Verses 90–105
The verses mention several rulings which apply to the state of the Muslims before the Emigration to Medina, but which are also applicable to society in general. These include the commandment to uphold justice, benevolence, and the prohibition on indecency, wrongdoing, and aggression. To this is attached a command to do good to one’s relatives and a prohibition on breaking one’s oaths and pledges, and other issues relevant to that are also mentioned.
Commentary
إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْمُرُ بِالْعَدْلِ وَالإِحْسَانِ وَإِيتَاء ذِي الْقُرْبَى وَيَنْهَى عَنِ الْفَحْشَاء وَالْمُنكَرِ وَالْبَغْيِ يَعِظُكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَذَكَّرُونَ ٩٠
(16:90) Indeed Allah enjoins justice and kindness and generosity towards relatives, and He forbids indecency, wrong, and aggression. He advises you, so that you may take admonition.
God Almighty begins with these three pivotal rulings—justice, benevolence, and giving to relatives—which are crucial for the core of human society. Since the general well-being of society is a primary goal in Islamic teachings, the individual’s happiness depends on the social environment they live in. It is difficult for an individual to prosper in a corrupt society surrounded by misery.
Thus, Islam emphasizes societal reform in a way that is unmatched by any other religion, exerting utmost effort in establishing its doctrines and laws as social realities, even making acts of worship like prayer, pilgrimage, and fasting community-oriented. All these efforts aim to improve individuals and their living circumstances.
Indeed Allah enjoins justice (ʿadl)—the term ʿadl refers to the act of fairness, which is the opposite of oppression.
As al-Rāghib explains in al-Mufradāt: “Justice (ʿadālah) and fairness (muʿālada) are terms implying balance and equivalence and are used considering the context. ʿAdl is used for matters perceived intellectually, like judgements. On the other hand, ʿidl and ʿadīl are used for tangible things like weights and measures. Thus, ʿadl refers to the distribution of rights equally.
There are two types of justice: Absolute, recognized as good by reason, always applicable, and not described as wrongdoing in any context, like returning good for good and refraining from harming those who do not harm you. The second type is recognized as just by religious law and can be abrogated at times, like retribution for crimes and the laws concerning the property of turncoats. Hence, the verse, So should anyone aggress against you, aggress against him in the manner he assailed you (), and The requital of evil is an evil like it () are labelled as ‘aggression’ and ‘evil.’
The type of justice referred to in Indeed Allah enjoins justice and kindness is that of equivalence in recompense: if it is good, then do good in return; if evil, then do evil in return. Benevolence means repaying good with more than its worth and evil with less.
What has been explained ultimately relates to the idea that justice involves adhering to a middle path and avoiding extremes of excess and deficiency in all matters. This explanation is akin to defining something by its necessary implications, as the essence of justice lies in establishing equality and balance. In justice, each aspect receives its due, ensuring everything is put in its rightful place. Justice in belief means affirming the truth; in personal conduct, it involves doing what ensures one’s well-being and avoiding what leads to misery by following selfish desires. In societal terms, justice means assigning everyone their rightful place, be it in terms of intellect, law, or social norms, rewarding the good-doer, punishing the wrongdoer, ensuring the oppressed receive justice, and impartially enforcing the law without exceptions.
This shows that justice equates to, and is inseparable from, goodness, as we understand “good” as something inherently attractive and rightly placed, universally recognized as such. Though people may differ in their perceptions of what is “good” due to varied life paths, the fundamental appreciation of “good” remains universal.
Thus, al-Rāghib’s categorization of “aggression” and “evil” as forms of justice in his discourse is somewhat inaccurate. The “aggression” and “evil” used in the sense of retribution are aggressive and evil to the wrongdoer, but in the context of administering justice, they are acts of maintaining moderation and goodness, as they involve placing things in their rightful place.
However, while justice can be divided into personal and societal (or individual and communal) kinds, the term justice is general in meaning. The context of the verse implies societal justice, where each member of the community is treated fairly and assigned their rightful place. This command is societal, directed at each individual, with the implication that the community as a whole, especially the governing body, is responsible for upholding this principle of justice.
Regarding the term iḥsān (“kindness”), the context of the passage suggests its meaning as doing good to others, not merely performing an act well. It denotes delivering benefit or kindness to another, not as a form of reciprocation or recompense—for instance, responding to good with more and to evil with less, as previously mentioned—but rather initiating the giving of goodness voluntarily.
Iḥsān, in the sense of alleviating the plight of those brought low by poverty and adversity and spreading compassion and affection, returns praiseworthy outcomes to the benefactor himself. It results in the circulation of wealth in the community, fostering security and affection through acts of kindness.
As for the phrase, and generosity towards relatives, it means sharing one’s wealth with relatives. This particular act of kindness is emphasized to highlight the importance of nurturing this smaller community unit, which is fundamentally instrumental in forming the larger civil society. Just as the conjugal union, the smallest unit, leads to the formation of a family, expanding through reproduction to become a tribe or clan, and eventually a great nation, the text implies that the term “relatives” (dhū al-qurbā) refers to the category or group rather than an individual, encompassing all relatives as noted by scholars.
In the exegetical traditions attributed to the Imāms of Ahl al-Bayt, “relatives” is interpreted as the Imām from the lineage of Prophet Muḥammad, with “generosity” referring to the allocation of khums as prescribed in the verse: Know that whatever thing you may come by, a fifth of it is for Allah and the Messenger, for the relatives and the orphans, for the needy and the traveller (). We have already explained this verse elsewhere.
The singular form used in the phrase dhū al-qurbā rather than a plural form, which is seen in other Qurʾanic instances might support this interpretation: And when the division is attended by relatives (ūlū al-qurbā), the orphans and the needy, provide for them out of it, and speak to them honorable words (); … and who give their wealth, for the love of Him, to relatives (dhawī al-qurbā), orphans, the needy … ().
The likelihood of dhū al-qurbā signifying a general category of relatives is diminished by the context in Qur’an , where “orphans” and “the needy” are mentioned in the plural, without any discernible reason to differentiate them from “relatives” in terms of form or function.
The verse does not contain any clear indication that the meaning of ītāʾ (“generosity”) here is the same as iḥsān (“kindness”), or that iḥsān means “kindness” in general.
… and He forbids indecency (faḥshāʾ), wrong (munkar), and aggression (baghī). He advises you, so that you may take admonition: Al-Rāghib notes in the Mufradāt that faḥshāʾ refers to abhorrent and repulsive words and deeds. The original meaning of f-ḥ-sha likely involves exceeding the appropriate bounds in matters where it is inappropriate. For example, ghaban fāḥish (“gross injustice”) means going beyond the bounds of tolerance, patience, and silence.
