Verses 1–9
Introduction
This chapter encourages and motivates the believers to struggle in God’s path and to fight the enemies of His religion. It informs them that this religion (of Islam) is God’s shining light which the disbelievers from the People of the Book wish to blow out by their mouths, however God shall complete and perfect it however much the disbelievers may dislike it. He shall cause it to prevail over all religions, however much the polytheists may loathe it.
It also informs the believers that this prophet (that is, Prophet Muḥammad) in whom they believed is a Messenger from God whom God has sent forth with guidance and the religion of truth. It also informs them that Jesus son of Mary had given glad tidings about him to the Children of Israel.
Consequently, it is incumbent on the believers to determinedly resolve to obey him and to comply with what he commands them such as struggling in God’s path and helping God in favor of His religion. This is so that God may bless them in their hereafter, aid them and open up avenues of success for them in their worldly lives, and support them against their enemies.
It is also essential for them not to say what they do not do just as it is essential for them not to go back on their promises. This is because such behavior attracts God’s displeasure while the same offends and hurts the Messenger (of God, Muḥammad) too. In addition, such behavior contains the risk of God causing their hearts to go astray just as He did with the community of Moses when they hurt, annoyed, and offended the latter while they knew he was God’s messenger to them. And God does not guide the unjust.
This chapter is of Medinan provenance as the content of its verses testifies.
Commentary
سَبَّحَ لِلَّهِ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ ۖ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ ١
(61:1) Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth declares the glory of Allah; and He is the Mighty, the Wise.
An explanation for this verse has already been made before . This chapter begins with God’s glorification because of what it (subsequently) contains of censure of the believers for saying what they do not do, as well as containing a warning to them of God’s displeasure, and His causing the hearts of immoral and dissolute people to go astray.
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لِمَ تَقُولُونَ مَا لَا تَفْعَلُونَ ٢
(61:2) O you who believe! Why do you say what you do not do?
The word lima in this verse (...lima taqūlūna...) is a shortened form of limā, which comprises of two letters li and mā. The letter li is identified as lām al-taʿlīl (the (particle) lām of purpose) while the letter mā is identified as mā istifhāmiyya (the (particle) mā of interrogation/the interrogative particle mā).
This verse is in the context of censure for it censures the believers for saying what they do not do. This is while what some of the exegetes have understood of this verse should not be heeded. This is the understanding that those intended by O you who believe... are the hypocrites (and not the true and sincere believers). The (argument made is that the) hypocrites are the ones being censured in this verse rather than the (true and sincere) believers because (true and sincere) believers cannot be subject to censure and rebuke due to their great esteem and significance (which renders them beyond being criticized and scolded thus).
The reason this interpretation is untenable is because there are abundant Qur’anic verses which scold, rebuke, and admonish the believers, especially the verses revealed in respect of battles and military expeditions (undertaken during that time), and issues associated with such battles and expeditions. These are such as (the battles of) Uḥud, al-Aḥzāb, Ḥunayn, the treaty of al-Ḥudaybiyya, and Tabūk, spending in God’s way, and other such things.
The righteous and pious from the believers became righteous and pious as well as esteemed and significant in worth due to the divine nurture and teachings that such reprimands and admonitions contain, which were directed to them in phases. Certainly, the believers did not become righteous and pious of their own accord!
Despite the apparent wording of this verse suggesting that each and every instance of an act being contrary to speech, each and every instance of a promise reneged, and each and every instance of a covenant breached, is intended and meant here for censure, which is true, for all of that is from the effects of the manifest contradicting the hidden, which is hypocrisy, yet the (literary) context afforded by the verses of this chapter, such as the verse Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way in (battle) lines as if they were a firm and compact wall () and the later verse O you who believe! Shall I lead you to merchandise which may deliver you from a painful chastisement? () and other such verses, suggests that the specific referent of censure and reprimand in this verse pertains to some of the Muslims breaking their word after having had promised to remain firm and resolute during battle, and after having had promised not to accept defeat and flee the battlefield, or for being sluggish and employing delaying tactics when asked to leave for battle (after having had previously agreed to do so), or for refusing to spend for battle provisions for themselves and others (when they had previously agreed to do so).
