"Say, whoever be an enemy to Jibra'il (Gabriel) - it is he who has brought it down upon your heart by the permission of Allah, confirming what has been before it, and a guidance and good tidings to the believers. Whoever be an enemy to Allah, His angels, and His messengers, and to Jibra'il and Mika'il, surely Allah is enemy to the disbelievers."(2:97-98)
The perversity of the Jews was very fertile, and gave them ever-new excuses for denying the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم). When they learnt that it was Archangel Jibra'il (Gabriel (عليه السلام)) who brought the Glorious Qur'an to the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), they said that the Archangel was their enemy, as it was through him that rigorous commandments or catastrophic punishments had always descended on them,, and that for this reason they would not accept a Book which had been revealed through his agency. They also added that they could have accepted the Holy Qur'an, if the Archangel Mika'il (Michael (عليه السلام)) had brought it down, for he is connected with rain and with divine mercy.
In refuting this argument, the Holy Qur'an points out that Jibra'il (عليه السلام) is only a messenger, and has, acting only as a messenger, brought down the Holy Qur'an under a divine command to the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم). So, why should the Jews be so particular about the messenger, and not look at the Book itself? As for the Book, it confirms the earlier Books of Allah, provides guidance to men, and gives good tidings to the believers. This being what the Divine Books are meant for, the Holy Qur'an is evidently enough a Divine Book, and must, as such be obeyed. To deny it on account of one's hostility to Jibra'il (عليه السلام) is sheer stupidity or outright perversity. Now, as for the attitude of the Jews towards Jibra'il (عليه السلام), the Holy Qur'an declares that to be hostile to the angels (including Jibra'il and Mika'il (عليه السلام) or to the prophets is tantamount to being hostile to Allah (سبحانه وتعالى) Himself. Verse 98 puts down the enemies of angels and prophets as infidels (Kafirin) in saying that Allah is the enemy of the infidels. In other words, those who deny or oppose the angels and the prophets will have their due punishment in the other world.
Maulana Ashraf 'Ali Thanavi (رحمه الله) has, in his "Bayan al-Qur'an", warned against the possibility of very grave error that may arise with regard to the statement in Verse 97 that the Archangel Jibra'il (Gabriel (عليه السلام)) has "brought down the Book on the heart" of the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم). The error would lie in drawing from this phrase the conclusion that Allah has not revealed the words of the Holy Qur'an but only the meanings. Such a supposition is quite baseless, because many verses of the Holy Qur'an itself mention the Arabic language as the vehicle of revelation in the case of this particular Book of Allah. That should leave no room for any doubt.
Moreover, the "heart" perceives words as much as it does meanings; in fact, the perceiving agent is the "heart", while the ears etc. are only its instruments. Specially, in the state of revelation, the external organs of the senses become dormant, and the heart receives even the words directly without the intervention of the ears. Although we cannot understand the nature of revelation properly, yet, choosing a mundane analogy, one can say that while dreaming in our sleep we do hear words and remember them afterwards, in spite of our external sense of hearing having been suspended while we dreamt. This example should make it easy to see that the revelation of meanings to the heart does in no way preclude the revelation of words as well. Anyhow, it is a sin - and an intellectual dishonesty - to rely on one's own conjectures in defiance of a clear and definite statement in the Holy Qur'an.
"And certainly We have revealed to you clear signs. And no one denies them except the sinful."(2:99)
In denying the Holy Prophet (صلي الله عليه وسلم), the Jews used to say that no clear evidence or sign of his prophethood had been revealed to him such as they could recognize and accept. In reply to this the Holy Qur'an says that Allah (سبحانه وتعالى) has revealed a number of very clear signs and evidences of his prophethood which even they know and understand very well. So, their denial is not based on a lack of recognition or knowledge, but on their habitual disobedience, for, as a general rule, no one denies such evidence except those who are wilful and stubborn in their disobedience.
"Would it always be that every time they enter into a pact, a group from among them should throw it aside? In fact, most of them do not believe."(2:100)
Allah (سبحانه وتعالى) had, as the Torah itself reports, made the Jews take the pledge that they would have faith in the Holy Prophet (صلي الله عليه وسلم) when he appeared. On being reminded of it, the Jews flatly denied even having taken such a pledge. Commenting on this effrontery, the Holy Qur'an says that this is not the only instance of such a conduct on their part, for the Jews have, in fact, never fulfilled even those pledges which they acknowledge, and one group or another from among them has always been breaking the compacts they have entered into, specially with regard to religious matters. It can even be said that most of those who have been guilty of such gross violations, did not at all believe in the compacts which they made with Allah (سبحانه وتعالى). Going against a pledge is only a sin and transgression, but having no faith in the pledge which one gives to Allah is outright infidelity.
The Holy Qur'an specifically speaks of one group or another breaking the pledge, and not of all the Jews. For there were some among them who did fulfil the pledges, so much so that many Jews finally accepted Sayyidna Muhammad (صلي الله عليه وسلم) as a true prophet, and joined the ranks of the Muslims.
"And when came to them a messenger from Allah, confirming what was already with them, some from among the people of the Book threw away the Book of Allah behind their backs, as if they did not know."(2:101)
The previous verse had told us how the breaking of pledges and disobedience had become a regular habit with the Jews. The present verse gives us the latest instance, which is the most relevant to the context.
The Torah had already given the Jews the good tidings of the coming of the Holy Prophet (صلي الله عليه وسلم). When he actually came with all signs which the Torah had indicated, thus confirming the Sacred Book of the Jews, a large number of them refused to accept him as a prophet. In doing this, they were, in fact, denying the Torah itself, and behaving as if they know nothing of the prophecy, or even the Torah being a Book of Allah (سبحانه وتعالى). Thus, they were being guilty of infidelity (Kufr) even in terms of the Torah itself.
"And they followed what the devils used to recite in the reign of Sulayman (Solomon) -- it was not Sulayman who became an infidel, but the devils did become infidels, teaching people magic, and what had been sent down to the two angels, Harut and Marut, in Babylon. And these two did not teach anyone without having said, "We are nothing but a trial, so do not go infidel." Then, they used to learn from them that with which they could separate man from his wife. But they were not to bring harm through it to anyone, without the will of Allah. And they used to learn what harmed them and did no good to them. And they certainly knew that he who buys it has no share in the Hereafter. And, indeed, vile is the thing for which they sold themselves away. Only if they knew! And had they accepted the faith, and been God-fearing, the reward from Allah would have always been far better. Only if they knew!" (2:102-103)
In connection with these two verses, some commentators have reported certain Judaic traditions, which have given rise to a number of doubts, especially in the minds of Muslims with a Western orientation. Maulana Ashraf 'Ali Thanavi has provided very simple and clear solutions to these exegetical problems, and we shall reproduce them here:-
1. The Jews were impertinent and senseless enough to attribute magic and sorcery to a prophet -- namely, Sayyidna Sulayman (Solomon (A.S)). So, in saying that they used to learn the black arts of the devils (Shayatin), the Holy Qur'an takes care to deny, as a parenthesis, such a vile allegation against Sayyidna Sulayman (A.S).
2. These verses condemn the Jews for indulging in black magic. In connection with the verses, some commentators have reported a long and well-known story about a woman called Zuhrah, which is not based on any authentic Islamic tradition. Those scholars who have found the story to be infringing the regulations of the Shari'ah, have rejected it as mere fiction; but those who believe that it can be interpreted so as to come in line with the Shari'ah, have not dismissed it totally. For the moment we are not concerned with the question whether the story is true or false. But what we would like to insist upon is the fact that a proper understanding does in no way depend on this story.
3. The Jews knew very well that their indulgence in black magic was not only a sin, but also involved infidelity (Kufr). They could also see that such activities would do them no good even in this world, for their sorcery could not harm anyone except when Allah willed it so. Thus their practice went against their knowledge, and they made no use of their understanding to see this discrepancy. That is why the Holy Qur'an, to begin with, states that they "knew", and then goes on to negate this 'knowledge' by saying, "Only if they knew!" For, if one does neither act upon what one knows nor tries to understand it properly, one's knowledge is no better than ignorance.
4. There was a time when black magic had grown very popular in the world, particularly in Babylon. Seeing its astonishing efficacy, ignorant people began to confuse its effects with the miracles of prophets, and to suppose that the two were identical in nature. Some even looked upon magicians as being holy men, and worthy of being obeyed; still others actually started learning and practising black magic as if it were a good deed bearing a divine sanction.
[Just as there has been a sudden outburst of enthusiasm for the occult sciences in the West since the middle of the sixties in this century, particularly in America where even the universities have been inundated by it.]
In short, this extraordinary veneration for magic and magicians had become a potent source of misguidance. In order to eradicate this misunderstanding, Allah sent down to Babylon two angels, Harut and Marut, for informing the people as to the true nature of magic and as to its different forms, so that they should distinguish it frpm the miracles of prophets, and keep away from obeying magicians and practising magic themselves. Just as the prophethood of prophets is divinely confirmed through miracles, signs and rational or other arguments, in the same way the angelical nature of Harut and Marut was confirmed on the basis of different signs and arguments, so that people should listen attentively to them and follow their guidance.