Munkar refers to acts not deemed acceptable to society, actions that are avoided due to their ugliness or sinfulness, such as sexual relations or exposing one’s private parts in public, particularly in Islamic societies.
Baghī originally means to seek or demand, often used in the context of seeking someone else’s rights through aggression, implying the meanings of arrogance and oppression. Sometimes, it can mean adultery, but in this verse, it refers to unjust aggression towards others.
These three—indecency, wrong, and aggression—although often overlapping in their instances (every indecency is wrong, and most acts of aggression are both indecent and wrong), the prohibition specifically addresses them by their distinct titles. In any society, actions falling under these titles distinctly separate the collective acts of its members, causing disconnection and nullifying harmony among them, thus corrupting the system and, in reality, eating away at the society from within, even if it outwardly maintains its form. This, in turn, leads to the destruction of individual happiness.
Therefore, the prohibition on indecency, wrong, and aggression essentially calls for a unified society where its members respect one another’s rights and behave in a way that is conducive to their mutual harmony, where no one acts oppressively towards another, and where only beauty, not immorality or bad conduct, is observed. In such a society, mercy, love, and harmony will prevail, establishing strength and firmness, while driving away wrath, hostility, aversion, and every negative trait leading to division and destruction.
God Almighty concludes the verse with: He advises you, so that you may take admonition. This means: “So that you remember and realize that what He calls you to is indeed your life and happiness.”
وَأَوْفُواْ بِعَهْدِ اللَّهِ إِذَا عَاهَدتُّمْ وَلاَ تَنقُضُواْ الأَيْمَانَ بَعْدَ تَوْكِيدِهَا وَقَدْ جَعَلْتُمُ اللَّهَ عَلَيْكُمْ كَفِيلاً إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَعْلَمُ مَا تَفْعَلُونَ ٩١
(16:91) Fulfil Allah’s covenant (ʿahd) when you pledge, and do not break oaths after pledging them solemnly and having made Allah a witness over yourselves. Indeed Allah knows what you do.
Regarding this, al-Rāghib says in the Mufradāt: “ʿAhd implies the preservation and care for something over time, and a binding agreement that requires observance is termed an ʿahd. One might say, ‘So-and-so made an ʿahd with someone’, meaning he made a covenant with them and advised them to maintain it.
The phrase Allah’s covenant suggests that the focus here is on a covenant made specifically with God, rather than any general form of agreement. This is similar to the discussion on breaking an oath.
… and do not break oaths after pledging them solemnly—breaking an oath refers to violating its terms. An “oath” here implies an agreement sworn by God. This is supported by the subsequent phrase, and having made Allah a witness over yourselves. The phrase after pledging them solemnly indicates making the oath firmly, with intention and resolution, unlike casual utterances such as “no, by God” or “yes, by God,” which are considered frivolous oaths. Thus, “pledging them solemnly” here has a similar meaning to “what you pledge in earnest” in the verse from Sūrah al-Māʾida (), which differentiates between frivolous and binding oaths: Allah shall not take you to task for what is frivolous in your oaths; but He shall take you to task for what you pledge in earnest.
Breaking an oath is considered even more reprehensible than violating a covenant, although both are prohibited. Islamic law places greater emphasis on oath-taking, especially in judicial matters.
The explanation of this is as follows: To make an oath means to create a special bond between a verbal statement, whether a statement or a speech act, and a matter of significant importance. The falsity of the statement, if it is a report, or the non-compliance with the speech act, indicates a degradation of the respect and honor attributed to the entity invoked when this oath was made. This turns the matter into a question of integrity and respect for the entity invoked in the oath, akin to giving a collateral of high value to someone and then failing to uphold the commitment, thereby disrespecting the collateral’s worth.
This is elucidated in the phrase, and having made Allah a witness over yourselves, when someone swears by God to do or refrain from something, they are effectively making God a guarantor of their commitment. Breaching this oath not only signifies a failure to fulfil the promise but also disrespects the sanctity and honor of God, the guarantor. Thus, breaking an oath carries the double fault of violating the promise and dishonoring the divine sanctity, further severing the connection with God established by the oath.
The phrase, and having made Allah, is a circumstantial clause related to the plural pronoun in and do not break oaths. The subsequent statement, Indeed Allah knows what you do, serves to reinforce the prohibition, indicating that such actions are detested and known by Him.
وَلاَ تَكُونُواْ كَالَّتِي نَقَضَتْ غَزْلَهَا مِن بَعْدِ قُوَّةٍ أَنكَاثًا تَتَّخِذُونَ أَيْمَانَكُمْ دَخَلاً بَيْنَكُمْ أَن تَكُونَ أُمَّةٌ هِيَ أَرْبَى مِنْ أُمَّةٍ إِنَّمَا يَبْلُوكُمُ اللَّهُ بِهِ وَلَيُبَيِّنَنَّ لَكُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ مَا كُنتُمْ فِيهِ تَخْتَلِفُونَ ٩٢
(16:92) Do not be like her who would undo her yarn (naqaḍat ghazla-hā … inkāthan), breaking it up after strength, by making your oaths a means of deceit among yourselves (dakhalan baynakum), so that one community may become more affluent than another community. Allah only tests you thereby, and He will surely clarify for you on the Day of Resurrection what you used to differ about.
Naqḍ is the opposite of ibrām (“binding”) and refers to ruining something tightly bound, like a rope or spun yarn, so undoing a firmly established thing is like untying a knot. Inkāth is derived from nakth, with a similar meaning to naqḍ. In Majmaʿ al-Bayān, al-Ṭabrisī writes that unweaving anything, whether rope or yarn, is called inkāth. Dakhal generally means for one thing to enter into another without becoming a part of it, often implying deceit or treachery.
This verse is an explanation of the previous verse about not breaking oaths, and do not break oaths after pledging them solemnly. It metaphorically compares such behavior to a woman who spins yarn with effort and then undoes it, rendering it useless and unstructured.
From al-Kalbī is related the account of a foolish woman of the Quraysh named Rayṭa bint ʿAmr b. Kaʿb b. Saʿd b. Tamīm b. Murra, also called “Khurqāʾ Makka”, who would spin yarn with her maids until midday and then order it all to be undone, making this her daily routine.