كَبُرَ مَقْتًا عِنْدَ اللَّهِ أَنْ تَقُولُوا مَا لَا تَفْعَلُونَ ٣
(61:3) It is most hateful to Allah that you should say what you do not do.
The word al-maqt that occurs in this verse means “intense/severe/extreme hate and loathing/dislike.” This verse furnishes a justifying explanation for the previous verse. God hates that a person should say what he does not do, for that is from hypocrisy.
That a person says what he does not do is different from him not accomplishing what he says. This is because the first instance is from hypocrisy while the second is due to weak intention, weak resolve, and feeble determination. The latter is a failing and a vice that stands contrary to the happiness and felicity of the human being, for God has established the happiness and felicity of the human being in doing good deeds and in acquiring noble virtues by means of freewill, the key to which lies in determination and resolve. There is no effectiveness save for one who is firm in his resolve, determination, and intention, while deeds being contrary to speech are the effects of a weak and feeble determination and intent. Consequently, in such cases, felicity and happiness cannot be hoped for such a person.
إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِهِ صَفًّا كَأَنَّهُمْ بُنْيَانٌ مَرْصُوصٌ ٤
(61:4) Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way in (battle) lines as if they were a firm and compact wall.
The word al-ṣaff that occurs in this verse means “to set things, such as people and trees, in a straight and uniform line.” This is how this word has been defined by al-Rāghib. The word al-ṣaff is a verbal noun in the meaning of an active participle. That is why it has not been rendered in the plural here. It occurs here as denoting the state, condition or circumstance (al-ḥāl) of the (implicit) subject of the (third person plural present tense) verb yuqātilūna (which is) ‘those who fight’. Hence the meaning obtained is: ‘God surely loves those who fight in His way when they are in the state or condition of standing in (battle) lines.’
The word bunyān that occurs in this verse means “a structure” while the word marṣūṣ is derived from the word al-riṣāṣ (which means “lead”). Thus the (adjectival) phrase bunyān marṣūṣ (translated as: a firm wall/a compact wall) means “a structure that is strengthened with lead or tightly fitted and soldered with lead such that it is able to resist what hits it of destructive factors.”
This verse furnishes a justifying explanation for the specific referent, concomitantly—the specific referent here being the people who promised to be resilient in battle and promised to behave with fortitude during it and then reneged on their promises—just as the previous verse explains the censure as being applicable to all those who say what they do not do (and concomitantly applies (all the more so) to those Muslims at the Prophet’s time who promised to be resolute in battle but then reneged on their promises). And that is because when God loves those who fight and stick to their positions, refusing to flee, then its essential concomitance or corollary is that He hates those who promise to be resolute (in battle) and then flee upon reaching the battlefield (thereby contravening their word).
وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِقَوْمِهِ يَا قَوْمِ لِمَ تُؤْذُونَنِي وَقَدْ تَعْلَمُونَ أَنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ ۖ فَلَمَّا زَاغُوا أَزَاغَ اللَّهُ قُلُوبَهُمْ ۚ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْفَاسِقِينَ ٥
(61:5) And (remember) when Moses said to his people: O my people! Why do you give me trouble when you know that I am indeed Allah’s messenger to you? But when they turned aside, Allah made their hearts turn aside, and Allah does not guide the transgressing people.
This verse refers to the pain and trouble the Children of Israel caused their prophet, which was the prophet Moses, and their persistence in troubling him (even when it was clear that it was wrong) till it led to God causing their hearts to go astray. This verse thus contains a concomitant prohibition to the believers not to hurt, annoy, or trouble the Messenger of God, Muḥammad, for then such behavior would lead them to suffer the same fate as that of the Children of Israel. This fate was God causing their hearts to go astray. God has warned in the Qur’an Surely, (as for) those who annoy Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and the hereafter, and He has prepared for them a disgraceful chastisement ().
This verse, in what it contains of a concomitant prohibition (to the Muslims), is in the same vein as (the following two verses) O you who believe! Be not like those who troubled Moses (by speaking evil things of him), but Allah cleared him of what they said, and he was eminent in Allah’s eyes (). O you who believe! Be careful of (your duty to) Allah and speak the right word ().
