented in a strikingly balanced and carefully structured manner. The content of these verses is also closely connected to the preceding passages, which themselves were addressed to the polytheists as a form of proclamation and admonition. In the first verse, addressing the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, three fundamental duties of leaders and preachers are outlined. It is said: Adopt forgiveness and leniency toward people; be gentle with them, accept their excuses, and do not demand from them more than what lies within their capacity خُذِ الْعَفْوَ. The term عفو in Arabic carries several meanings: it can refer to surplus or excess, to moderation and choosing the middle course, to overlooking faults and accepting excuses, and also to ease and facilitation in conduct. Contextual indications show that—in contrast to the view of some exegetes—this verse is not concerned with financial matters or taking surplus wealth from people; rather, its most appropriate meaning here is leniency, overlooking faults, and choosing moderation. It is clear that if a leader or preacher adopts harshness and rigidity, people will quickly disperse from around him and his influence over hearts will vanish. As the Qur’an states elsewhere: وَلَوْ كُنْتَ فَظًّا غَلِيظَ الْقَلْبِ لَانْفَضُّوا مِنْ حَوْلِكَ “If you had been harsh and hard‑hearted, they would surely have dispersed from around you” (Āl ʿImrān, 159). The second command follows: Enjoin what is right وَأْمُرْ بِالْعُرْفِ. This indicates that kindness and gentleness do not mean indiscriminate approval or flattery. Rather, the leader and preacher must still present truths clearly and call people toward what reason and sound judgment recognize as good, and what God has introduced as virtue and righteousness—without neglecting this responsibility. In the third stage, instruction is given regarding patience and forbearance in dealing with the ignorant: Turn away from the ignorant وَأَعْرِضْ عَنِ الْجَاهِلِينَ. When a leader or preacher encounters obstinate, fanatical, ignorant, narrow‑minded, and morally deficient individuals, he is often subjected to insults, accusations, obstruction, and even physical harm. In such circumstances, success does not lie in engaging in confrontation or quarrels with the ignorant; rather, the most effective path is patience, composure, and deliberate avoidance. Experience shows that this is the best means of awakening the ignorant and extinguishing the fires of anger, envy, and prejudice within them. In the following verse, a further command is given, which effectively outlines a fourth responsibility of leaders and preachers. Positions of authority, status, wealth, and the pull of desires and passions constantly expose them to satanic insinuations. Satan and satanic personalities seek to divert them from their path through such temptations. The Qur’an instructs: If a whisper from Satan incites you, then seek refuge in God and entrust yourself to Him, and seek His aid; indeed, He is All‑Hearing, All‑Knowing وَإِمَّا يَنْزَغَنَّكَ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ نَزْغٌ فَاسْتَعِذْ بِاللَّهِ إِنَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ. (Explanatory note: يَنْزَغَنَّكَ derives from نَزَغَ (on the pattern of نَزَعَ), meaning to provoke disturbance, incite corruption, or impulsively agitate a matter.) This command emphasizes that the ultimate refuge and source of protection for leaders and preachers against subtle and overt temptations lies solely in God—who hears their supplications, knows their hidden intentions, and is fully aware of the machinations of Satan and his agents. Together, these verses present a comprehensive ethical framework for guidance and leadership: mercy without compromise of truth, reform without harshness, patience without passivity, and vigilance through reliance upon God.