The phrase by making your oaths a means of deceit among yourselves implies using oaths as means for betrayal and deceit, initially appeasing people with them, then betraying and deceiving them by breaking these. This is done so that one group (the oath-takers) gains more worldly benefits than the other (those sworn to). The term dakhal here refers to the means of accomplishing that, naming the cause after its effect. “That a nation might gain more” is an indirect object, implying the phrase serves to explain breaking oaths or being like the woman who undoes her yarn. The essence is that such actions are akin to her behavior, using oaths deceitfully, affirming them only to betray and deceive by breaking them, which God prohibits.
Some have interpreted the phrase, making your oaths, as a rhetorical question, omitted for emphasis, indicating disapproval.
The statement, Allah only tests you thereby, suggests that this situation serves as a divine test by which God examines your actions and choices. God swears to clarify for you on the Day of Judgement the matters you currently disagree on, revealing the true nature of your worldly pursuits and rejection of truth.
وَلَوْ شَاء اللَّهُ لَجَعَلَكُمْ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَلَكِن يُضِلُّ مَن يَشَاء وَيَهْدِي مَن يَشَاء وَلَتُسْأَلُنَّ عَمَّا كُنتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ ٩٣
(16:93) Had Allah wished, He would have made you one community, but He leads astray whomever He wishes and guides whomever He wishes, and you will surely be questioned concerning what you used to do.
This passage explains that the differences among people do not thwart God’s purpose in creation, nor are they beyond His control. If He had wished, He could have made everyone a single community without differences. However, God chose to guide some and lead others astray, reflecting the underlying principle that human happiness and misery are based on personal choices. He made known the paths to ultimate happiness through obedience and to ultimate misery through disobedience. Those who choose disobedience and stray are recompensed accordingly by God, as are those who follow the path of obedience or repent from sin. This divine plan is unchangeable, and everyone will be questioned about their choices and actions.
The phrase, and you will surely be questioned concerning what you used to do, is included to dispel any misunderstanding that might arise to the effect that divine control over guidance and misguidance negates human choice or renders prophethood and the prophetic call meaningless. Instead, it affirms that human choices remain significant and answerable, as God extends to each person guidance or misguidance based on their inclination towards obeying or disobeying Him.
وَلاَ تَتَّخِذُواْ أَيْمَانَكُمْ دَخَلاً بَيْنَكُمْ فَتَزِلَّ قَدَمٌ بَعْدَ ثُبُوتِهَا وَتَذُوقُواْ السُّوءَ بِمَا صَدَدتُّمْ عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَلَكُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ ٩٤
(16:94) Do not make your oaths a means of deceit among yourselves lest feet should stumble after being steady and you suffer ill for barring from the way of Allah (bi mā ṣadadtum ʿan sabīl Allāh) and there be a great punishment for you.
In his Mufradāt, al-Rāghib writes: “the word ṣudūd and ṣadd can mean to turn away or refrain from something, as in the verse: the hypocrites keep away from you aversely (yaṣuddūn ʿan-ka ṣudūdan) (), or it can mean to divert or restrain another from something, as in the verse: and Satan has made their deeds seem decorous to them—thus he has barred them from the way (fa-ṣadda-hum ʿan al-sabīl) ().
The verse serves as a specific prohibition against using oaths deceitfully, following the general prohibition against breaking oaths. The specific harm inherent in deceitfully using oaths is the crux of the prohibition, distinct from the harm involved in breaking oaths outright. This latter harm is hinted at with the phrase, and having made Allah a witness over yourselves … (). In this verse, the harm of using oaths deceitfully is indicated by the words, lest feet should stumble after being steady and you suffer ill for barring from the way of Allah and there be a great punishment for you.
As is evident from the above, the two principles—the prohibition against breaking oaths and the prohibition against using them deceitfully—are distinct. Indeed, one can be seen as a precursor to the other, just as breaking oaths can lead to using them deceitfully. When a person breaks an oath for the first time for any reason, the act of breaking oaths becomes trivialized, paving the way for further instances of this. This turns the swearing and breaking of oaths into tools of deception and betrayal. Eventually, without realizing, one becomes habituated to deceit, betrayal, illusion, intrigue, plot, lies, and falsehood, becoming indifferent to what is said or done. This transforms a person into a seed of corruption, spoiling the human society wherever they go, deviating from the path of God, which is outlined by sound human nature.
In any case, the apparent meaning of the verse, Do not make your oaths a means of deceit among yourselves, is an independent prohibition against deceit through oaths, following the general prohibition in the previous verse. The phrase, lest feet should stumble after being steady, highlights the consequences of this prohibited act, specifically referring to the deceitful use of oaths leading to a slip after stability. The metaphor of a foot slipping after being firm represents the breaking of an oath after making a firm commitment, moving away from the stance one initially took. For a person, steadfastness and integrity in their commitments are among the noblest human qualities and the foundation of virtues, upon which divine religion is built. The preservation of oaths and their reinforcement is a step among the steps that uphold this broad principle. This is perhaps why the term feet is used indefinitely in the phrase, lest feet should stumble.
… and you suffer ill for barring from the way of Allah and there be a great punishment for you—This is linked to the previous statement, lest feet should stumble after being steady. It elucidates the consequences of such actions, which is also a further elaboration on the warning against taking oaths deceitfully. This suggests that turning away from the path of God is akin to a deviation from the innate, natural path of truth and righteousness, which includes maintaining truthfulness, uprightness, honoring commitments, oaths, and avoiding deceit, betrayal, lies, and corruption.
Therefore, the meaning of the term sadūd here refers to turning away from or avoiding the natural and prophetic guidance towards truth, integrity, and commitment.
… you suffer ill refers to punishment. The statement, and there be a great punishment for you, serves as an adverbial of the subject in you suffer ill, possibly indicating immediate negative repercussions in this world, with the assurance of severe punishment in the hereafter. This explanation aligns with the apparent meaning of the verse.
Therefore, the meaning is: “Avoid using your oaths to deceive each other. Such actions can lead you away from your true commitments and break the solemn agreements you’ve made. This behavior diverts you from God’s path, which is to follow your innate nature and steer clear of treachery, deceit, betrayal, and corruption. Broadly speaking, it contributes to the Earth’s corruption after it has been set right. As a consequence, you will experience misery and wretchedness in this life, and in the hereafter, a severe punishment awaits you.”
Some scholars have suggested that this verse specifically addresses the breaking of the allegiance pledged to Prophet Muḥammad during the early days of Islam, warning against the breach of this pledge. In this context, the term, ṣadd would mean preventing people from following God’s religion, and, lest feet should stumble after being steady, could refer to apostasy after accepting Islam or straying after guidance. However, the general flow of the text does not necessarily support this specific interpretation. Even if this specific incident was the occasion of revelation, the general applicability and lessons of the verse remain valid.