The content of these two verses (that is and ) and the mention of God’s clearing Moses of the calumnies the Children of Israel uttered against him demonstrates that the meaning of Moses being subjected to pain, hurt, and annoyance, which God cleared him of, was not that the Children of Israel disobeyed Moses’ commands or abandoned obeying him, for if that were the case, then there would be no meaning in God clearing him. Rather, what they did was to slander and defame him, and to ascribe to him what consisted of shame, infamy, and disgrace, due to which Moses was hurt, pained, and annoyed, and so God cleared him of the calumnies they had attributed to him. God’s speech in the second verse O you who believe! Be careful of (your duty to) Allah and speak the right word () supports this understanding of (). Another verse which supports this understanding is (), where God refers to some of the hurtful, annoying, and troubling instances which the Prophet Muḥammad endured by way of speech or deed. It says O you who believe! Do not enter the houses of the Prophet (Muḥammad) unless permission is given to you for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation, but when you are invited, enter, and when you have taken the food, then disperse. Linger not for conversation; surely this troubles the Prophet, but he is shy to tell you, however Allah is not shy of the truth. And when you ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) any goods, ask of them from behind a curtain; this is purer for your hearts and (for) their hearts; and it does not behove you that you should trouble the Messenger of God, nor that you should marry his wives after him ever; surely this is grievous in the sight of Allah ().
Thus the meaning arrived at is that () contains a (warning) message (to the Muslims) not to knowingly hurt or annoy the Prophet Muḥammad by means of word or deed just as the concluding part frightens and warns them that to do so is immoral, which could perhaps lead to God causing the heart of the person who commits such an offence to go astray.
The meaning of the word al-zaygh in the latter half of this verse ...But when they turned aside... means “to deviate from integrity and rectitude.” Its necessary corollary is to turn away from the truth towards falsehood.
This is while the part of this verse which says ...Allah made their hearts turn aside... means: ‘God withheld His mercy and compassion and discontinued His guidance for them’, just as the justifying explanation in the end part of this verse attests ...and Allah does not guide the transgressing people. Here, the end part of the verse explains and justifies that ‘God’s turning their hearts aside’ was by means of lack of (divine) guidance or by means of withholding divine guidance. Such a ‘turning of hearts aside’ is by way of requital, and by way of confirming and firmly establishing their turning aside; an offence which they first committed due to their immorality and evil, which in turn attracted a consequential reprisal, just as God says ...He causes many to err by it and many He leads aright by it! But He does not cause to err by it (any) except the transgressors (). Thus it is not an instance of God causing hearts to go astray or turn aside from the truth right from the very beginning, and it is not a case of primary misguidance, for that does not behove God’s glory and sanctity.
Here, the invalidity of what is said (by some), becomes clear. This is the objection that (1) it is not permissible to understand the part of this verse which says ... Allah made their hearts turn aside... to mean ‘God caused their hearts to stray from faith’. This is because it is impermissible that God should cause anyone to stray from faith. Furthermore, (the objection continues), (2) if this part of the verse does mean ‘God caused hearts to stray from faith’ then it fails to make sense and is useless. This is because if the people have (already) strayed and deviated from faith then they have (already) become disbelievers, and so therefore there is no meaning to the statement ‘God caused their hearts to stray from faith’ (since they have already strayed)!
The aspect of invalidity of the first objection, which says that it is impermissible for God to cause someone to go astray, and that it is absolutely forbidden because it contains the basis of injustice, is that it becomes the basis of injustice if ‘God’s causing hearts to go astray’ was an instance of primary misguidance. However if ‘God’s causing hearts to go astray’ or His ‘leaving people to stray’ was by way of requital, where its reality was to withhold mercy and discontinue guidance because the person him or herself caused that due to his or her evil and immorality, and his or her turning away from God’s mercy and guidance, then there is no proof for its impermissibility, neither on the basis of reason nor on the basis of transmitted teachings.
As for the second objection, which is that the interpretation does not make sense and is useless, then the rejoinder to that is as follows: what is imputed to the person of deviation, and the disbelief realized with it, comes about due to the person’s evil and immorality while what is ascribed to God is the confirmation and entrenching of deviation in the person’s heart, and stamping the heart by it. Therefore, the deviation of the person from faith due to his or her evil and immorality, and the state of disbelief realized due to it does not substitute God’s establishment of deviation and disbelief in the person’s heart by way of requital.