This particular function was not assigned to the prophets for two reasons. Firstly, the need of the hour was to establish a distinction between the prophets and the magicians, and, the prophets being in a way a party to the dispute, it was proper that a third party should be the arbitrator. Secondly, the necessary distinction between the two could not, in a normal course, be defined without citing and reporting the verbal formulas employed in magic. Merely to report heretical speech is not in itself a heresy - this is a logical and rational principle, and the Shari'ah too accepts it. So, the prophets could have been allowed to cite these formulas; but, they being a manifestation of divine guidance, Allah did not ask them to perform such a function, and chose two angels for the purpose. For, Allah's commandments are of two kinds -- those pertaining to Takwin (creation and the cosmic order), and those pertaining to Tashri' (legislation) -, and it is quite possible that sometimes the two may not seem to accord with each other. The order of creation is made up of good and evil both, and it is the angels through whom divine commandments are enforced in this sphere. So, the angels are made to do things which, in the perspective of the cosmic order, always lead to general good, but which, in so far as they necessarily involve some kind of partial disorder, are seen to be evil -- for example, the growth and upkeep of a human tyrant, or of a harmful beast, each of which is right in the context of the order of creation, but wrong from the point of view of the order of legislation. On the other hand, the prophets are entrusted only with the functions of the legislative order, which are, in their general as well as particular applications, nothing but good.
Although, in view of the ultimate purpose, this reporting of the formulas of magic too was related to the legislative order, yet there was probability -- which even materialized - that a reporting of such formulas could give an incentive to the practice of black magic. So, Allah preferred not to make the prophets even an indirect means of such reprehensible activities. All the same, the prophets too were made to serve the main purpose by announcing the basic regulations of the Shari'ah with regard to magic, though not the details pertaining to the minor rules derived from them, for that could have possibly given rise to temptation. We shall explain it through an analogy. The prophets have, for example, told us that it is forbidden to accept a bribe, and have also explained the nature of bribery, but have not given us the details as to how a bribe is given or taken, for a delineation of such minute details would have served only to teach men the different methods of giving or taking a bribe. Or, take an example from different branches of magic. If one utters a certain formula, one would, on getting up from the bed in the morning, find money under his pillow or in his pocket. The Shari'ah makes it quite clear that such a practice is not, in principle, legitimate, but does not specify what that formula is.
In short, the two angels came down to Babylon, and started the work assigned to them ~ that is to say, they used to explain the basic principles of magic, its different forms and the specific formulas, and then used to dissuade the people from getting themselves involved in these activities or with the magicians. Their work was exactly like that of a scholar who, finding that illiterate people sometime fall into uttering heretical words or phrases on account of their ignorance, should collect in his speeches or writings all such phrases that have gained currency, and inform them as to what they must carefully avoid.
Now, all sorts of people started coming to the angels for seeking information about the nature and the specific formulas of a magic lest ignorance should lead them into error, in the matter of doctrines or that of deeds. In order to provide the correct teaching on this subject and to protect the people from error, the angels were scrupulous enough to make it a point to warn them of possible dangers in giving them the information. They insisted on making it quite clear that in allowing them to provide this kind of information to the people in general, Allah intended to put His servants through a trial, for He would see who uses this knowledge for protecting his 'Iman (faith) by recognizing evil and avoiding it, and who falls into misguidance by adopting evil that he has come to recognize as evil -- a choice which can easily lead one into Kufr (infidelity) in the matter of deeds or in that of doctrines. The angels repeatedly advised them to seek this dangerous information only with a good intent and to remain steadfast in this good intent, and not to misuse the knowledge so as to earn perpetual damnation.
The angels could not be more honest and forthright. So, they explained the basic principles of magic and even the subsidiary details to all those who were ready to take the pledge to remain steadfast in their faith. Of course, if anyone broke the pledge and fell into transgression or infidelity, it was his own business, and the angels could not be held responsible for it. Some were true to their promise, while many did not fulfil the pledge, and made their knowledge of magic a means of doing harm to people - this in itself is sin and transgression, while some modes of magic actually involve infidelity (Kufr). Thus, through a misuse of their knowledge of magic, some turned into sinners and others into infidels.
Let us repeat that the angels had taught magic for the purpose of reforming the people and helping them to keep to the straight path, but those who misused this teaching did so out of their own perversity. An example would make the situation still more clear. Let us suppose that a man goes to a master of the Islamic sciences, who is an expert in the traditional branches of learning and in philosophy as well, and who also acts upon his knowledge, and this man requests the master to teach him philosophy, ancient or modern, so that he may protect himself against the doubts raised by the philosophers with regard to Islamic doctrines, and may also be able to give a satisfactory reply to those who raise such doubts.
Apprehending that he might turn out to be insincere, and might finally bring the knowledge of philosophy to the aid of false and anti-Islamic ideas, the master warns him against such an eventuality, and the man takes a pledge that he would not misuse his knowledge. Having satisfied himself, the master gives him a thorough training in philosophy. But the man, contrary to his promise, begins to accept the anti-Islamic and false theorizing of philosophers as the truth. Obviously, in such a case, the teacher can in no way be held responsible for the way the pupil behaves. Similarly, there can be no room for doubting the integrity of these two angels.
Although Allah Himself knows how things were, yet one can suppose that once the angels had done the work assigned to them, they must have been recalled to the Heavens. (Bayan al-Qur'an)
What is Magic? Definition and effects
Since the study of magic has been enjoying a weird currency in the Western countries since 1968, and has sometimes been accepted as a part of academic research, we had better consider the subject at some length from the Islamic point of view. According to the authoritative Arabic dictionary "Al-Qamus", the word Sihr (Magic) signifies an effect the cause of which is not apparent, whether the cause may actually lie in something which possesses a luminous quality (as the effect of certain phrases), or in things with an extra-sensory reality (as the effect produced by jinns and devils), or in the power of imagination (as the effect of hypnotism), or in things which are sensory yet hidden (as a magnet drawing to itself a piece of iron, when the magnet is concealed from the onlookers; or the effect of drugs, when they have been furtively administered; or the influence of stars and planets). The causes at work being numerous, the forms of magic too are numerous.
Magic and Charms
In everyday language, magic signifies those practices which involve the co-operation of jinns and devils, or the exercise of the power of imagination, or the use of certain words or phrases. It is a rationally established proposition, accepted by ancient philosophers and by some of the modern ones as well, and equally confirmed by ob�servation and experiment, that words and phrases in themselves pos�sess a certain efficacy, and that when certain letters, words or phrases are recited or written down for a specified number of times, they produce certain specific results. Similar results are obtained by employing human hair or nails or the clothes worn by the person concerned, etc. - a practice which is usually described as the preparation of "Charms". All such things are commonly known as magic.
Sihr or Magic: The Islamic view
But in the terminology of the Holy Qur'an and the Hadith, Sihr (magic) refers to all those usual happenings which have been brought about with the active help of the devils (Shayatin), won over through certain practices likely to please them. There are several ways of pleasing the devils. Sometimes one sings the praises of the devils, and sometimes recites formulas of a heretical nature which deny Allah or associate others with Him. The worship of stars and planets too gladdens their heart, as do certain evil deeds - for example, preparing a charm with the blood of a person killed unlawfully, or refusing to adopt the prescribed modes of purifying one's body, or living constantly and deliberately in a state of uncleanliness and impurity. Just as the aid of the angels can be won only through those modes of speech and action which they like (for example, remembrance of Allah, fear of Him and obedience to His commandments, cleanliness and purity, avoidance of all kinds of dirtiness, physical or otherwise, and good deeds in general), similarly the co-operation of the devils can be obtained through those modes of speech and action which are pleasant to them. That is why only those are successful in the practice of black magic who are habitually unclean and impure, avoid required purification and remembrance of Allah, and are given to all kinds of evil deeds - for example, it is usually during the period of menstruation that women become effective in the practice of black magic. So much for black magic or sorcery in the exact sense of the term. As for sleights of hand, mesmerism, hypnotism, or the tricks of jugglers, they are sometimes described as magic only by an extension of the meaning of the word, or metaphorically. (Ruh al-Ma'ani)
Kinds of Magic
In his "Mufradat al-Qur'an", Imam Raghib al-Isfahani says that there are several kinds of magic. Firstly, there are sleights of hand, like those of jugglers, which deceive the eyes of the onlookers, but have no further substance. Then, there are ways of influencing the imagination of others through the concentration of one's own powers of thought so that they begin to see or feel things which do not really exist as happens in mesmerism or hypnotism. Such a result is sometimes obtained with the help of the devils (Shayatin) too. In speaking of the magicians of the Pharaoh, the Holy Qur'an says: "They cast a spell on the eyes of the people." (7:116). Or, in another place: "Through their magic Moses came to think that they (ropes turned into serpents) were running about." (20:66).
Obviously, this piece of magic had to do with influencing of the imagination. The second of these verses employs a verb which has the same root as the noun Khayal (thought), and hence clearly states that the ropes and the wands Cast down by the magicians had neither turned serpents nor made any movement, but the imagination of Sayyidna Musa (Moses (A.S)) had been affected so as to see them running about in the shape of serpents. The Holy Qur'an also indicates the other way of in�fluencing men's imaginations which involves the help of the devils (Shayatin):
"Shall I tell you on whom the devils descend? They descend on all those who are slanderers and sinners." (26:222)
Still another kind of magic is that which can change the very nature of a thing - for example, turning a man into a beast or into a stone. Scholars like Imam Raghib al-Isfahani and Abu Bakr al-Jassas deny that magic can totally change the nature of a thing, but confine the efficacy of magic only to influencing the imagination and to deceiving the eyes of the onlookers. This is also what the Mu'tazilah thought of the matter. But most of the scholars hold that neither the Shari'ah nor any rational argument forbids the possibility of trans-substantiation or the changing of one thing into another, like a living body turning into a stone. As for the well-known principle of the classical philosophers that the change of the "essences" (Haqa'iq) is not possible, it concerns the "essences" of the three categories - the Impossible, the Possible and the Necessary --, for, rationally speaking, it just cannot be that something impossible should become possible, or that something possible should become impossible. And as to the Holy Qur'an putting down the magic of the Egyptian sorcerers as only an impact on the imagination, it does not necessarily mean that all the forms of magic should be no more than an influencing of the imagination.