وَلاَ تَشْتَرُواْ بِعَهْدِ اللَّهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلاً إِنَّمَا عِندَ اللَّهِ هُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ ٩٥
(16:95) Do not sell Allah’s covenant for a paltry gain (thamanan qalīlan). Indeed what is with Allah is better for you, should you know.
In the Mufradāt, al-Rāghib says that a thaman is whatever is given in exchange for a thing.
It appears that the verse is a prohibition against breaking a promise after the preceding command to fulfil them, emphasizing its importance, as was the case with the breaking of oaths. The verse is general in nature, and Allah’s covenant refers to any promise made in the name of God. “Selling it for a trivial gain,” in light of the verse’s ending, implies exchanging a promise you have made for worldly trivialities, thereby breaking it for such gains. The exchanged item is called a price because it serves as compensation, as previously mentioned. The remainder is clear.
مَا عِندَكُمْ يَنفَدُ وَمَا عِندَ اللَّهِ بَاقٍ وَلَنَجْزِيَنَّ الَّذِينَ صَبَرُواْ أَجْرَهُم بِأَحْسَنِ مَا كَانُواْ يَعْمَلُونَ ٩٦
(16:96) That which is with you will be spent but what is with Allah shall last, and We will surely pay the patient their reward for the best of what they used to do.
This serves as a rationale for the previous verse’s statement, Indeed what is with Allah is better for you. This is explained by the fact that what you have, meaning in this worldly life which is materially based and characterized by change and transformation, is transient and depleting. In contrast, what is with God and promised to the righteous among you is enduring and will neither vanish nor perish. And what is enduring is better than what is fleeting, as is evident from rational judgement.
Understand that the saying, That which is with you will be spent but what is with Allah shall last, due to the generality of its phrasing, is a universal axiom, under which many particular instances of true knowledge fall.
… and We will surely pay the patient their reward for the best of what they used to do—This follows from the fact that patience is essential for fulfilling a promise, enduring the bitterness of opposing one’s desire to break it when it is advantageous to do so, and indulging in one’s whims. Thus, the discussion shifts from the reward of those who specifically fulfil their promises to the reward of those who are patient in the sight of God.
So, His saying, and We will surely pay the patient their reward, is a definite promise of reward for all forms of patience, whether it is patience in obedience, patience in refraining from sin, or patience during calamities. However, it must be patience for the sake of God, as the context does not support any other interpretation.
His saying, for the best of what they used to do, uses the preposition “for” (bi) for equivalence, as in our saying: I sold this for (bi) that. It does not mean the best of their deeds in contrast to their good deeds, where God distinguishes between their good deeds, categorizing them into good and best, then rewarding them for the best and disregarding the good, as some have mentioned, because the context does not support this. The verses about recompense likewise preclude such a reading, as does our knowledge of the vastness of God’s Mercy. Nor does this phrase mean their obligatory and recommended deeds as opposed to their permissible deeds they performed, as these are not lacking goodness, as others have mentioned.
Therefore, the text clearly states that the focus is on rewarding deeds associated with patience, and it is evident that permissible acts done by a patient believer in God do not have a direct connection to their patience. Hence, there’s no basis for considering them among the deeds to be rewarded, and then choosing the best among them.
Additionally, there is no expectation for a servant to be rewarded by God for permissible acts to the extent that the reward would be comparable with the reward of obligatory and recommended acts, which are better than permissible acts. Therefore, mentioning goodness as an afterthought seems redundant.
Therefore, it is apparent that the reference here is not to supererogatory or recommended acts, based on the assumption of their non-obligatory nature, since the obligatory acts are inherently more beneficial and commendable, a fact well established in legislative discourses to the point of utter certainty.
The intent is that God will reward the patient for the deeds they perform, choosing the best version of that type of deed. For instance, a prayer offered by a patient believer will be rewarded by God as if it were the best instance of that prayer, even if it was not the best in actuality. Patience inherently demands that the deeds are not scrutinised or judged based on their specific qualities that might otherwise render them inferior, as suggested by the verse: Indeed the patient will be paid in full their reward without any reckoning ().
The verse implies that patience for the sake of God leads to the perfection of one’s deeds. The shift from third person to first-person narration in the phrase, We will surely pay …, seems to be a return to the previous discourse, which was in the second person. This shift is common in conversations to emphasize a point or to link to a preceding passage. In this case, the previous verses were addressing the audience directly, and the shift occurs after a brief third person section beginning with: Indeed Allah enjoins justice and kindness ,,, The relevance of this stylistic choice is that the verse, along with the following verses, contains various divine commands and prohibitions. It is more fitting for commands and prohibitions to be attributed to the most authoritative and powerful source, thereby reinforcing them. This technique is commonly used in expressions, as in “The king orders such and such” or “Your master tells you so,” rather than attributing the command to a less authoritative figure.
Therefore, it was more appropriate to attribute these ordinances to the realm of divine majesty, and to shift from addressing the audience directly to speaking in the third person: Indeed Allah enjoins justice and kindness … This style continued in the subsequent duties as well, with statements like Fulfil Allah’s covenant …, Allah only tests you thereby …, Had Allah wished …, and Do not sell Allah’s covenant for a paltry gain …, culminating in: That which is with you will be spent but what is with Allah shall last.
Following this, the narrative reverts to the previous style of addressing the audience directly with and We will surely pay the patient their reward by the best of what they used to do. It continues in this manner until reaching When you recite the Qur’an … at which point, there is a second shift to the third person with seek the protection of Allah. The meaning we have mentioned is best clarified by the following verse: When We change a sign with another in its place—and Allah knows best what He sends down …, where both aspects are combined: the change of one verse for another is attributed to the first-person singular, and the knowledge of what is revealed is attributed to God in the third person singular.
مَنْ عَمِلَ صَالِحًا مِّن ذَكَرٍ أَوْ أُنثَى وَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ فَلَنُحْيِيَنَّهُ حَيَاةً طَيِّبَةً وَلَنَجْزِيَنَّهُمْ أَجْرَهُم بِأَحْسَنِ مَا كَانُواْ يَعْمَلُونَ ٩٧
(16:97) Whoever acts righteously, male or female, should he be faithful,—We shall revive him with a good life and pay them their reward by the best of what they used to do.