وَإِذْ قَالَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَمُبَشِّرًا بِرَسُولٍ يَأْتِي مِنْ بَعْدِي اسْمُهُ أَحْمَدُ ۖ فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُمْ بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ قَالُوا هَٰذَا سِحْرٌ مُبِينٌ ٦
(61:6) And (remember) when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Surely I am the Messenger of Allah to you (all), verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a messenger who will come after me, his name being Aḥmad, but when he came to them with clear arguments they said: This is clear magic.
It has already been mentioned in the ‘Introduction’ section that this verse, the verse preceding it, and the three verses succeeding it occur in the context of registering that the Prophet (Muḥammad) was a messenger, whose Messengership was well-known among the believers, and whom God had sent forth with guidance and the religion of truth so that He may cause it to prevail over all religions even if the disbelievers from the People of the Book hated it. In addition, what he had come with of religion was a shining light from God which the polytheists wanted to blow out with their mouths; however, God would perfect His light even if the polytheists loathed it.
Therefore, it was necessary for the believers not to hurt and annoy him while they knew he was God’s messenger to them, and that they should help him and struggle in the way of their Lord in order to enliven His religion and spread wide His word.
Consequently, from the above, it is understood that And (remember) when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Surely I am Allah’s messenger to you (all)... occurs as an introduction to what shall be mentioned of the Prophet (Muḥammad) being a messenger, whose glad tidings were given well before God sent him with guidance and the religion of truth, and that his religion was God’s light by which mankind would be guided aright.
What God relates of the speech of Jesus son of Mary, encapsulated in this verse And (remember) when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Surely I am Allah’s messenger to you (all), verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a messenger who will come after me, his name being Aḥmad... serves as a summary of his mission while he (Jesus) had given advance notice of the core basis of his mission by means of the words Surely I am Allah’s messenger to you (all)... Thus he pointed out that he had no significance save that he was a carrier of God’s message to them. Thereafter, he clarified the content of what had been sent to them so that it could be conveyed to them as part of his mission and message ...verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a messenger who will come after me, his name being Aḥmad...
The statement ...verifying that which is before me of the Torah... expresses that his mission and call do not differ from the religion of the Torah, nor do they contradict its laws, rather they confirm them, and they did not rescind or abrogate its laws save a small part of them. Abrogation expresses the termination of the period of the law and not its invalidity. This is the reason Jesus combined attesting to the Torah and abrogating some of its laws in what God relates of his speech in And (I come) confirming that which is before me of the Torah and that I may make lawful to you part of that which was forbidden to you (). He did not clarify to them save some of what they differed in, as in the following verse which relates his speech: And when Jesus came with clear arguments he said: I have come to you indeed with wisdom, and that I may make clear to you part of what you differ in; so be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me ().
The part statement ...and giving the good news of a messenger who will come after me, his name being Aḥmad... indicates the second part of Jesus’ mission while the first part of his mission was indicated by ...verifying that which is before me of the Torah...
It is well-known that good news (al-bushrā) is news which pleases and delights the one informed, and makes him or her happy and glad. This does not happen save by means of something of goodness coming to such a person, and pertaining to him or her. The goodness anticipated from the sending forth of the Prophet Muḥammad, and his mission, lies in the opening of a door of divine mercy and compassion for mankind, wherein lies felicity for their worldly life and the life to come, stemming from true beliefs or virtuous deeds or both. This is while the good news of a prophet after a prophet, and the good news of a new call and mission after the advent of a previous call and its establishment is conceivable (only) if the new call and mission is more advanced and superior in what it contains of true beliefs and modified laws for the society to act on, and more comprehensive and encompassing of the happiness and well-being of the human being in this life and the next. This is while divine calls are (actually) one (in essence). They do not become invalid by the passage of time and the alternation of nights and days.
From the aforementioned explanation, it becomes clear that the meaning of the clause ...and giving the good news of a messenger who will come after me, his name being Aḥmad... means that what the Prophet Aḥmad came forth with was more advanced and superior and more complete with regards to what the Torah contained and with regards to what Jesus son of Mary was sent forth with. This is while Jesus son of Mary was the intermediate link between the two missions or calls.