Moreover, certain scholars have seen an argument in favour of the possibility of trans-substantiation through magic in a saying of Ka'b al-Ahbar, reported by Imam Malik in his Muwatta' on the authority of Qa'qa' ibn Hakim: "Were it not for these phrases which I recite regularly, the Jews would have changed me into a donkey." "A donkey" is, no doubt, a usual metaphor for "a fool." But it is not proper to turn away, unecessarily, from the literal meaning to a metaphorical one. So, the sentence means just what it says - that if the recitation of the phrases had not protected him, the Jewish sorcerers would have changed him into a donkey. The saying, thus, establishes two things. Firstly, it is possible to change a man into a donkey; secondly, the phrases he used to recite had the property of making the magic of the sorcerers lose its efficacy. On being asked what these phrases were, the scholar Ka'b al-Ahbar taught his listeners the following words of prayer:
"I seek the protection of Allah the Great, greater than whom there is none; and I seek the protection of the perfect words of Allah which no man, virtuous or wicked, can even transcend; and I seek the protection of all the Beautiful Names of Allah, those of them which I know and those which I do not know, from the evil of everything which Allah has created, to which He has given existence, and which He has spread (over the earth or the universe)."
To sum up, all the three forms of magic are possible, and can manifest themselves in actual fact.
Miracles
Now, let us turn to another important aspect of the question. Through prophets and saints certain events come into manifestation which normally and habitually never happen, and are hence designated as Kharq al-'Adah (contrary to the habitual). The Islamic term for the miracles of prophets is Mu'jizat, and for those of saints, Karamat. The effects produced by such miracles are in appearance sometimes similar to those produced by magic. This external resemblance leads some ignorant people to confuse the one with the other, and they begin to have a reverence for magicians which is totally out of place. So, one must understand the difference between the two clearly.
[Editorial Note on : Mu'jizah or Miracle: For all the unusual events and unprecedented happenings the English language has but one word, 'Miracle' which makes it impossible for the reader in that language to mark the subtle difference in various forms of miracles. Briefly, therefore, the different forms of miracles with their distinct objections are explained here. It is hoped that this will help the readers have a clearer conception of Mu'jizah.
These terms are used in Arabic language to define and differentiate the unprecendented happenings and here each of them is explained, so as to clearly differentiate them. Qualitatively, there is, apparently no difference in all of them.
Mu'jizah is the unusual event which occurs at the hands of a prophet. It is purely an act of Allah. A prophet's own volition has no part in the working of it. For those who witness a Mu'jizah it is compulsory to believe in it.
Karamah -- another mode of unusual happenings -- is also an act of Allah; it appears at the hands of a Man of Allah. The basic difference in Mu'jizah and Karamah is that one who performs Mu'jizah, addresses himself as a prophet, a Man of Allah has no such claim. In both Mu'jizah and Karamah the usual cause and effect link is absent. Things happen but without any cause; and there is usually a total transformation of the nature and behaviour of objects in Mu'jizah and Karamah. What is required is a generalized belief in them. Allah chooses whoever He wills for Mu'jizah and Karamah. No degree of stringent discipline can give the power to make the unusual happen.
Irhas is also a kind of Karamah. It heralds the coming of a prophet. It usually occurs at the hands of the one who is closely related to the prophet: the unprecedented happenings in the the life of Mariam, mother of prophet 'Isa (A.S) or the various unusual events that began occurring to and around Aminah the blessed mother of our Holy Prophet Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam: Peace be upon him; for instance, she had no pangs of birth, towards the close of the birth period she used to hear stranger voices greeting her, although she saw no one. It is compulsory to believe in such events of Irhas as have been mentioned in the Qur'an and believe in a general manner, that Irhas is usually associated with the coming of a prophet.]
The Difference between Miracle and Magic
The miracles of prophets and saints are different from magic, firstly, in their respective natures, and, secondly, with regard to the signs and indications attendant upon each. As for the difference in their natures, it lies in the fact that the results produced through magic depend on the law of causality as much as do the ordinary and usual events in the physical world, the only distinction being that the causes are in the latter case quite clear or easily observable, while in the former they are different for a common man to detect. Where the causes are evident, the effects are immediately referred back to them, and the events thus produced are not considered to be astonishing, but where the causes are hidden or obscure, the events produced by them arouse wonder and amazement, and those who are ignorant of the causes readily come to believe that the things have happened in contravention of the habitual laws of the physical universe.
[In the West, they describe such events as being "supernatural", although the Latin word Natura, which is the equivalent of the Greek word Phusis, does, at least in its original sense, cover all that has been created, whether it lies in the domain studied by empirical science or beyond it.]
What these people do not realize is that such happenings are as much due to certain causes as the habitual events - the cause in the case of extraordinary happenings often being the activity of a jinn or a devil (Shaytan). For example, a letter suddenly falls in front of a man, and on reading it he finds that the letter has been written just this day and is coming from a distance often thousand miles. Now, the onlookers would call it a "supernatural" event, for they do not know that Allah has given the power of doing such things to jinns and devils. Once one comes to understand the means through which things of this nature take place, one would no longer see them as "supernatural", or even as being contrary to "habit". In short, all the results obtained through magical practices are, in fact, due to the operation of physical causes, but in the eyes of common people they acquire the illusory appearance of "supernatural" events, simply because the operative causes are hidden from them.
On the other hand, miracles happen directly under divine command without the intervention of physical causes. For example, the Holy Qur'an tells us how the tyrant Namrud (Nimrod) threw Sayyidna Ibrahim (Abraham (A.S)) into a blazing fire, and how Allah commanded the fire to grow cold for him, but not so cold as to do him harm -- and the fire obeyed the command, and, instead of scorching him, provided a place of safety. This was a direct divine act, and hence a miracle. Now, we sometimes hear of men who, having applied certain chemicals to their body, can enter a fire without being scorched. This is not a miracle, for the operative cause is of a physical nature - that is, the chemicals. These chemicals are not known to people in general, and they are deluded into believing such a performance to be a "supernatural" event going beyond the realm of "the habitual". The Holy Qur'an itself leaves no doubt as to a miracle being directly an act of Allah Himself. In the Battle of Badr, the Holy Prophet Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam: Peace be upon him, took up a handful of pebbles, and threw them at the army of the infidels, which blinded their eyes. Referring to this miracle, the Holy Qur'an says: "When you threw (the pebbles), it was not you who threw, but Allah who threw (them)." (8:17). The statement is explicit enough, and means that the miraculous result produced by a handful of pebbles was not the work of the Holy Prophet Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam: Peace be upon him, but the act of Allah Himself.
Miracle and Magic: How to distinguish between them?
Having explained the difference between the nature of a miracle and that of magic, we must now turn to another important question -- the results produced by each of them being in appearance the same, how is the common man to know the difference between the two? In fact, Allah has given to each certain characteristic features which can help the common man to distinguish miracles from magic. Firstly, miracles are manifested through those whom everyone knows to be clean in body, pure in deeds and God-fearing. On the contrary, magic shows its effectiveness through those who are unclean in body, dirty in deeds, shunning the worship of Allah and His remembrance. This is a distinction which everyone can observe with his own eyes. Secondly, Allah has so ordained things that if a man pretends to be a prophet and claims to perform miracles, and yet tries to practise magic, his magic is never effective, but he can be effective in magic so long as he does not lay a claim to prophethood.
Magic and Prophets
As to the question whether magic can have an effect on prophets, we shall say that it can. As we have explained above, magic operates through physical causes, and prophets are not immune to the influence of physical causes. Just as they feel the effects of hunger and thirst, fall ill and get healed through the operation of apparent physical causes, in the same way they can be affected by the hidden operations of magic, which are no less physical. Let us add that being affected by magic does in no way go against the dignity of the station of prophethood -- no more than would thirst or hunger. Authentic ahadith report that the Holy Prophet Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam: Peace be upon him was affected by the magic spell cast by the Jews, that he came to know of it through revelation, and that he took certain measures to free himself of its effects. The Holy Qur'an too tells us how Sayyidna Musa (Moses (A.S)) experienced the effects of magic when the sorcerers cast a spell on his eyes, and the ropes and the sticks thrown by them began to look like running serpents, so that he was really frightened (20:66,67).