This is a divine promise to the believers if they perform righteous deeds, and there is glad tidings for women that God does not differentiate between them and men in accepting their faith or the impact of their righteous deeds, which are the granting of a good life and the best reward for their deeds. This is in contrast to what most pagans, Jews, and Christians believed, depriving women of spiritual merits or diminishing their status compared to men, placing them in a position that does not accept elevation.
The phrase, Whoever acts righteously, male or female, should he be faithful, establishes a general rule for anyone who does good deeds, specifying that they must be believers, as the work of those who are not believers is futile and bears no consequence. This is echoed in other verses such as: Should anyone renounce his faith, his work shall fail () and what they had accomplished in the world has failed, and their works have come to naught ().
The phrase, We shall revive him with a good life, suggests that God will grant the believer who does good deeds a unique form of life, separate from the common existence shared with others. It indicates the gift of a new life rather than merely enhancing the quality of the believer’s current life. Had the intention been to simply improve their existing life, it would have been stated as, “We will surely make their life good.”
The verse parallels the statement: Is he who was lifeless, then We gave him life and provided him with a light by which he walks among the people …? (), indicating the formation of a new initial life.
This is not a metaphorical reference because the verses addressing this matter result in the real effects of life, such as the verse: He has written faith into their hearts and strengthened them with a spirit from Him (), and the previously mentioned verse from then We gave him life and provided him with a light by which he walks among the people (). The light here undoubtedly refers to the knowledge that guides a person to truth in belief and action.
Just as this individual possesses unique knowledge and perception, they are also endowed with a unique ability to revive truth and dispel falsehood. As God has stated: and it was a must for Us to help the faithful (), and those who have faith in Allah and the Last Day and act righteously—they will have no fear, nor will they grieve ().
This knowledge and perception pave the way for the individual to see things as they truly are, dividing them into two categories: enduring truth and vanishing falsehood. They turn their hearts away from the fleeting and deceptive life of this world with its alluring vanities and take pride in the dignity bestowed on them by God, not humiliated by Satan’s whispers, their own desires, or worldly allurements. They see the futility of worldly pleasures and the transience of its comforts.
Their hearts are attached only to their true Lord, who confirms every truth with His words. They desire only His countenance, love only His proximity, and fear only His displeasure and distance. They envisage for themselves a pure, eternal, and everlasting life, governed only by their forgiving and loving Lord. They encounter only beauty and excellence throughout their journey, for God has perfected everything He has created. There is no ugliness except what God has deemed reprehensible, which is disobedience to Him.
Such a person finds within themselves brilliance, perfection, strength, dignity, pleasure, and joy beyond measure. How could it be otherwise when they are immersed in a perpetual life, endless blessings, free of pain or disturbance, and experiencing goodness and happiness without any accompanying misery? This is corroborated by reason and numerous verses from the Qurʾan, too many to mention here.
Thus, these are vital effects that can only be attributed to a real, not metaphorical, life. God has linked these to the life mentioned, specifically for those who believe and do righteous deeds. It is a new, genuine life that God bestows upon them.
The verse does not indicate a new life that is separate from the old, common life, though it is distinct. The difference is in the degree of life that they enjoy, not in its quantity, so the individual is not multiplied. Similarly, the Holy Spirit (Rūḥ al-Quddus) that God mentions for the prophets only elevates their status without changing their personhood.
This is what contemplation of the verse suggests, a Qur’anic truth, evident in the description of this life as “good” (ṭayyib) in the phrase “a good life”—a phrasing which implies a life free from internal corruption or adverse effects.
Commentators have offered a number of explanations for this verse:
(1) Some interpret the “good life” as life in Paradise, free from death, poverty, illness, or any other misery.
(2) Others suggest it refers to life in Barzakh, especially considering the verse’s end points to the rewards of the Hereafter.
(3) Another explanation is that it refers to the life of this world coupled with contentment and satisfaction with God’s provision, making it the best form of life.
(4) The lawful provision is also seen as “good life” since it incurs no punishment.
(5) Some interpret it as daily sustenance.
The issues with these explanations are already clear to the discerning reader, so further elaboration is unnecessary.
… and pay them their reward by the best of what they used to do—the meaning of this has already been discussed in the previous verse. A similar statement is found in 23:40: but whoever acts righteously, whether male or female, should he be faithful—such shall enter paradise, provided therein without any reckoning ().
فَإِذَا قَرَأْتَ الْقُرْآنَ فَاسْتَعِذْ بِاللَّهِ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ الرَّجِيمِ ٩٨
(16:98) When you recite the Qurʾan, seek the protection of Allah (fa-staʿidh bi Allah) against the outcast Satan
The meaning of this verse is: “Ask God for protection from Satan’s misguidance during Qurʾan recitation. The command to seek refuge is for the reader’s state of mind during reading.” The phrase ‘I seek refuge in God from Satan, the accursed’ (aʿūdhu bi-Allāh min al-Shayṭān al-rajīm), or similar expressions are a means to evoke this sense of seeking refuge in the mind of the reader and are not effective in of themselves. God commands seeking refuge in Him, not merely uttering a formula to this effect.
This shows that the claim that the idea of “recitation” here refers metaphorically to the intention to recite, equating cause with effect, is an overly loose reading of the text.
إِنَّهُ لَيْسَ لَهُ سُلْطَانٌ عَلَى الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَعَلَى رَبِّهِمْ يَتَوَكَّلُونَ ٩٩
(16:99) Indeed he does not have any authority over those who have faith and put their trust in their Lord.
This provides a rationale for the command to seek refuge in God in the previous verse. It instructs to seek refuge with God during recitation because Satan has no power over those who believe in God and rely on Him.
From the verse, two points are evident:
First, Seeking refuge in God is a form of placing one’s trust in Him, as He put placing one’s trust in Him in place of seeking refuge in the explanation and denies Satan’s authority over those who place their trust in Him.
Second, faith and placing one’ trust in God are the essence of true divine servanthood, as exemplified in another verse addressing Iblis, Indeed as for My servants you do not have any authority over them, except the perverse who follow you, (). Here, authority is denied over His servants, replacing “servants” in this verse with those who have faith and put their trust in their Lord. This reading is supported since placing one’s trust in another, casting one’s affairs to another and surrendering to their influence, is a specific manifestation of servitude.