Thus the meaning of And (remember) when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Surely I am Allah’s messenger to you (all), verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a messenger who will come after me, his name being Aḥmad... is that: ‘I am a messenger from God to you all. I call you all to the law-code of the Torah and the path it advocates—and so that I may make lawful for you some of what was forbidden to you—and this is the law-code and path that God shall complete by the sending forth of a prophet who shall come after me, whose name is Aḥmad.’
This is true, for assiduous and careful thought on the divine teachings and wisdom that the Islamic faith calls to shows that it is more accurate and precise than the other heavenly law-codes and paths that preceded it, especially what is accredited to it of the teaching of God’s unicity (al-tawhīd). The doctrine of God’s unicity is the primary principle on which every (Islamic) instruction is based and to which pertain all the true teachings (of Islam). A part of the discussion relevant to this topic has already been made previously in this work.
Similar is the case with the practical laws and regulations (of Islam). These have not left aside anything of human acts, whether small or big, of individual or social relevance, save that they have regulated it, demarcated its limits, and established it on the basis of God’s unicity, and directed it towards the goal of (human) felicity.
The following verse points to this fact Those who follow the Messenger-Prophet, the ummī, whom they find written down with them in the Torah and the Injīl (who) enjoins them good and forbids them evil, and makes lawful to them the good things and makes unlawful to them impure things, and removes from them their burden and the shackles which were upon them; so (as for) those who believe in him and honor him and help him, and follow the light which has been sent down with him, these it is that are the successful (). There are other verses too that describe the Qur’an likewise.
Although the part of () that says ...and giving the good news of a messenger who will come after me.... explicitly acknowledges and declares that the good news was announced, yet this verse itself does not prove that it was something mentioned in the book of Jesus son of Mary. Nevertheless, the following two verses do prove it. These are the verses () and (). (), mentioned previously states Those who follow the Messenger-Prophet, the ummī, whom they find written down with them in the Torah and the Injīl... () while (), describing the Prophet, states Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves; you will see them bowing down, prostrating themselves, seeking grace from Allah and pleasure; their marks are in their faces because of the effect of prostration; that is their description in the Torah and their description in the Injīl... ()
The content of () proves that Jesus son of Mary mentioned the Prophet Muḥammad by the name Aḥmad ... his name being Aḥmad... it being a name for him by which he was known among the people just as he was apparently named Muḥammad, which is clear and beyond doubt.
Support (for this understanding) is available from the poetry of Ḥassān, which says:
God, those who encircle His throne, and the good (ones),
Bless the blessed (al-mubārak) Aḥmad.
And from the poetry of Abū Ṭālib are the following lines:
They said to Aḥmad, you are (but) a man, of ineloquent speech, (and) of inconsequential means.
Hearken! Aḥmad has come to them with truth, and he did not come to them with falsehood.
Abū Ṭālib’s statement to al-ʿAbbās, Ḥamza, Jaʿfar, and ʿAlī, commending them to aid the Prophet, occurs as follows:
Be (protective) shields in aid of Aḥmad, against all mankind,
May my mother and what she begot be ransomed for you all.
The following is yet another piece of Abū Ṭālib’s poetry where he calls the Prophet by his other name of Muḥammad:
Do they not know that we have found Muḥammad (to be) a prophet like Moses, inscribed (as such) in the earliest books?
It is understood from the poetic verse above that they had found mention of the prophecy of the Prophet Muḥammad’s advent in the heavenly scriptures; scriptures which were with the People of the Book at that time, there.
That which further supports this understanding is the conversion to Islam of a group of the People of the Book from the Jews and the Christians, including a group of their scholars such as ʿAbdullāh ibn Salām and others. They used to hear these Qur’anic verses, which mention the glad tidings of the Prophet Muḥammad’s advent and his mention in the Torah and the New Testament (or the Gospels) and so they embraced it positively and did not belie it. Nor did they exhibit any doubt or wavering in regards to it.
As for the absence of the mention of Jesus’ prophecy regarding the Prophet Muḥammad’s advent in the Gospels in circulation these days, despite the prophecy’s clarity, then the Qur’an, which is a lasting, miraculous sign, is in no need of the Gospels’ attestation. This is while the discussion regarding the Gospels’ transmission and reliability has already taken place in a previous volume of this work.