Injunctions of the Shari'ah with regard to Magic
As we have already said, Sihr (magic), in the terminology of the Holy Qur'an and the Hadith, refers only to those practices in which one seeks the help of jinns and devils (Shayatin) by gaining their pleasure through the adoption of certain phrases or actions that involve infidelity (Kufr) and association (Shirk) or sin and transgression, and thus brings about certain extraordinary and unusual events. The magic of Babylon, mentioned in the Holy Qur'an, was just this, and it is this form of magic which it condemns as infidelity or Kufr (jassas). According to Abu Mansur, the most valid and correct view in this respect is that each and every form of magic does not, unconditionally and absolutely, constitute infidelity, but only that form which employs actions or speech contrary to the tenets of faith ('Iman). (Ruh al-Ma'ani)
As everyone knows, the Holy Qur'an and the Hadith repeatedly enjoin upon the Muslims to consider the Shayatin as one's enemies, to hate them and to curse them. Seeking to please them and to win their friendship, in contravention of such clear commandments, is in itself a sin. Moreover, they are pleased only when one indulges in Kufr (infidelity) or Shirk (association), and thus forfeits one's faith ('Iman) altogether, or at least in disobedience and transgression, displeasing Allah and His angels by wallowing in dirt and impurity -- which becomes an additional sin. And if one makes use of magic for doing some harm to a human being unlawfully, it is still one more sin.
Thus, what the Holy Qur'an and the Hadith call Sihr can never be free either of infidelity in the matter of faith, or at least of infidelity in the matter of actions. If, in order to please the Shayatin, one adopts actions or speech involving infidelity or association, one would be committing an act of real infidelity in the matter of faith; and even if one manages to avoid infidelity and association in speech or action, but indulges in other sinful activities, one would not remain free from infidelity in the matter of actions. This is what the Holy Qur'an means when, in the present verses, it designates magic as Kufr.
To sum up, when magic employs actions or speech involving infidelity (such as seeking the help of Shayatin, or believing the stars and the planets to be effective in themselves, or claiming prophethood by presenting the results of magical procedures as miracles, etc), such a magic, according to the consensus, constitutes infidelity; and when magic does not involve acts of infidelity but only the commission of sinful acts, such a magic is a major sin.
Now, let us add some subsidiary injunctions with regard to magic.
1. Since magic is not usually free from infidelity in the matter of faith or in that of action, it necessarily follows that it is forbidden to learn or teach or practice it. Some jurists, however, allow one to learn magic for the purpose of protecting Muslims from harm, but one must not try to learn more than is necessary.
2. If in preparing charms and amulets the help of Jinns and Shayatin has been sought, they too come under the category of Sihr, and are thus forbidden. If the words employed in the charms are vague, and one does not exactly know what they mean but suspects that
they are invocations addressed to idols or Shayatin, even such charms are forbidden.
3. As for the other forms of magic beside the Sihr, like that of Babylon, condemned by the Holy Qur'an and the Hadith, if they involve Kufr and Shirk in some way, they too are forbidden.
4. If there is a form of magic which employs words or actions or other elements to which the Shari'ah does not object, then it is permissible on condition that it is not used for a purpose which the Shari'ah forbids.
5. It is permissible to use the verses of the Holy Qur'an, or the Divine Names or the words of the Hadith in preparing charms and amulets, or as a recitation or invocation for gaining divine help in order to attain a desired end. But if such a use of the sacred texts or words is made for a reprehensible purpose, like doing harm to someone without an excuse, even that is forbidden. (Shami, Fatawa Qadi Khan)
A Doctrinal Point Verse 102 says: "They could not thus do any harm to anyone, except with the permission of Allah." This shows that causes in themselves and by themselves cannot produce the effects one usually associates with them, and it is Allah who creates the effects as much as the Causes. (Bayan al-Qur'an)(Ma'ariful Qur'an)
"O those who believe, do not say "Ra'ina", but say "Unzurna", and listen. And for the unbelievers there is a grievous punishment."(2:104)
Among other perversities, some of the Jews invented a new mischief. When they presented themselves before the Holy Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam), they would address him with the word Ra'ina, which, in Arabic, means "be mindful of us", but is, in Hebrew, a curse. The latter is what they intended, but the Arabs, not knowing Hebrew, could not see the point, and some Muslims too, with the Arabic sense of the word in mind, began to address the Holy Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) in the same manner to the great glee of the Jews who had thus found a way of insulting him openly, and had even tricked the Muslims into joining them. In order to frustrate the design of the Jews, the Holy Qur'an commands the Muslims to use the word Unzurna instead of Ra'ina, for the meanings of the two words are the same in Arabic. The verse also announces a dire punishment to the Jews for showing disrespect to the Holy Prophet Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam: Peace be upon him and for trying to be clever with him.
The verse describes the insolent Jews as Kafireen (infidels), which means that being intentionally disrespectful towards a prophet even in an indirect manner constitutes infidelity.
The verse shows that if a perfectly legitimate action on one's part provides room for others to commit illegitimate actions, even the legitimate action no longer remains lawful for one. For example, if a permissible action on the part of a scholar is likely to lead the ignorant into error and to induce them to do impermissible things, that permissible action will then become forbidden for him, provided that the action concerned is not essential according to the Shari'ah and is not included among its objects. The Holy Qur'an and the Hadith provide many instances of this nature. For example, before the advent of Islam the Quraysh had, in rebuilding the Ka'bah, made certain modifications in the design set by Sayyidna Ibrahim (Abraham (peace be upon him)). A hadith reports that the Holy Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam), wished to demolish the present structure, and to build it again according to the Abrahamic pattern, but he did not do so, for such an action could have led ignorant people into misunderstanding and error.
In the vocabulary of the Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, such injunctions are described as: Sadd al-Dhara'i: "removing the means (to error)" and are accepted by all the jurists -- those of the Hanbali school being very particular about them. (Qurtubi)
"Those who disbelieve from among the people of the Book, or idolaters, do not like that any good should come to you from your Lord. But Allah chooses for His grace whom He wills. And Allah is the Lord of great bounty."(2:105)
The previous verse told us how the Jews behaved towards the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him); the present verse speaks of their behaviour towards Muslims in general. Some of the Jews used to assure the Muslims of their sincerity towards them, and to pretend that they would very much have liked the Muslims to. have received from Allah religious doctrines and commandments superior to what they themselves had received, so that they too could accept them, but unfortunately Islam did not seem to be a better religion.
The Holy Qur'an refutes their claim to be the well-wishers of the Muslims, and declares that the infidels, whether they be the Jews or the associators, are so jealous of Muslims that they can never like the idea of their receiving from Allah any kind of blessing whatsoever. Of course, this jealousy can do no harm to the Muslims, for Allah is Beneficent and All-Powerful, and can shower his special blessings on whomsoever He chooses.
These Jews used to make two claims -- firstly, that Judaism was a better religion than Islam; secondly, that they were the well-wishers of the Muslims. They could not establish the first of these claims on the basis of any valid argument, and it remained an empty assertion. Moreover, the difference between Islam and Judaism does not primarily depend on the question of one being better than the other. For, when something new comes to abrogate something older, the latter is automatically given up -- and Allah has sent Islam to abrogate all the earlier religions. The fact being so obvious, the Holy Qur'an says nothing in refutation of the first claim, and takes up only the second. The mushrikeen (associators) have been mentioned here along with the Jews for the sake of emphasis, and to point out that Jews cannot be the well-wishers of Muslims any more than mushrikin can -- the two being alike in their hatred of Muslims. (Ma'ariful Qur'an)
"Whenever We abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or one equal to it. Do you not know that Allah is powerful over everything? Do you not know that to Allah alone belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth? And, you have none, other than Allah, to protect or help you."(2:106-107)
At first, Muslims used to pray with their faces turned towards the Baytul-Maqdis at Jerusalem; later on, Allah ('azza wa jal) commanded them to turn towards the Ka'bah. Similarly, certain other injunctions were abrogated altogether, or replaced by others. This provided the Jews and some of the associators too with an occasion to taunt the Muslims, and to say that such changes were made by the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) himself and not by Allah. Their purpose was to sow the seed of doubt in the mind of the Muslims with regard to the Holy Qur'an being a book revealed by Allah. They used to argue that if everything that Allah revealed was good, as the Muslims affirmed, why should one injunction be re�placed by another? For, it would only mean that one of the two injunc�tions must be good, and the other evil, but no divine revelation can possibly be evil. Putting these two premises together, the Jews tried to draw the conclusion that the Holy Qur'an could not be a revealed book.
The present verse refutes this line of argument, and, in effect, points out that abrogation does hot mean replacing good with evil, or vice versa, which should imply the possibility of the presence of evil in divine revelation, but that everything that Allah reveals to His prophets is good, and that what has been abrogated is good as much as what abrogated it.
The verse declares that if Allah chooses to abrogate an injunction contained in a certain verse, while retaining the verse itself as a part of the Holy Qur'an, or chooses to remove a verse from the memories of men altogether, there is nothing objectionable in it, for Allah alone knows the wisdom that lies in His choice, and He makes these changes for the good of men. In fact, He always sends another verse or injunction better than, or at least equal to, what He has abrogated. Allah being omnipotent and omniscient, He possesses the authority to change His commandments as He likes, and He also knows what is good for men at a particular time, and makes these changes according to this knowledge. Men have no friend or helper except Allah. As friend, Allah keeps their good in view while laying down injunctions. As helper, He protects those who obey His commandments against the hostility of their foes - but if the obedient are to receive blessings in the other world greater than the harm they have to suffer in this world, the apparent domination of their foes does not really matter.