It is transmitted from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) that he said: “There is no verse in the Qur’an concerning ethical matters more comprehensive than this verse.” (Reported in Majmaʿ al‑Bayān, under the verse in question) Some scholars, in explaining this narration, have stated that the fundamental human faculties are three: intellect, anger, and desire, and that the moral virtues likewise fall into three categories: Intellectual virtues, known as ḥikmah (wisdom), which are summarized in the phrase وَأْمُرْ بِالْعُرْفِ (command what is right), meaning the enjoining of virtuous and commendable actions. Psychological and moral virtues, which restrain excess and lust; these are termed ʿiffah (chastity or self‑restraint), and are encapsulated in خُذِ الْعَفْوَ. Control over the irascible faculty, which is called shajāʿah (moral courage), and is indicated in وَأَعْرِضْ عَنِ الْجَاهِلِينَ. Whether this hadith is interpreted as exegetes have done, or understood as a statement of the conditions of leadership as described earlier, it nonetheless reveals a fundamental truth: that the verse under discussion presents, in very brief and elegant terms, a comprehensive, expansive, and all‑embracing ethical and social program. In it are gathered all positive reformative principles and human virtues. According to some exegetes, the manner in which such breadth and depth of meaning are condensed into so few words is itself a manifestation of the Qur’an’s miraculous eloquence. It must be noted that although the verse is addressed to the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny, its message applies to the entire community, and to all leaders and preachers. It should also be noted that there is nothing in this verse that contradicts the doctrine of infallibility (ʿismah). Even prophets and infallible figures are to seek refuge in God against satanic insinuations, and no one— not even the infallible— is independent of divine grace and protection. Some narrations state that when this verse was revealed, the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny asked Gabriel to clarify its meaning—specifically, how one is to show leniency toward people and avoid harshness. Gabriel replied: “I do not know; I must ask the One who knows.” He then descended again and said: “O Muhammad! God commands you to pardon those who wrong you, to give to those who deprive you, and to maintain ties with those who cut you off.” Another narration relates that when this verse was revealed and the Prophet was commanded to show forbearance toward the ignorant, he said: “My Lord! How can one exercise patience when anger is present?” Then the following verse was revealed, commanding him to seek refuge in God at such moments. (Explanatory note: The author of al‑Manār records this narration in volume 9, p. 538, citing it from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq. The second verse is exactly the same as Sūrat Ḥā‑Mīm al‑Sajdah (41:36), with the only difference being the phrasing إِنَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ versus إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ.) In the verse that follows, the Qur’an explains how to overcome satanic whispers. It states: Indeed, when a visitation from Satan touches those who are God‑fearing, they remember God, and suddenly they become clear‑sighted إِنَّ الَّذِينَ اتَّقَوْا إِذَا مَسَّهُمْ طَائِفٌ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ تَذَكَّرُوا فَإِذَا هُمْ مُبْصِرُونَ. The term طَائِف means “one who circles around.” Satanic whispers, like a circling presence, continually revolve around the human soul and mind, seeking an entry point. At such moments, if a person remembers God and reflects upon the evil consequences of sin, those dark clouds disperse from around the heart and the right path becomes visible; otherwise, one ultimately yields to those whispers. In principle, every person—at every stage of faith and every age—is at some time confronted by satanic insinuations, and may feel within himself a powerful internal impulse calling toward sin. Undoubtedly, such impulses are stronger in youth and in environments saturated with sin, such as morally corrupted societies, where centers of immorality abound, restraints are removed, and the organs of dissemination often serve Satan by spreading his temptations. In such conditions, there exists only one path to deliverance: taqwā (God‑consciousness), as indicated in this verse. This is followed by vigilance, self‑examination, seeking refuge in God, remembering His bounties, and recalling the painful punishment awaiting transgressors. Numerous narrations attest to the profound effectiveness of remembrance of God in repelling satanic whispers. Many God‑fearing scholars and spiritually aware individuals remained in constant vigilance, sensing the danger of such whispers and defending themselves through murāqabah (spiritual watchfulness). In essence, the whisperings of the self and of Satan are like germs of disease: present everywhere, but seeking weak and vulnerable souls in which to take hold. Those whose inner being is sound and strong remain protected from their effects. The expression فَإِذَا هُمْ مُبْصِرُونَ indicates that remembrance of God restores inner vision; satanic whispers cast a veil over the inner sight, leading to confusion between right and wrong, friend and foe, good and evil, whereas the remembrance of God brings clarity, light, and discernment—by which one escapes the snares of temptation. In summary, the God‑fearing find liberation from satanic whispers under the shade of divine remembrance, while those steeped in sin—described as Satan’s brethren—remain ensnared in his traps. Accordingly, the following verse states: Their brothers draw them ever further into error, and then they do not desist وَإِخْوَانُهُمْ يَمُدُّونَهُمْ فِي الغَيِّ ثُمَّ لَا يُقْصِرُونَ. Here إِخْوَان refers metaphorically to devils, and the pronoun هُمْ denotes polytheists and sinners, as in Sūrat al‑Isrāʾ (17:27): إِنَّ الْمُبَذِّرِينَ كَانُوا إِخْوَانَ الشَّيَاطِينِ. The verb يَمُدُّونَهُمْ (from imdād) conveys the sense of continual support, extension, and reinforcement—meaning that devils continually pull them further along the path of misguidance. The phrase ثُمَّ لَا يُقْصِرُونَ means that demons fail to restrain themselves in any degree from misleading them. The Qur’an then describes another group of polytheists and sinners who are far removed from rational argumentation. It states: When you do not bring them a sign, they say: why did you not invent one? وَإِذَا لَمْ تَأْتِهِمْ بِآيَةٍ قَالُوا لَوْلَا اجْتَبَيْتَهَا. (Explanatory note: اجتباء originally means to collect or gather—such as water into a basin—and later came to mean “to select.” Thus لَوْلَا اجْتَبَيْتَهَا means: “Why did you not select or fabricate it yourself?”) The response commanded is: Say: I follow only what is revealed to me from my Lord قُلْ إِنَّمَا أَتَّبِعُ مَا يُوحَىٰ إِلَيَّ مِنْ رَبِّي. This Qur’an and its radiant verses are means of insight and awakening from the Lord, granting vision, light, and illumination to all who are receptive هَٰذَا بَصَائِرُ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ, and it is guidance and mercy for those who believe and submit to the truth. This verse implicitly clarifies that all of the Messenger’s words and actions originated from divine revelation, and that those who claim otherwise are, in reality, ignorant of the Qur’an itself.