The concluding statement ...but when he came to them with clear arguments they said: This is clear magic. The masculine third person singular pronoun ‘he’ in this verse refers to Aḥmad (the Prophet) and the masculine third person plural pronoun ‘them’ refers to the Children of Israel, or to them and to others. The identity of the ‘clear arguments’ in this verse is the good news, the miracle of the Qur’an, and all the other prophetic signs. Thus the meaning obtained is: ‘When Aḥmad, the one prophesied, came to the Children of Israel, or to them and to others, with clear arguments and signs, which included Jesus’ prophecy, they responded with “This is clear magic” (hādhā siḥrun mubīn).’ This part of the verse is also read as “this is a clear magician.” It is also said that the pronoun ‘he’ refers to Jesus, however the context does not agree with it.
وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَىٰ عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ وَهُوَ يُدْعَىٰ إِلَى الْإِسْلَامِ ۚ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ ٧
(61:7) And who is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah while he is being invited to Islam, and Allah does not guide the unjust people.
The question with which this verse begins, and which reads And who is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah while he is being invited to Islam... is in a rhetorical style which aims to convey censure, disapproval, rebuke, and condemnation (by the speaker) coupled with surprise (on the speaker’s part in respect of a deed by the addressee, which is not befitting him/her (which in this case is the act of forging a lie against God while being invited to Islam)). This kind of rhetorical interrogative is known as al-istifhām lil-inkār. It occurs here as a rebuttal to their speech (related in the immediately preceding verse), which is ...This is clear magic (), for the latter speech contends that the Prophet Muḥammad is not a messenger and that what has come to him of God’s religion is not from God.
The meaning of ‘Islam’ in this verse is the religion to which the Messenger of God calls, in that it entails submission to God in what He wants and instructs of beliefs and acts. There is no doubt that the necessary requirement of God’s divinity and godhead entails that His slaves submit to Him with absolute submission. Therefore, there is no doubt that the religion, which is Islam, belongs to God. It is His true religion, and one which it is imperative that it be professed and adhered to. Consequently, the claim that it is invalid and false and not from God is to forge a lie against God!
From here, it becomes clear that the clause ...while he is being invited to Islam... consists of proof and evidence that the nature of their speech ...This is clear magic () is a fabrication against God.
Forging a lie is unjust. The intellect does not doubt that it is unjust while the Muslim faith prohibits it. The greatness of the injustice committed is related to the greatness of the one subjected to it. Therefore, if the one subjected to injustice is God then it becomes the greatest injustice, and consequently there is none more unjust than the one who forges a lie against God.
Thus the meaning obtained is: “there is none more unjust than the one who forges a lie against God—which he or she does by negating the attribution of God’s religion to Him—and this is when his or her state and condition is that he or she is being invited to the religion of Islam, which does not comprise save submission to God in what He intends. And there is no doubt that the religion of Islam is from God. This is while God does not guide the unjust people!”
يُرِيدُونَ لِيُطْفِئُوا نُورَ اللَّهِ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَاللَّهُ مُتِمُّ نُورِهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْكَافِرُونَ ٨
(61:8) They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths but Allah will perfect His light, though the unbelievers may be averse.
This verse mentions ‘putting out the light of God’ as follows: They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths... Putting out the light of God means “to invalidate and abolish it, to cause its rise and radiance to go away,” while ‘putting out the light of God with the mouth’ mentioned in this verse means “to blow it out (with the mouth).”
A similar verse occurs in Sūrah al-Tawba, which reads They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse ().
(But there is a subtle difference in the Arabic construction of these two verses as pointed out by al-Rāghib). Al-Rāghib points out that in () the Arabic construction of the verse occurs as: yuridūna an yuṭfiʾū nūrallāhi while in () the Arabic construction of the verse occurs as: yuridūna liyuṭfiʾū nūrallāhi. The difference between the two verses (he points out) is that in (), where the Arabic reads as yuridūna an yuṭfiʾū nūrallāhi, means that: ‘they desire to put out the light of God’ while in () where the Arabic reads as yuridūna liyuṭfiʾū nūrallāhi means that: ‘they desire a means by which they can put out the light of God’.
The meaning arrived at thus is that the intent of the ‘desire’ in verse (), which reads in Arabic as yuridūna an yuṭfiʾū nūrallāhi pertains to the putting out of the light of God itself while the intent of the ‘desire’ in verse (), which in Arabic reads as yuridūna liyuṭfiʾū nūrallāhi pertains to the cause/means which would lead to the putting out of the light of God. This is blowing by the mouth, while putting the light out is the ultimate purpose and aim.