What Is Naskh? (Abrogation)
Verse 106 speaks of Allah abrogating certain verses, or making men forget certain others. The first phrase of the verse, thus covers all the possible forms in which a verse of the Qur'an can be abrogated. The Arabic word in the text is Naskh - which has two lexical meanings -- (1) to write, and (2) to abolish, to repeal. According to the consensus of all the commentators, the word has been employed in this verse in the second sense -- that is, the repeal or abrogation of an injunction. So, in the terminology of the Holy Qur'an and the Hadith, Naskh signifies the promulgation of an injunction in place of another -- whether the later injunction merely consists in the repeal of the earlier or, substitutes a new regulation in its place. The other form of Naskh mentioned in this verse is that sometimes Allah made the Holy Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa aalihi wasallam) and the blessed Companions (radiallahu 'anhum) forget a certain verse altogether. The commentators have cited several instances of this kind of Naskh, and the purpose in such cases has usually been to repeal a certain regulation.
The Kinds Of Abrogation Making laws and repealing them to promulgate new ones in their stead is a regular and well-known practice in human governments and institutions. But in the case of man-made laws abrogation takes place sometimes because the law-makers do not understand the situation properly while making a certain law, and have to change it when they realize their mistakes, and sometimes because when a law is promulgated, it is in accord with the prevailing situation, but when quite un�foreseen changes alter the situation, the law too has to be changed. But these two forms of abrogation are out of the question in the case of divine injunctions.
There is, however, a third form too. The lawmaker makes a law, knowing fully well that the circumstances are going to change in such a way that the law will no longer be suitable for the new situation; so, when the situation changes as he already knew, he changes the law too, and promulgates a new one which he had thought of at the very start. For example, a physician prescribes a medicine for a patient in view of his present conditions, but he knows that when the patient has been using it for two days, his condition will change and require a new medicine -- with this realization, he prescribes a medicine suitable for that day, but two days later, when circumstances have changed, he prescribes a new one. The physician can easily give the patient written instructions for the whole course of the treatment, with all the changes in the medicines duly indicated. But this would be putting too much burden on the already feeble patient, and there would also be the danger of some harm through a possible error or misunderstanding.
This is the only form of abrogation which can occur, and has been occurring in divine injunctions and in divine books. Every new Shari'ah and every new revealed Book has been abrogating many injunctions of the earlier Shari'ah and of the earlier Book. Similarly, within the same Shari'ah, too, it has always happened that a certain law was in force for a time, but Divine Wisdom chose to abrogate it and to promulgate another in its place. A hadith reported by Imam Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "There has never been a prophethood which did not abrogate some injunctions." This is a principle which it should not be difficult to understand. It was only some malicious and ignorant Jews who confused the divine abrogation of injunctions with the two forms of the repeal of man-made laws, and began, in their impudence, to taunt the Holy Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wasallam), - in reply to which, as we have said, these two verses were revealed, (ibn Jarir, ibn Kathir etc.)
As for the Muslims, it was probably in their desire to avoid giving occasion to the enemies of Islam for such taunts that some from among the Mu'tazilah tried to explain away the whole question of Naskh. Logically speaking, there is a possibility -- so ran their argument -- of abrogation in the case of divine injunctions, and the possibility cannot be denied on any rational ground, but abrogation has not actually oc�curred in the Holy Qur'an, and there is no verse in the Holy Book which abrogates another (Nasikh) and no verse which has been abrogated (Mansukh). This view is attributed to Abu Muslim al-Isfahani, but the 'Ulama' in general have always rejected this opinion, and refuted the argument.
Thus, we read in "Ruh al-Ma'ani": "The people belonging to all the Shari'ahs are unanimous in accepting the validity of abrogation and its actual occurrence both. Only the Jews - with the exception of their 'Isawiyyah sect have denied the possibility of abrogation, and Abu Muslim al-Isfahani has denied its occurrence, for he says that it is rationally possible, but has not actually taken place."
Imam al-Qurtubi (rahmatullahi alaih) says: "It is essential to understand the question of abrogation, and great benefits flow from such an understanding, which no scholar can dispense with, and no one can deny abrogation except the ignorant and the dull-headed."
In this connection, al-Qurtubi (rahmatullahi alaih) has related a very illuminating incident. The fourth Khalifah Sayyidna 'Ali (karamallahu wajhah) saw a man preaching in the mosque. He asked the people what the man was doing. On being told that he was preaching, the blessed Khalifah (radiallahu 'anh) said: "He is not doing anything of the sort, but only announcing to the people that he is such and such a man and the son of such and such, and asking them to recognize and remember him." Calling the man to his side, he asked: "Do you know the injunctions which have been abrogated and those which have abrogated the earlier ones?" When he confessed that he did not, the Khalifah turned him out of the mosque, and ordered him never to preach there.
It is not feasible to cite here all the sayings of the blessed Companions and their immediate Successors (Tabi'in) which affirm the actual occurrence of abrogation in the case of injunctions laid down by the Holy Qur'an and the Hadith. Some of these have been quoted, along with the evidence for the authenticity of the reports, in the commentaries of Ibn Jarir and Ibn Kathir etc. and in "Al-Durr al-Manthur". As for the reports less strongly authenticated, they are just innumerable. That is why there has always been a total consensus of the 'Ulama on the question of Naskh, except for Abu Muslim al-Isfahani and a few others from among the Mu'tazilah who have denied the actual occurrence of abrogation -- but Imam Razi has, in his commentary, exposed in detail the hollowness of their opinion.
The Terminology Of The Naskh
It is also essential to keep in mind a certain distinction in the use of the word Naskh as a technical term of the Shan'ah. The technical sense of the word implies changing an injunction, and replacing one injunction by another. Now, this change may consist in repealing an injunction altogether and replacing it by another (for example, fixing the Ka'bah as the Qiblah -- the direction towards which Muslims turn in their prayers -- instead of the Baytul-Maqdis); the change may equally consist in retaining an injunction but adding certain condition and provisions to it. The 'Ulama' of the early period of Islam have used the word Naskh in this general and comprehensive sense which includes the total repeal of an injunction as well as a partial change in an injunction with the addition of certain conditions, provisions or exceptions. That is why the 'Ulama' of the earlier period have indicated some five hundred verses of the Holy Qur'an which, according to them, have been abrogated.
But, according to the 'Ulama' of a later period, only that change is to be called a Naskh which cannot in any way be brought into consonance with an earlier injunction. Obviously, this approach greatly reduces the number of abrogated verses. For example, there are, according to al-Suyuti, only twenty such verses. Later on, Shah Waliyyullah, seeking to bring the abrogated injunctions in consonance with the earlier injunctions, reduced the number of abrogated verses to only five -- these being the cases where later injunctions could not be made to correspond with the earlier ones without far-fetched interpretations. This effort is highly commendable, because the basic postulate behind an injunction is its permanence, while abrogation goes against this postulate, and hence it is not proper to posit abrogation in a verse laying down an injunction which can, in some justifiable manner, be shown to be still valid.
But this effort to reduce the number of abrogated verses does not, and cannot in the least imply* that the presence of abrogation is in any way -- may Allah forgive us for reproducing a blasphemy -- a shortcoming or defect in the Holy Qur'an or Islam, that the 'Ulama' have for the last fourteen hundred years been trying to remove it, that the ultimate inspiration came to Shah Waliyyullah whose extraordi�nary achievement lies in having reduced the number of abrogated verses to five, and that now one may wait for a few geniuses who would bring the number down to zero.
[*As the 'modernists' have been all too impatient to believe.]
To adopt such an approach towards the question of "Naskh" is no service to Islam or to the Holy Qur'an,* nor can it obliterate the profound investigations into truth of the matter made by the blessed Companions, their Successors, and the 'Ulama', of the generations that followed them during the last fourteen hundred years, nor can it stop the recriminations of the enemies of Islam. In fact, all it would do is to furnish a weapon to the present-day traducers of Islam and those who wish to rebel against Islam, who would now be saying that what the 'Ulama' of the Islamic Ummah have been maintaining on the subject for the last fourteen hundred years has finally proved to be wrong. May Allah forbid such a thing! If this door is opened, it would let in all kinds of disorders, and all the injunctions of the Shari'ah would come under suspicion. Then, is there any guarantee that the results of this "modernistic" research would not turn out to be wrong tomorrow!
[*We have come across certain recent writings in which an attempt has been made to revive the argument of Abu Muslim al-Isfahani.]
To which pretends the whole tribe of self-styled scholars, researchers, "experts in Islamic studies" and "revivificateurs of Islam."
Such writers begin with the assumption that the Arabic word Ma in verse 106 is not a relative or adverbial pronoun signifying "whenever", or "whichever" but a conjunction implying "if that introduces a conditional clause; so, they translate the first phrase of the the verse not as "whichever verse We abrogate", but as "if We abrogate a verse", and say that the statement pertains to a supposition or to an imaginary situation as do the phrases beginning with the Arabic word Law (if) - for example: "If there were in the sky and the earth another god beside Allah" (21:22) or: "If the All-Merciful had a son" (43:81). On this basis, they argue that abrogation is possible, but has never actually occurred. Such writers, we are afraid, do not show an intimate knowledge of Arabic grammar, for there is a great deal of difference between a condition suggested by the word Ma and the imaginary situation introduced by the conjunction Law. Moreover, it is on the basis of this verse itself that the blessed Companions have affirmed the occurrence of abrogation, and have even cited many instances. So have their Successors and all authentic Commentators. In view of such unanimity, the new-fangled interpretation cannot be acceptable. Even Shah Waliyyullah, in reducing the number of abrogated verses, has never thought of denying the fact of abrogation. In short, all the authentic and authoritative 'Ulama', from the days of the blessed Companions down to our own day, have always affirmed not only the possibility, but also the actual occurrence of abrogation. This has been the position of all the 'Ulama of Deoband too, without any exception.