إِنَّمَا سُلْطَانُهُ عَلَى الَّذِينَ يَتَوَلَّوْنَهُ وَالَّذِينَ هُم بِهِ مُشْرِكُونَ ١٠٠
(16:100) His authority is only over those who befriend him and those who make him a partner
This clarifies that Satan’s dominion is confined to those who take him as their guardian, managing their affairs as he wishes, and obeying him; and those who associate him with God. This is because obedience is akin to worship, as indicated in the verse: Did I not exhort you, O children of Adam, saying, “Do not worship Satan. He is indeed your manifest enemy. Worship Me. That is a straight path”?
This leads us to draw two conclusions:
First, the latter part of the verse explains its beginning, indicating that taking as an ally someone whom God has not authorised to be taken as such is equivalent to associating partners with God and worshiping someone other than Him.
Second, there is no middle ground between relying on God and allying with Satan and worshiping him. Anyone not relying on God is among Satan’s allies.
It has been suggested that the singular pronoun in and those who make him a partner refers to God, indicating that Satan’s dominion is over two groups: the polytheists and those monotheists who take him as an ally. However, this reading, necessitating a change in pronouns, is not compelling.
وَإِذَا بَدَّلْنَا آيَةً مَّكَانَ آيَةٍ وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يُنَزِّلُ قَالُواْ إِنَّمَا أَنتَ مُفْتَرٍ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ ١٠١
(16:101) When We change (baddalnā) a sign with another in its place—and Allah knows best what He sends down—they say, ‘You are just a fabricator.’ Rather most of them do not know.
This invokes to the concept of abrogation (naskh) and defends against accusations of fabrication against the Prophet Muḥammad. The context of the verses suggests that the accusers were the polytheists, though it was the Jews who were particularly adamant in denying abrogation. It is possible that the polytheists picked up this claim from the Jews, as they often consulted them regarding the Prophet.
According to al-Rāghib: “The verbs ibdāl, tabdīl, tabaddul, and istibdāl means to place one thing in a place of another. This is more general than compensation (ʿiwaḍ), which implies receiving something in return for giving something else. Substitution can refer to change in general, even without a replacement being provided, as the Almighty says, But the wrongdoers changed (baddala) the saying with other than what they were told (), and so on, until He says, And should anyone alter it (baddala-hu) after hearing it () and When We change a sign with another in its place and We substituted for them (baddalnā-hum) two gardens with two gardens (), and Then We substituted (baddalnā) good in place of the evil ().”
Thus, substitution in the sense of change differs from its known meaning in that its first object is what is taken and sought, as opposed to its well-known meaning where the focus is on what is replaced. So, the meaning of When We change a sign with another in its place is that we put the second verse in place of the first through change, making the second, substituted verse the one that remains and is sought.
… and Allah knows best what He sends down—implies that the truth remains within its rightful place, and that God, who sent down the revelation, is most qualified to know its nature. This is a parenthetical statement, highlighting God’s knowledge.
… they say, ‘You are just a fabricator’—This shows the polytheists accusing the Prophet of fabrication, finding the idea of substituting one statement for another, then changing opinions, as incompatible with divine dignity.
Their accusation is exaggerated; they don’t just accuse him of fabricating in this instance of abrogation but declare him an outright fabricator, using a nominal sentence to emphasize the claim. They base this on the unity of the Prophet’s message, attributing all to God and presenting himself merely as a warner. If he is deemed a fabricator in one aspect, they argue, he must be seen as such in all, reducing him to nothing but a fabricator.
Rather most of them do not know—This implies that the majority of these polytheists, who accuse the Prophet of being a fabricator, are ignorant of the true nature and wisdom behind such substitution and abrogation. These divine decrees are based on the welfare of people, which may vary with changing circumstances and times. Therefore, it is necessary for the ruling to change as its utility evolves, leading to abrogation of a prior ruling by a new one more suited to the present context. Most of these accusers are unaware of this concept, while a minority, despite their awareness, are arrogant and contentious towards the truth, carelessly dismissing it without due consideration.
قُلْ نَزَّلَهُ رُوحُ الْقُدُسِ مِن رَّبِّكَ بِالْحَقِّ لِيُثَبِّتَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَى لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ ١٠٢
(16:102) Say, the Holy Spirit (Rūḥ al-Quddus) has brought it down duly from your Lord to fortify those who have faith and as a guidance and good news for those who submit.
An earlier part of the chapter already alluded to the meaning of “Spirit”, while “Holy” signifies purity and sanctity. It appears that the possessive construct signifies a spirit that is pure from the impurities of matter and free from errors, faults, and misguidance. In another part of His speech, it is referred to as “the Trustworthy Spirit” (al-Rūḥ al-Amīn), and elsewhere as “Gabriel” among the angels. The Almighty says, The Trustworthy Spirit has brought it down upon your heart (), and Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel—it is he who has brought it down upon your heart (). This indicates that the Qurʾan was revealed gradually by the Holy Spirit, identified in other passages as the angel Gabriel. The phrase “from your Lord” underscores the special care and mercy that God holds towards the Prophet Muḥammad. The revelation aims to solidify the faith of believers, offering them steadfastness and renewal of guidance, adapting to changing necessities.
When God says, Say, the Holy Spirit has brought it down (nazzala-hu) duly from your Lord, this is a command to respond. What first comes to mind is that the pronoun refers to the Qurʾan insofar as it is the abrogator, meaning the abrogating verse. It could also refer to the Qurʾan in general. The use of the verb tanzīl instead of inzāl (that is, anzala-hu) suggests a gradual process.
Note that the verse could have said, “from my Lord,” but it was changed to, “from your Lord,” to indicate complete care and mercy God has for the Prophet, as if God did not wish to interrupt his speech, as if He wished to seize the opportunity to speak to him whenever possible. It also indicates that the utterance God is commanding the Prophet to pronounce is to inform his audience of this fact, not just to utter these words. Reflect on this.
The phrase, to fortify (li-yuthabbit) those who have faith—the verb tathbīt means to reinforce and affirm their steadfastness by bestowing stability upon them, as if by their initial belief in Allah, His messenger, and the last day, they were established in truth. With the renewal of rulings according to the changing benefits, they are given additional stability without weakening their initial steadfastness, as deeds that do not match what is currently beneficial might. It is clear that one who is commanded to follow a path for a certain benefit, who then proceeds on it out of his faith in the original guiding command, and covers a distance as ordered, in quick or slow pace, day or night, and then the direction of the benefit changes—if a new guiding command does not change his direction of travel and he continues in accordance with the previous order, the believer’s faith weakens and its foundations erode. However, if a new direction of proceeding is issued that aligns with the intended benefit and ensures the believer’s happiness, their faith becomes even more steadfast.