This verse and what follows it occur as a commentary to the meaning of what has preceded in the previous verse. The previous verse spoke about the injustice of the Prophet’s (disbelieving) interlocutors, which consisted of (unjustly) accusing the mission and call (of the Prophet Muḥammad) as being magic and sorcery, and God (consequently) refusing to guide them because they were unjust people. The meaning thus arrived at is that they desire to put out the light of God by blowing it out by their mouths however God shall not guide them to their goal and purpose, instead He shall perfect His light and cause His religion to prevail over all religions.
The statement They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths.... means: ‘(putting it out) by blowing it out with their mouths’ just as a candle is extinguished by blowing it out. This means that they (felt and) claimed that the light of God, which was His religion, was a weak and feeble light just like the light of the candle, which could be blown out by a mere puff. Thus they accused it of being magic and negated its attribution to God.
However, they had erred in their claim (and supposition). This is because it (Islam) is God’s light which could not be extinguished, and God had decided to perfect it even if the disbelievers hated it. This is while God (always) achieves His aim. This is the meaning of the part of this verse which says ...but Allah will perfect His light, though the unbelievers may be averse.
هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَىٰ وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ٩
(61:9) He it is Who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it overcome the religions, all of them, though the polytheists may be averse.
In this verse God describes His religion as dīn al-ḥaqq (translated literally as: the religion of truth). The possessive or iḍāfa construct dīn al-ḥaqq in this verse is said to be an iḍāfa bayāniyya, however, it is obvious, on careful consideration, that it is primarily an iḍāfa lāmiyya in that both truth and falsehood have a religion that is related and specific to them while God chose the religion, which is that of (or belonging to) the truth (al-dīn alladhī lil-ḥaqq)—and He (God) is the Truth Most High—and He sent forth His Messenger.
This verse says that God sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth so …that He may make it overcome the religions, all of them. To make something overcome another means to help it and to render it triumphant over the latter, while the meaning of ‘the religions, all of them’ is every path or way that is followed other than the path or way of God, which is the religion of Islam. This verse occurs as an explanation for the (part of the) previous verse which says ...but Allah will perfect His light (). Hence the meaning obtained is: ‘God will perfect His light because He is the One who sent forth His Messenger with His light, which (light) is guidance and the religion of truth so that He may make it triumphant over all religions even if the polytheists from the idol worshippers hate it.’
And it is understood from these two verses that the religion of truth is the light of God on earth, which is also understood from the verse ...a likeness of His light is as a niche in which is a lamp... () and an explanation has been made in the commentary to that verse.
Examining Narrations
- Tafsīr al-Qummī explains the verse Allah surely loves those who fight in His way in (battle) lines as if they were a firm and compact wall () as follows: ‘They form a line like a firm and compact wall, which does not disappear or go away.’
- Majmaʿ al-bayān has the following regarding the verse And (remember) when Moses said to his people: O my people! Why do you trouble me when you know that I am indeed Allah’s messenger to you? But when they turned aside, Allah made their hearts turn aside, and Allah does not guide the transgressing people (): It is related in the story of Korah that he (schemed against Moses and) planted a woman on him (or foisted a woman on to him), and claimed he (Moses) had committed adultery with her. They (the Children of Israel) (also) falsely accused him of murdering Aaron!
- Tafsīr al-Qummī has the following regarding the verse And (remember) when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Surely I am Allah’s messenger to you (all), verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a messenger who will come after me, his name being Aḥmad, but when he came to them with clear arguments they said: This is clear magic (): Some Jews asked the Messenger of God: ‘Why were you named Aḥmad (more praised), Muḥammad (much praised), al-Bashīr (one who gives glad tidings), and al-Nadhīr (one who warns)?’ He replied: ‘As for being named Muḥammad (much praised) that is because I am praised on earth (thereby rendered much praised). As for being named Aḥmad (more praised) that is because I am more praised in the heavens than I am on earth. As for being named al-Bashīr (one who gives glad tidings) that is because I give glad tidings of paradise to whoever obeys God while I was named al-Nadhīr (one who warns) because I warn of hell-fire to whoever disobeys God.’