See ayat 206 for tafseer.

See ayat 206 for tafseer.

This sūrah (al‑Aʿrāf) opens with a discussion of the greatness of the Qur’an, and its final verses likewise revolve around the Qur’an itself. Some exegetes have mentioned several occasions of revelation for the first of the verses under discussion. One such report, attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās and others, states that in the early days Muslims would sometimes speak during prayer. At times, while congregational prayer was underway, a new arrival would ask how many units of prayer had already been performed, and they would reply accordingly. In response to this situation, this verse was revealed, forbidding such conduct. It is also reported from al‑Zuhrī that when the Messenger of God PBUH & His Pure Progeny would recite the Qur’an, a young Anṣārī man would recite aloud at the same time. Thereupon this verse was revealed, prohibiting that behavior. In any case, the Qur’an commands in the above verse: When the Qur’an is recited, listen to it attentively and remain silent, so that God’s mercy may encompass you وَإِذَا قُرِئَ الْقُرْآنُ فَاسْتَمِعُوا لَهُ وَأَنْصِتُوا لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ. The word أَنْصِتُوا derives from إنصات, meaning to listen in silence with focused attention. A question arises here: is this command to listen and remain silent applicable in all situations whenever the Qur’an is recited, or is it specific to the state of prayer when the imām is reciting? On this matter, exegetes have differed significantly, and various narrations have been transmitted in books of hadith and tafsīr. From the apparent wording of the verse, the command seems general and not restricted to a particular situation. However, numerous narrations transmitted from the guides of Islam, as well as the consensus of scholars, indicate that listening in silence at all times is not obligatory, but rather a recommended (mustaḥabb) act. That is, it is preferable and commendable that whenever and wherever the Qur’an is being recited, listeners observe silence out of respect for the Qur’an, listen attentively to God’s message, and draw lessons for their lives—because the Qur’an is not merely a book to be recited, but a book to be understood and acted upon. This recommended practice is so strongly emphasized in some narrations that it is described as though it were obligatory. In one narration reported from Imām Jaʿfar al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him), he said: It is commendable to remain silent for the Qur’an in prayer and outside of prayer; and when the Qur’an is recited in your presence, it is necessary that you observe silence and listen attentively. (Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 2, p. 57) Some narrations even indicate that if the congregational imām is engaged in recitation and another person begins reciting a verse, it is recommended that the imām remain silent until that verse is completed, and then resume his recitation. Thus it is narrated from Imām al‑Ṣādiq (peace be upon him) that while Amīr al‑Muʾminīn ʿAlī (peace be upon him) was leading the morning prayer, a hypocrite named Ibn al‑Kawwāʾ—praying behind him—suddenly recited the verse: وَلَقَدْ أُوحِيَ إِلَيْكَ وَإِلَى الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ لَئِنْ أَشْرَكْتَ لَيَحْبَطَنَّ عَمَلُكَ وَلَتَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ (His intent was to allude sarcastically to ʿAlī’s acceptance of arbitration at Ṣiffīn.) Yet even then, Imām ʿAlī (peace be upon him) observed silence out of respect for the Qur’an until Ibn al‑Kawwāʾ finished the verse, and only then resumed his own recitation. Ibn al‑Kawwāʾ repeated the act a second and third time, and each time the Imām again observed silence. Afterwards, Imām ʿAlī (peace be upon him) recited the verse: فَاصْبِرْ إِنَّ وَعْدَ اللَّهِ حَقٌّ وَلَا يَسْتَخِفَّنَّكَ الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ —indicating that painful punishment awaits the hypocrites and unbelievers, and that patience and forbearance are required in facing them. He then completed the sūrah and proceeded to bow. (Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 2, p. 56) From this discussion it