Thus, in the revelation of the Qurʾan with its abrogation and renewal of rulings according to changing benefits, there is a strengthening for those who believe, giving them stability upon stability.
… as a guidance and good news for those who submit—this refers to those who submit their judgement to God without objection. For them, the abrogating verse represents a new path and a promise of happiness and paradise.
The distinction between affirming the believers and guiding and giving good news to the Muslims is due to the difference between faith (imān) and submission (islām). Faith resides in the heart and ensures stability in knowledge and consent. Submission, manifesting in outward actions and physical compliance, involves being guided to the obligation of deeds and receiving glad tidings that the ultimate goal is paradise and happiness.
We have already discussed the topic of abrogation (naskh) in our commentary on the verse, For any verse that We abrogate or remove from memories, We bring another which is better than it, or similar to it ().
وَلَقَدْ نَعْلَمُ أَنَّهُمْ يَقُولُونَ إِنَّمَا يُعَلِّمُهُ بَشَرٌ لِّسَانُ الَّذِي يُلْحِدُونَ إِلَيْهِ أَعْجَمِيٌّ وَهَذَا لِسَانٌ عَرَبِيٌّ مُّبِينٌ ١٠٣
(16:103) We certainly know that they say, ‘It is only a human that teaches him.’ The language of him to whom they refer is non-Arabic, while this is a clear Arabic language.
This is another false accusation they make against the Prophet Muḥammad. The context suggests that by It is only a human that teaches him, they were referring to a non-Arab man, not fluent in his speech, who had some knowledge of religions and prophethood. They accused the Prophet of learning from this man and falsely attributing it to divine revelation. The phrase, It is only a human that teaches him, is a concise statement implying that the Prophet was receiving the content of his message from a human being and falsely claiming it as a revelation from God.
The response, focusing on the non-Arabic language of the man contrasted with the Arabic of the Qurʾan, does not fully address the suspicion. It is conceivable that the man could have conveyed concepts in his non-Arabic language, which the Prophet could have then eloquently articulated in Arabic. This seems the more likely reading given their use of the word “taught” rather than “dictated” or “instructed,” as teaching is more associated with concepts than exact wording.
Thus, it becomes clear that the phrase The language of him to whom they refer is non-Arabic, while this is a clear Arabic language is not the sole answer to their doubt, but the subsequent passages up to the end of the next two verses complete the divine response to them.
The summary of the response, derived from all three verses, addresses the accusation that the Prophet was taught by a man, and then falsely attributed it to God. If the accusation meant he was taught the exact words of the Qurʾan, the response is that the man’s tongue was non-Arabic, while the Qurʾan is in clear Arabic.
If the accusation implied the man taught the meanings of the Qurʾan, with the Prophet himself articulating them in Arabic and falsely claiming them as divine, the response is that the Qurʾan contains true knowledge that rational minds accept. God guided the Prophet to this knowledge and, as a believer in God’s signs, he would not falsely attribute it to God. Only those who do not believe in God’s signs would fabricate lies against Him. Thus, this Qur’an is not a fabrication, nor taken from a human and falsely attributed to God.
The language of him to whom they refer is non-Arabic, while this is a clear Arabic language—addresses the first aspect of the doubt: whether the Qurʾan’s words were taught to the Prophet by a man in a foreign language. It emphasizes that the Qur’an, as recited to them, is in clear Arabic, distinct from the non-fluent Arabic of the foreign man.
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ لاَ يَهْدِيهِمُ اللَّهُ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ ١٠٤ إِنَّمَا يَفْتَرِي الْكَذِبَ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ وَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَاذِبُونَ١٠٥
(16:104-105) Indeed those who do not believe in the signs of Allah—Allah shall not guide them and there is a painful punishment for them. Only those fabricate lies who do not believe in the signs of Allah, and it is they who are the liars.
These verses address the second aspect of the objection, namely that someone else taught the Prophet the ideas of the Qurʾan, which he then falsely attributed to God.
The meaning is: Indeed, those who do not believe in the signs of God and deny them, God does not guide them to those signs and to its manifest and true knowledge, and they will suffer a painful punishment. The Prophet is a believer in the signs of God because he is guided by God’s guidance. Only those who do not believe in the signs of God fabricate lies and attribute them to God, and they are the liars who persist in lying. But someone like the Prophet, who believes in the signs of God, does not fabricate lies or lie. Thus, the two verses imply that the Prophet is guided by God’s guidance, believes in His signs, and such a person does not fabricate or lie.
Some commentators have read these verses as detached from the first one and interpreted the previous verse as a complete answer to the doubt, focusing on the Qurʾan’s linguistic miracle. However, there is no indication in the verse itself about the Qurʾan being a linguistic miracle. It simply states that the Qur’an is in clear Arabic, which a non-Arabic speaker could not produce.
They have read the two subsequent verses as a threat of painful punishment to the disbelievers in God’s signs who accuse the Prophet of falsehood, turning the accusation of fabrication back on them, as they do not believe in God’s signs and hence are not guided by Him. They have further commented on the verses’ individual words, moving further away from their core meanings.
As you can see, this approach fails to fully address the problem at its root.
Examining Narrations
- In “al-Durr al-Manthūr,” Aḥmad narrates from ʿUthmān b. Abī al-ʿĀs, who said: “I was sitting with the Messenger of God when he looked upwards and said, “Gabriel came to me and instructed me to place this verse in this position in the chapter: Indeed Allah enjoins justice and kindness and generosity towards relatives, and He forbids indecency, wrong, and aggression. He advises you, so that you may take admonition ().
Author’s comment: This was also narrated by Ibn ʿAbbās from ʿUthmān b. Maẓʿūn, may God be pleased with him.
- In Majmaʿ al-Bayān, al-Ṭabrisī narrates that ʿUthmān b. Maẓʿūn said, “I embraced Islam out of modesty towards the Messenger of God due to his frequent preaching of Islam to me, though Islam had not yet settled in my heart. One day, I was with him during his contemplation, he gazed towards the sky as if he was contemplating something—and when his contemplation ended, I asked him about his condition. He replied, ‘Indeed, while I was talking to you, I saw Gabriel in the air, and he came to me with this verse: Indeed Allah enjoins justice and kindness and generosity towards relatives …—he recited it to me until the end’, and it was then that Islam settled in my heart.’
I went to his uncle Abū Ṭālib and informed him, and he said, ‘O people of Quraysh, follow Muḥammad, and you will be rightly guided, for he orders you nothing but noble morals.’ I then went to Walīd b. al-Mughīra and recited this verse to him, and he said, ‘If Muḥammad said it, then it is excellent, and if his Lord said it, then it is excellent.’ God then revealed: Did you see him who turned away, gave a little and held off? ().”