- Al-ʿIrbāḍ ibn Sāriya relates in respect of (): ‘I heard the Messenger of God say: “I am ʿAbdullah (God’s slave) in the Umm al-Kitāb (the Mother Book) and khātam al-nabiyyīn (the seal of the prophets)—and this was when yet Adam was being twined and twisted (or kneaded) in his clay—I will inform you (all) its interpretation. I am the supplication of Abraham, I am the good news of Jesus to his people, and I am the vision of my mother who saw that a light came forth from her due to which the castles of Byzantium were illuminated.”’
- Ṣafwān ibn Yaḥya ṣāḥib al-sābiriyy (the one who engaged in the trade of a delicate kind of cloth, of excellent quality, called al-sābiriyy) relates: ‘Abū Qurra, the companion of the chief Catholic bishop asked me to take him to Imām al-Riḍā. So I sought the Imām’s permission (for that) and the Imām agreed, saying: “Let him visit me.” When he (Abū Qurra) came into the presence of the Imām, he kissed his carpet, saying: “This is the manner in which we are obliged, in our religion, to behave with the honorable people of our time.” Thereafter he said: “May God render you well. What would you say regarding a group that claims something, which another just group testifies to?” The Imām said: “(it means) the claim is in their (the former’s) favor” (meaning that the claim is correct). He (Abū Qurra) then said: “What would you say if the other group claimed something but found none other than themselves attesting to it?” The Imām said: “Their claim is of no consequence.” Thereupon, he (Abū Qurra) said: “We (the Christians) claim that Jesus is the spirit of God and His word, and the Muslims agree with us on that and testify to that. This is while the Muslims claim that Muḥammad is a prophet but we disagree with them on that and do not follow them on that. Therefore, what we all agree on is better than what we all disagree on.” Abū al-Ḥasan (al-Riḍā) asked: “What is your name?” He replied: “Yuḥannā.” The Imām said: “Yuḥannā, we do testify to and believe in Jesus, the spirit of God and His word, the one who believed in Muḥammad and gave glad tidings of his advent, the one who acknowledged and testified that he was a slave and a bondsman (of God). So if Jesus, who is the spirit of God and His word for you, is not the same one who believed in Muḥammad and gave glad tidings of his advent, and nor is he one who acknowledged and testified to God by means of worship and servitude to Him, then we dissociate from him, in which case where lies our shared unity?” At this he (Yuḥannā) stood up, and addressing Ṣafwān ibn Yaḥya said: “Rise, for he (the Imām) has not benefitted us in this gathering.”’
Author’s comment: It is as if he (Yuḥannā) intended by his words—“rise, for he has not benefitted us in this gathering”—to say that his visiting the Imām did not benefit him because he failed to succeed with respect to what he had brought of proof.
- Yaʿqūb ibn Shuʿayb relates from Imām al-Ṣādiq who said: ‘The time gap between Jesus and Muḥammad was five hundred years. There was no prophet or manifest scholar during two hundred and fifty of these years’. Yaʿqūb ibn Shuʿayb says: ‘I asked: “What religion did they (the people at the time) subscribe to?” The Imām replied: “They subscribed to the religion of Jesus.” I asked: “What were they (in terms of religious categorization)?” The Imām replied: “They were believers (muʾminīn).” Then he said: “And it is not (permissible) save that there is a (hidden) scholar (ʿālim) during it (that is, during this time period).”’
Author’s comment: The referent of the word ‘scholar’ (ʿālim) (in this report) is to the leader (imām) who is the proof (of God on earth).
There are reports transmitted with respect to They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths but Allah will perfect His light, though the unbelievers may be averse () and He it is Who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it overcome the religions, all of them, though the polytheists may be averse () which mention that the meaning of the light, the guidance, and the religion of truth is Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿAlī. Such reports are examples of the application (al-jary wa al-taṭbīq) of the verses’ meaning to valid instances of it, or examples of the inner meaning (al-baṭn) of the verses and not in the meaning of commentary and elucidation of the verses (al-tafsīr). This is while reckoning the time period between Jesus and Muḥammad as consisting of five hundred years contradicts what is historically well-known (of this time period), however researchers have observed that there is confusion in the Christian calendar, and an indication of sorts has been made regarding that in the third part of the commentary.