becomes clear that attentive listening and silence during the recitation of the Qur’an are highly appropriate and commendable, though not universally obligatory. Indeed, besides scholarly consensus and narrations, the phrase لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ (“so that you may receive mercy”) itself suggests that the command is one of recommendation rather than strict obligation. There is, however, one context in which this command is obligatory, namely congregational prayer, where the follower must remain silent and listen attentively to the imām’s recitation. Some jurists have even taken this verse as evidence that the follower is exempt from reciting Sūrat al‑Ḥamd and another sūrah in such a prayer. Among the narrations supporting this ruling is one reported from Imām Muḥammad al‑Bāqir (peace be upon him), who said: When the Qur’an is recited in an obligatory prayer while you are behind the imām, listen attentively and remain silent, so that you may receive mercy. (Tafsīr al‑Burhān, vol. 2, p. 57) As for the use of the word لَعَلَّ (“perhaps”), it has already been indicated that mere silence and listening are not alone sufficient for divine mercy; other conditions apply, including acting upon the teachings of the Qur’an. It is also noteworthy that the well‑known jurist Fāḍil al‑Miqdād, in his book Kanz al‑ʿIrfān, offered another interpretation of the verse: that it refers to listening to the Qur’an, understanding its meanings, and reflecting upon its miraculous nature. This interpretation may be suggested by the context, since the preceding verse addressed the polytheists’ pretexts regarding the revelation of the Qur’an; thus the Qur’an tells them: remain silent and listen carefully so that you may grasp the truth. (Kanz al‑ʿIrfān, vol. 1, p. 195) There is no objection to understanding the verse so broadly that it addresses both Muslims and non‑Muslims. Non‑Muslims should listen in silence and reflect in order to accept faith and receive God’s mercy; and Muslims should also listen attentively, understand its meanings, and act upon them, so that divine mercy may encompass them—since the Qur’an is a book of faith, knowledge, and action for all, not limited to any single group. In the following verse, to complete the instruction, the Prophet is commanded—though the directive is general despite its address to him—to remember his Lord inwardly, with humility and fear وَاذْكُرْ رَبَّكَ فِي نَفْسِكَ تَضَرُّعًا وَخِيفَةً. (Explanatory note: تَضَرُّع derives from ضَرَع, meaning “udder,” and originally referred to milking by pressing the fingertips; it later came to signify the expression of humility and supplication.) It is further said: remember Him quietly and gently, without loud speech وَدُونَ الْجَهْرِ مِنَ الْقَوْلِ, and do so consistently in the morning and evening بِالْغُدُوِّ وَالْآصَالِ. The term الآصال is the plural of أصيل, referring to the later part of the day toward sunset. And do not ever be among the heedless وَلَا تَكُنْ مِنَ الْغَافِلِينَ. In every condition, daily remembrance of God—morning and evening—is a cause of awakening the heart and a means of dispelling the dark clouds of heedlessness. The remembrance of God is like a spring rain: when its droplets fall upon the heart, they cause the flowers of awareness, responsibility, insight, and every positive and reformative action to bloom. The sūrah then concludes by stating that not only must you remain in remembrance of God at all times, but even the angels and those who are nearest to your Lord never grow arrogant in worship. They constantly glorify Him, declare His sanctity above all imperfections, and remain prostrate before Him إِنَّ الَّذِينَ عِنْدَ رَبِّكَ لَا يَسْتَكْبِرُونَ عَنْ عِبَادَتِهِ وَيُسَبِّحُونَهُ وَلَهُ يَسْجُدُونَ. The phrase عِندَ رَبِّكَ (“those who are with your Lord”) does not indicate physical proximity, for God has no location; rather, it signifies proximity of rank and station. That is, despite their exalted status, they do not neglect servitude, prostration, and glorification—so you too should not neglect them. Prostration upon the recitation of this verse is recommended (mustaḥabb), though some Sunni authorities, such as the followers of Abū Ḥanīfah, consider it obligatory.