The injunctions with regard to abrogation are too many and too intricate to be discussed here -- they properly belong to the books on the Principles of Jurisprudence. (Ma'ariful Qur'an)
"Or, do you rather want to ask your Prophet as Musa was asked earlier? And whoever takes to infidelity in exchanges of faith has certainly missed the straight path."(2:108)
Hostility to the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had become so habitual to the Jews that they were always making insolent demands. Once they asked him to bring before them whole of the Qur'an all at once just as the Torah had been revealed. In reprimanding them for making such improper demands on the prophets of their time, the verse reminds them how their forefathers too had done the same - for example, they had asked Sayyidna Musa (Moses (peace be upon him)) to help them to see Allah openly with their physical eyes. In such cases, the intention of the Jews had never been to seek guidance or to satisfy their doubts or to strengthen their faith, but only to cast aspersions on a prophet, or to question the wisdom of Allah ('azza wa jal). The verse indicts this behavior as Kufr (infidelity). Such demands are improper, because there is a raison d'etre for everything Allah does, but divine wisdom alone knows what that is, and the creature has no right to determine the precise mode of his Creator's acts -- he should not even ask the why and wherefore of a divine action, but accept it and submit himself to the Divine Will.
If one takes this verse as having been addressed to the Muslims, it would mean that they are being warned against making improper demands on the Holy Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wasallam).
"Many among the people of the Book desire to turn you, after your accepting the faith, back into disbelievers -- all out of envy generating from their hearts, even after the truth has become clear to them. So, forgive and overlook till Allah brings out His command. Certainly, Allah is powerful over everything. And be steadfast in Salah, and give Zakah. And whatever good you send forth for yourselves, you will find it with Allah. Certainly, Allah is watchful of what you do."(2:109-110)
Some of the Jews, pretending to be the well-wishers of the Muslims, were always inventing new stratagems to make them turn away from Islam, and, in spite of repeated failure in this effort, did not refrain from it. The verse warns the Muslims against their intentions, which are motivated, not by sincerity and friendship, but by envy -- which in its turn arises not from anything the Muslims do, but spontaneously from within themselves even after they have come to understand clearly what the truth is.
The verse also asks the Muslims not to give way to their justifiable anger at such misconduct, but to forgive the Jews, and wait till Allah sends a new commandment with regard to such matters. Thus, the verse gives an indication that Allah is soon going to lay down a law for the preservation of peace and order on the earth which would guide the Muslims in dealing with mischief-makers -- the law, of course, being the permission to go to war against the enemies of Islam. The Muslims were actually conscious of their own weakness and the strength of their foe, and could have wondered how they would be able to act upon the new law. So, the verse reminds them that Allah's power extends over everything, small or big, ordinary or extraordinary.
The next verse asks the Muslims to continue offering their prayers and paying Zakah and when the new law comes down, they can add the participation in a Jihad to these good deeds which they have already been performing. Nor should the Muslims suppose that until they can take part in a Jihad, mere prayers and fasting will not bring them the spiritual merit they desire; in fact, they shall receive a full reward in the other world for each and every good deed they perform, for Allah knows what people do, and not a particle of one's good deeds shall be lost.
This command to show forbearance towards the Jews was proper to the situations of the Muslims at that time. Later on, Allah fulfilled the promise made in verse 109, and sent down the injunction with regard to Jihad. Then, this new law was applied to the Jews as well as to other miscreants - in order to prevent disorder and to make peace and order prevail on the earth, Muslims went to war against them, and the mischief-makers were either killed, or forced into exile, or made to pay Jizyah.
[Which is a special levy on non-Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic state and which absolves them from military service.]
"And they say that no one shall ever enter Paradise unless he is a Jew, or a Christian. These are their fancies. Say, "Bring your proof, if you are truthful." Of course, whosoever submits his self to Allah and is good in deeds has his reward with his Lord, and there shall be no fear for such men, nor shall they grieve. And the Jews say: "The Christians stand on nothing" and the Christians say, "The Jews stand on nothing" -- and they both read the Book! Similarly, those who do not know say as they (the Jews and the Christians) do. So Allah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection in what they used to dispute."(2:111-113)
The Jews and the Christians were hostile not only to the Muslims, but also to each other. They had forgotten the essence of religion -- that is, adherence to the true and authentic doctrines, and performance of good deeds as laid down by the Shari'ah -- and had identified it with a mere affiliation to a racial or social community. Each of the two groups claimed that it had the exclusive right to go to the Paradise, without having any argument to substantiate the claim. The Jews read the Torah, while the Christians read the Evangel, and they could have easily seen that the two Books confirm each other. Each party used to assert, in its malice, that the religion of the other was baseless. This gave an excuse to the mushrikin (associators) who, in spite of their ignorance, began to say the same of both the religions.
The Holy Qur'an dismisses these pretensions as mere fancy and self-delusion. It declares that other people too will go to Paradise who have, in their time, been following the Shari'ah of their own prophet, and who, now that the Holy Qur'an also has abrogated all the earlier Divine Books, follow the Islamic Shari'ah. Verse 112 lays down the general principle in this respect, which is accepted by the followers of all the Divine Books. The essence of religion, whether it be Islam or Christianity or Judaism, lies in two things. (1) One should obey Allah in one's belief as well as in one's actions. (2) This obedience should not arise from expediency, but one should surrender oneself to divine commandments in all sincerity.
Moreover, it is not enough to be worthy of Paradise merely to have a sincere intention to obey Allah ('azza wa jal), and then to invent, according to one's own fancy, the modes and forms of obedience, for it is absolutely essential that the forms of worship and the modes of obedience should be no other than those which Allah Himself has appointed through the agency of His prophets -- it goes without saying that since the revelation of the Holy Qur'an this can only mean accepting and following the Islamic Shari'ah. We may add that in connection with the first of these two principles, the Holy Qur'an employs the Arabic word Aslama which signifies total submission to Allah, and in connection with the second word Muhsin, which signifies "one who performs good deeds" according to the Shari'ah.
The Differences Between The Jews And The Christians
In so far as these verses deal with the claims of the Jews and the Christians, the point of the argument is this:- Having laid down the two principles the acceptance of which makes one worthy of Paradise, the Holy Qur'an suggests that they should now try to find out who is really acting upon them. Obviously, one who keeps following an injunction even after it has been abrogated cannot be described as obedient, and hence the Jews and the Christians no longer deserve this title. After the abrogation of an injunction, obedience consists in acting upon the new injunction which has replaced the earlier one. This condition is now being fulfilled only by the Muslims who have accepted the latest and the last Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wasallam) and his Shari'ah. Hence, they alone shall now be considered worthy of Paradise. The condition of one's being sincere in one's obedience excludes the hypocrites too, for the Sha�ri'ah counts them among the infidels, and thus assigns them to Hell.
Verse 112 also announces the reward of those who act upon these principles -- on the Day of Judgment, they shall have nothing to fear, nor shall they grieve, as angels will give them good tidings. As for the debates among the Jews, the Christians and the associators, Verse 113 declares that Allah will Himself decide the question finally on the Day of Judgment. In fact, the question has already been settled on the basis of what Allah has revealed in His Books as well as on the basis of rational argument; the final decision on the Day of Judgment will be of the visible kind -- those who follow the Truth will be sent to Paradise, while those who go after falsehood will be cast down in Hell.
These verses provide a warning to the Muslims as well, lest they too should delude themselves like the Jews and the Christians, and suppose that merely because they belong to the social community of Muslims and can, as such, claim to be Muslims, whereby they can dispense with the need to obey Allah and to follow the Shari'ah, and yet receive the rewards Allah has promised to give to true Muslims. Even Muslims have no right to hope for these rewards until and unless they submit themselves totally, in thought and deed both, to the commandments of Allah and His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
"And who is more cruel than the one who prevents the mosques of Allah from His name being recited therein, and strives for their destruction? It was not for such men to enter them except in awe. For them there is disgrace in this world, and for them, in the other world, there is a mighty punishment. To Allah belongs the East and the West. So, whichever way you turn, there is the Face of Allah. Indeed, Allah is all-Embracing, all-Knowing."(2:114-115)
In order to understand these two verses, one should keep in mind three different incidents connected with the three groups hostile to Islam, all of which were, in one way or another, guilty of preventing people from worshipping Allah in mosques and of laying them waste.
1) When Allah changed the Qiblah -- that is to say, commanded the Muslims to turn towards the Ka'bah in their Salah, and not towards the Baytul-Maqdis --, the Jews raised all kinds of objections to it, and tried to produce in the minds of the Muslims doubts and misgiving which, had they taken root, would have led to the denial of the Holy Prophet Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam: Peace be upon him and to the giving up of prescribed Salah, thus laying waste the mosque of the Holy Prophet Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam: Peace be upon him.
2) The Romans had once invaded Jerusalem, and the ignorant among them had polluted the Baytul-Maqdis, which naturally prevented people from performing Salah in this mosque. The Christians in a way looked upon the Romans as their ancestors; moreover, the humiliation of the Jews was in itself pleasing to them. Thus, in refusing to condemn this misdeed of the Romans, the Christians too were being indirectly responsible for laying waste the mosque.
3) At the time of the peace of Hudaybiyyah, the mushrikin (associators) did not allow the Holy Prophet Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam: Peace be upon him to enter Makkah and to perform the Hajj. So, this group too was guilty of the same sin.