ʿIkrama also said, “The Prophet recited this verse to Walīd b. al-Mughīra—who said, “O nephew, repeat it.” After it was repeated, he remarked, “It indeed has sweetness, and it is eloquent. Its top is fruitful, and its bottom is lush. It is not the word of a human.’”
- In Tafsīr al-Qummī, with his chain from Ismāʿīl b. Muslim to Imām al-Ṣādiq regarding the verse, it is stated: “God has no command for His servants except for justice and kindness.”
- In Tafsīr al-Burhān, it is narrated from Ibn Babawayh with his chain from ʿAmr b. ʿUthmān, who said: “ʿAlī approached his companions as they were discussing chivalry (muruwwa) and said: “Where are you in relation to the Book of God?” They asked, “O Commander of the Faithful, in what context?” He replied: “In the verse where He, the Almighty, says: Indeed Allah enjoins justice and kindness. So, justice is fairness, and kindness is graciousness.”
Author’s comment: This was also narrated by al-ʿAyyāshī from ʿAmr b. ʿUthmān al-ʿĀsi about him, peace be upon him.
- It is also narrated in al-Durr al-Manthūr, from Ibn al-Najjar in his history through the chain of Al-Akli from his father about him, peace be upon him, with the wording: “ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib passed by a group discussing nobility and said: “Hasn’t God the Almighty sufficed you with this in His Book, where He says: (Indeed, God commands justice and good conduct)?” Justice here means fairness, and good conduct means graciousness.”
Author’s comment: Several narrations interpret justice as monotheism or the two testimonies of faith, and kindness as the allegiance to the Prophet’s Household (wilāya). In another narration, the prohibition of breaking one’s covenant is linked to the obligation of maintaining this wilāya.
- In Tafsīr al-Qummī, regarding the verse: Whoever acts righteously, male or female, should he be faithful,—We shall revive him with a good life, Imām ʿAlī said: “This means contentment (al-qunūʿ).”
- In Maʿānī al-Akhbār, al-Ṣadūq narrates via his chain from Ibn Abī ʿUmayr from one of his companions that Abū ʿAbd Allāh was asked about Abū al-Khaṭṭāb claiming that he had said: “When you recognize the truth, act as you wish,” to which he replied: “May God curse Abū al-Khattab; by God, I never said that. But I told him: “When you recognize the truth, any good deed you do will be accepted.” Indeed, God Almighty says: but whoever acts righteously, whether male or female, should he be faithful—such shall enter paradise, provided therein without any reckoning (), and He says: Whoever acts righteously, male or female, should he be faithful,—We shall revive him with a good life …
Author’s comment: This is in line with what we have previously explained about the meaning of the verse.
- In al-Kāfī, al-Kulaynī narrates via his chain from Abū Baṣīr, about Abū ʿAbd Allāh: “I said to him: When you recite the Qurʾan, seek the protection of Allah … and put their trust in their Lord ()” He replied: “O Muḥammad, by God, Satan is given power over the bodies of the believers, but not over their faith. He was given power over Job, disfiguring his body, but not over his faith. Satan may be given power over the bodies of some believers, but not over their faith.”
I said to him: “What about the verse His authority is only over those who befriend him and those who make him a partner?” he said: “Those who associate others with God, he has power over their bodies and their faith.”
Author’s comment: This was also narrated by al-ʿAyyāshī from Abū Baṣīr, from the Imām. Reading the pronoun of make him a partner as referring to God is one of the two possible readings of the verse.
- In al-Durr al-Manthūr, it is narrated by al-Ḥākim—and authenticated by him—and al-Bayhaqī in Shuʿub al-Imān from Ibn ʿAbbās: Regarding the verse: They say, It is only a human that teaches him, he said: “They claimed that Muḥammad was taught by ʿAbda b. al-Haḍramī, a man of the scriptures. Therefore, God responded: The language of him to whom they refer is non-Arabic, while this is a clear Arabic language.”
- In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, it is narrated from Muḥammad b. ʿAzāma al-Ṣayrafī, who reported from someone, who reported from Abū ʿAbd Allāh: “God, the Almighty, created the Holy Spirit, and He has not created any being closer to Him than it, yet it is not the most honored of His creation. When He wills something, He conveys it to the Holy Spirit, who then conveys it to the stars.” He continues, quoting the verse We certainly know that they say, ‘It is only a human that instructs him.’ The language of him to whom they refer—He refers to Abū Fakīha, a servant of the Banū Haḍramī—is non-Arabic—and he had converted to the Prophet’s faith, being of the People of the Book. The Quraysh said, “By God, he teaches Muḥammad his knowledge in his language.” God responded, while this is a clear Arabic language.
Author’s comment: Narrations about this man differ. In this narration, he is Abū Fakīha, a servant of the Banū Haḍramī, and in another, he is Abda b. al-Haḍramī. According to Qatāda, he was called Muqīṣ, and according to al-Sudayy, he was a Christian servant of the Banū Haḍramī, known as Abū Bashīr. Mujāhid states that he was known as Ibn al-Haḍramī, that he spoke Roman, and another narration from Ibn ʿAbbās mentions him as a Roman man named Balaʿām who dwelt in Mecca. What is certain from these narrations is that he was a Roman, a servant of the Banū Haḍramī, living in Mecca, a Christian knowledgeable in the scriptures, who was accused of teaching the Prophet the content of his message.
- In al-Durr al-Manthūr, Ibn Jarīr, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Abī Ḥātim narrated from al-Ḍaḥḥāk about the verse, saying: “They claimed Salmān the Persian was teaching him, so God revealed: The language of him to whom they refer is non-Arabic.”
Author’s comment: This is inconsistent with the Meccan provenance of the verse.
- Also in al-Durr al-Manthūr, Ibn al-Kharāʾiṭī in Musāwī al-Akhlāq and Ibn ʿAsākir in his Taʾrīkh both narrate from ʿAbd Allāh b. Jarrād: He asked the Prophet whether a believer can commit adultery or theft. The Prophet affirmed it could happen, but denied that a believer could lie. He then recited the verse: Only those fabricate lies who do not believe in the signs of Allah ().
- In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, Al-ʿAbbās b. al-Hilāl reported that Abū al-Ḥasan al-Riḍā mentioned a person known to be a liar and said: “God said, Only those fabricate lies who do not believe in the signs of Allah.”