According to the blessed Companion 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas, Verse 114 refers to the second of these three incidents -- the commentator Ibn Jarir too accepts this view. But the commentator Ibn Kathir follows Ibn Zayd in preferring the third as being the occasion on which this verse was revealed. The Holy Qur'an, however, speaks in general terms of "the mosques of Allah" so as to lay down a regular and permanent law, for all the peoples, covering all the possible cases of desecrating mosques and of hindering the "remembrance" (dhikr) of Allah in any way and thus laying them waste -- it denounces those who are capable of such a misdeed as being "unjust" or "cruel", and threatens them with humiliation in this world and dire punishment in the other, for the dignity of a mosque requires that one should enter it in a spirit of lowliness and respect, and with the fear of Allah in one's heart.
The prediction of the Holy Qur'an came true. The groups which had been trying to lay waste the mosques were soon humiliated, and came under the Muslim rule. They are, of course, to meet a dire punishment in the other world for being disbelievers, but the punishment will be all the more severe on account of this additional sin.
The earlier verses have told us how each of these groups claimed to be on the right path. The present verse, in referring to their desecra�tion of mosques, refutes this claim as being a shameless pretension on the part of those whose behaviour itself gives them the lie.
As for Verse 115, let us recall that the idolaters compelled the Holy Prophet Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam: Peace be upon him to migrate from Makkah to Madinah, and thus separated him from the Ka'bah (the incident is, of course, known as the Hijrah). For some sixteen or seventeen months after that, the Muslims had to, under the commandment of Allah, turn towards the Baytul-Maqdis (at Jerusalem) while offering Salah. But the Holy Prophet Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam: Peace be upon him felt a deep longing for turning towards the Ka'bah, and from time to time he would look upwards, waiting for the Archangel Jibra'il to come with a new commandment in this respect. Finally, such a commandment did come, and Allah changed the orientation (Qiblah). Speaking of this modification, the Holy Qur'an says:
"We do see how you raise your face again and again towards the sky. So, We are going to give you the orientation which you desire. Therefore, turn your face towards the Holy Mosque at Makkah, and all of you too, wheresoever you may be, turn towards it." (2:144)
This new commandment naturally made the Muslims very happy, but the Jews, in their habitual malice, made it an occasion for taunting them and accusing them of going against the way of the earlier prophets.
Thus, there are two facets to Verse 115. On the one hand, it is an answer to the objection raised by the Jews; on the other hand, it brings comfort to the Holy Prophet Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam: Peace be upon him and to the blessed Companions. The verse points out that had Allah been limited to any one direction, a fixed and permanent orientation would have been necessary for worshipping Him, but that, being infinite and beyond all possible limitations and qualifications, He is the Lord of the East and the West and of all conceivable directions -- He is everywhere, and surrounds everything. Wheresoever a man turns, he shall find Allah "facing" him -- that is to say, ready to accept hisprayers and to shower His bounties on him. Consequently, neither does the Baitul-Maqdis nor the Ka'bah enjoy an inherent or inalienable superiority; either of them can acquire a position of privilege only through divine ordination. All that matters is to obey the commandment of Allah, which alone can make one worthy of receiving His grace.
In order to win His pleasure, one has to orient oneself according to what He Himself has determined. If, in spite of being infinite and free from all limitations, Allah has yet fixed a particular orientation, it is because He is Omniscient, and knows what is the best in a certain situation and for a certain people.
Although it is not possible for man to comprehend fully the wisdom which is inherently present in each and every divine commandment, yet the fixing of a definite orientation for Salah has a very obvious raison d'etre. Whichever way one turns, one would, no doubt, find Allah "facing" him; but if one has to choose a direction every time one starts to pray, it would only mean a dispersion of one's attention. And when several men are offering their prayers jointly it would really be odd if each one of them adopts a different orientation. So, a fixed orientation for all helps the individual and the groups both in acquiring the necessary concentration of mind and the sense of a joint purpose.
This explanation satisfactorily dispels the objection often raised by certain antagonists who accuse the Muslims of being "the worshippers of the Ka'bah." If, by way of self-justification, they should still assert that they too keep the idols in front of them while meditating or worshipping for the same purpose of attaining a state of concentration, the claim does in no way reinforce their accusation against the Muslims. Moreover, an impartial investigation into the respective attitudes and frames of minds would easily show how genuine the Muslims are in their claim to be worshipping no one but Allah, and how dubious the position of the others is in this respect. Even if we accept the claim that idols or icons are no more than a means to an end, one would, in employing idols as a "support", still be required to produce a relevant injunction from a Shari'ah which has not been abrogated as yet. Today, the Muslims alone possess such a Shari'ah.
Before we proceed, we must sound a note of caution. Verse 115 says that whichever way one turns, one would find "the face of Allah", and that Allah being "All-Embracing" surrounds everything. Wisdom lies in not trying to investigate unnecessarily into the meanings of these or similar statements. For, just as it is not at all possible for a creature to comprehend fully the "Being" (Dhat) of Allah, it is equally impossible to comprehend the essential reality of the "Attributes" (Sifat). All that man is required to do is to have a general faith in the Realities of the Divine Order - there is no obligation for him to look into the particularities of this sphere which is totally beyond human reach.
Injunctions And Related Considerations Verse 114 lays down, or helps us to infer, some very important injunctions :-
(1) All the mosques in the world are equally worthy of respect. Just as it is a great sin to desecrate in any way the Baytul-Maqdis, or the mosque attached to the Ka'bah (Al-Masjid al-Haram) or the mosque of the Holy Prophet Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam: Peace be upon him, the same prohibition holds good with regard to all other mosques. These three mosques, no doubt, enjoy a superior position, and special respect is to be paid to them. The reward for offering prayers once in Al-Masjid al-Haram is equal to that of praying a hundred thousand times elsewhere; the reward for praying in the mosque of the Holy Prophet Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam: Peace be upon him and in the Baytul-Maqdis equals that of praying fifty thousand times. To make a long journey for the purpose of praying in any one of these three mosques is a meritorious act which makes one worthy of receiving a special barakah. On the other hand, the Holy Prophet Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam: Peace be upon him; has forbidden it that one should make a long journey in order to offer one's prayers in a mosque other than these three, believing it to be a meritorious act.
The Sanctity Of The Mosque (2) It is forbidden to prevent people, in any form or manner possible, from offering their prayers or "remembering" Allah in a mosque. An obvious form of such interference is not to allow someone to enter a mosque or to offer his prayers or to read the Holy Qur'an there. A less explicit form is to produce some kind of a noise in the mosque itself or play music nearby, and thus to disturb people in their prayers or in their "remembrance" (dhikr) of Allah. Similarly, if one starts reciting the Holy Qur'an or "remembering" Allah loudly so as to disturb the people who are offering supererogatory prayers (Nawafil) or themselves reading the Holy Qur'an or silently "remembering" Allah (Dhikr), one is being guilty of the same sin. Therefore, the Fuqaha' (masters of Islamic jurisprudence) have forbidden this practice. But, if people are not present in the mosque, one may recite the Holy Qur'an or make "dhikr" in a loud voice. On the basis of this principle we can also see that it is forbidden to beg or to collect donations even for a religious purpose while people are engaged in their prayers or in "dhikr".
(3) All the possible forms of laying waste a mosque are forbidden. This includes not only demolishing and destroying a mosque, but also producing conditions which result in a mosque being laid waste or deserted. For, laying waste a mosque implies that few, or only a few people should come there for offering their prayers. A mosque can be said to be flourishing, not on the score of the beauty of its architecture or of its ornamentation, but only when it is full of men who come to pray and to "remember" Allah. Says the Holy Qur'an:
Only those do populate the mosques of Allah who believe in Allah and in the Day of Judgment, who are steadfast in Salah and pay the Zakah, and do not fear anyone but Allah." (9:18).
So, the Holy Prophet Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam: Peace be upon him has foretold that when the Day of Judgment comes close, the mosques of the Muslims would be beautifully designed and decorated and be apparently full of people, but they would in reality be deserted, for a few people would go there for the purpose of offering their prayers. We are also reminded of what the fourth Khalifah and the blessed Companion 'Ali Radhi-Allahu Anh: Allah be pleased with him has said. There are, according to him, six deeds which behove a man --three of them pertain to the state when one is living at home, and the other three to the state when one is on a journey. The first three are -- to read the Holy Qur'an, to populate the mosques, and to bring together a number of friends who wish to serve Allah and His faith. The other three are -- to spend out of what one has over one's needy companions of the way, to be polite to everyone, and to be cheerful with one's co-travellers so long as one does not go beyond the limits allowed by the Shari'ah. What he means by "populating" the mosques is that one should enter them in a spirit of humility and with the fear of Allah in one's heart, and then engage oneself in prayers or in reciting the Holy Qur'an or in making "dhikr". In opposition to this, the laying waste of mosques would mean that few, or only a few people should offer their prayers in them, or that a set of circumstances is allowed to develop which makes it difficult for those who are present to acquire the proper attitude of humility.
If Verse 114 was revealed on the occasion of the Peace of Hudaybiyyah when the mushrikin (associators) of Makkah had prevented the Muslims from entering Al-Masjid al-Haram, then it is quite obvious that laying waste a mosque does not merely mean demolishing it, but also that it is not being allowed to be used for the purpose for which it was built -- that is, for Salah and for the Dhikr (remembrance) of Allah.
As for Verse 115, we have already pointed out that Allah not being limited to any particular direction or place, the Muslims do not, in turning towards the Ka'bah, at all mean to worship it, but that this particular orientation has been fixed on account of certain other considerations. We have also noted that for sixteen or seventeen months after the Hijrah, the Holy Prophet Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam: Peace be upon him and the blessed Companions were made to turn towards the Baytul-Maqdis in their prayers under divine commandment. This was, so to say, a practical demonstration of the truth that one can find Allah in every direction, and that Allah's attention encompasses all possible directions and dimensions simultaneously. A further and permanent demonstration of the same truth is provided by the injunction with regard to supererogatory prayers (Nawafil). That is to say, if one wishes to offer such prayers while travelling on a horse or a camel etc., it is not necessary for him even to turn towards the Qiblah, for he is allowed to keep his face towards the direction in which his horse is moving, and to offer his supererogatory prayers through the gestures of his head and arms. In fact, according to certain commentators, Verse 115 lays down just this rule with regard to supererogatory prayers. But one must bear in mind that this injunction applies only to that form of travel which involves animals like a horse or a camel that makes it difficult for one to turn towards the Qiblah. But in other forms of travel (e.g., in a train or a ship or an aeroplane) where it is not difficult to turn towards the Qiblah, one has to adopt the proper orientation even in offering supererogatory prayers. However, should the train or the aeroplane change its direction while one is still praying and there is no room for readjusting one's orientation accordingly, one can go on and finish the prayers in the same state.
Similarly, if one does not know the direction of the Qiblah, nor can correctly determine it on account of the darkness of the night or for some other valid reason, nor can find someone to provide correct information, the same rule would apply in this case too. In such a situation, one is allowed to follow one's conjecture, and to turn in the direction which seems to be the most likely. The direction one chooses would serve as the Qiblah. If, having finished one's prayers, one discovers that the choice of this particular direction was wrong, even then one's prayers would remain acceptable, and one would not have to repeat them.
"And they say: "Allah has got a son." Pure is He. Instead, to Him belongs all that there is in the heavens and the earth. All stand obedient to Him. Originator of the heavens and the earth, when He decides a matter, to it He simply says: "Be", and it comes to be."(2:116-117)
As the Holy Qur'an reports in some other verses, some of the Jews called the Prophet Uzayr (Ezra (peace be upon him)) the son of God, as did the Christians in the case of Sayyidna 'Isa (Jesus (peace be upon him)) and most of them still do, while the mushrikin of Makkah considered the angels to be the daughters of God.
These two verses show the absurdity of such assertions. For, even on rational grounds, it is totally impossible that God should have offspring. Were it at all possible, the situation would necessarily involve either of the two alternative characteristics -- the offspring would belong either to the same genus as the father does, or to a different genus. If it belongs to a different genus, that obviously is a defect, while God should in order to be God, be free of all defects -- as reason itself requires, and as Verse 116 affirms. If the offspring belongs to the same genus, that too is a contradiction in terms, for God has no equal and no existent can belong to the same genus as He does. Let us explain what we mean. God alone is the Necessary Being (Al-Dhat al-Wajib), and hence necessarily carries within Himself the Attributes of Perfection which are peculiar to Him alone and which cannot exist in any one other than God. Now, if we deny a necessary attribute to a certain being, we automatically deny the existence of that being. So, no one other than God can be a necessary being. Insofar as "necessity" is in itself the essence of the Ultimate Reality, or an inalienable quality of the Ultimate Reality, any one other than God cannot share the Reality with Him. Hence, it would be a plain and simple contradiction in terms of claim that any one other than God can belong to the same genus.
Having refuted the false claims of the Jews, the Christians and the mushrikin, the two verses proceed to demonstrate how and why the Attributes of Perfection are peculiar to Allah Himself and Him alone. Firstly, all that exists in heaven or earth belongs to Allah. Secondly, everything is also subservient to Him -- in the sense that no one can interfere with His omnipotence (for example, with His power to create and to destroy), even if some men may be lax in obeying the injunctions of the Shari'ah. Thirdly, He is the Creator and the Inventor of the skies and of the earth. Fourthly, His power of creation is so mighty that when He wishes to do something (for example, wishes to create something), He does not need any instruments or helpers -- all that He does is to say, "Be", and the thing becomes what He wishes it to be. These four qualities are not to be found in anyone other than Allah. In fact, even those who attributed offspring to Him, believed in this truth. Thus, their claims to the contrary stand finally refuted.
The two verses give rise to certain other important considerations.
(1) If Allah has chosen to assign certain tasks to certain angels (for example, sending down rain or bringing to the creatures their nourishment), or has chosen to employ causes, materials or physical forces in order to produce certain effects, He has done so in His wisdom. So, it is neither permissible nor proper that men should look upon these angels or causes or physical forces as being effective agents in themselves, and turn to them for help in their need.
(2) The commentator al-Baydawi has remarked that, Allah being the First Cause of the things, the earlier Shari'ahs had allowed the use of the title "Father" for Him, but that the ignorant misunderstood and distorted the sense of "Fatherhood" so badly that to entertain such a belief or to apply this title to Allah has now been declared to be an act of infidelity (Kufr). As this practice can lead to all kinds of doctrinal disorders, it is no longer permissible to employ this particular word or a similar expression with reference to Allah.
[As for creation taking place through the Divine Command, "Be", we would like to add a note, following the example of Maulana Ashraf 'Ali Thanavi in his "Bayan al-Qur'an", for the benefit of those who happen to be interested in Western philosophy, or in Christian theology, or, worst of all, in the writings of the Orientalists and their translations of Sufi texts. Let us begin by saying that it is a mystery - and we are using the word "mystery", not in the debased and the modern sense, but in the original meaning of the term which implies that certain realities are altogether beyond the reach of human understanding, and that certain other realities cannot and must not, even when partially or wholly understood, be given out to those who have no aptitude for receiving them, and that with regard to them it is advisable "to keep one's lips closed." In these matters, when and what one chooses to reveal is ultimately not the question of liberalism or democratism or egalitarianism, but that of "spiritual etiquette." Having repeated the warning given by Maulana Thanavi himself, we shall do no more than explaining what "Bayan al-Qur'an" says on the subject.
Regarding this particular mystery, there is a difference of approach between the two groups of the Mutakallimin (the masters of al-'Ilm al-Kalam or dialectical theology). According to the Asha'ri group, "Be, and it comes to be"( : Kun fa Yakun) is a metaphorical or allegorical expression. That is to say, the phrase does not signify that Allah actually addressed an existent and commanded it "to be", but it is an allegorical illustration of His omnipotence, suggesting that there is no interval between an act of will on His part and its realization. The commentator al-Baydawi has adopted this view. But, according to the Maturidi group, the phrase literally means what it says. This approach to the subject, however, produces a difficult problem. A command is given only to an existent. If a thing does not exist at all, how can Allah address it? On the other hand, if a thing does already exist, it is superfluous to command it "to be." The problem can easily be resolved if we keep two considerations in mind. Firstly, this command does not belong to the order of Tashri': (;egislation) which requires the addressee to exist in actual fact and to possess understanding; it belongs to the order of Takwin ( : creation) which is concerned with giving existence to non-existents.
This explanation, in its turn, brings us into the thick of a controversy that has muddled a great deal of Western philosophy and theology. We refer to the question of "creation arising out of nothingness" (Ex Nihilo), and the second of our two considerations will clarify it. It is usual enough to place "existence" ( : Wujud) in opposition to "nothingness or non-existence" (Adam : 'Adam). But it has also been said that non-existence does not exist. For, Allah is omniscient, and Divine Knowledge comprehends everything that has been, or is, or will be, so that what does not yet exist according to our reckoning, does already exist in Divine Knowledge. To use a different expression, everything past, present or future has its "pure" and "subtle" counterpart in Divine Knowledge. If Western terminology should be more easily comprehensible to some of our readers, we can call these Prototypes, Numbers, or Essences, or Ideas or Archetypes, but each time we will have to give a more refined and a higher signification to these terms than Pythagoras or Plato ever did. The Sufis, however, call them "Al-A'yan al-Thabitah." With the help of this explanation we can see that when Allah wishes to create a thing, He commands its Essence, which already exists in His Knowledge, "to be", and it "comes to be" - that is to say, comes to be actualised in the world. Thus, "creation" does not arise out of "nothingness." Before a thing comes to exist as an "actuality" in the world, it already exists as a "potentiality" in Divine Knowledge. It is this "potentiality" to which the Divine Command "Be" is addressed. Hence, it is equally true to say that Essences do not exist, and to say that Essences do exist. The first statement pertains to the knowledge of the creatures, and the second to the Divine Knowledge.
At the end, we shall again insist that no good can come out of unnecessarily meddling with such delicate questions, specially if the purpose is no more than to seek a new sensation.]
"And say those who do not know: "Why is it that Allah does not speak to us, nor does a sign come to us?" So spoke those before them as these men do. Their hearts resemble each other. We have indeed made the signs clear for people who have certitude."(2:118)
The Jews, the Christians and the mushrikin used to deny the prophethood of Sayyidna Muhammad Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam: Peace be upon him and some of them did so out of sheer malevolence. In order to feel triumphant in this obstinacy, they would make absurd and impossible demands, two of which have been mentioned here. To begin with, they insisted that Allah Himself should speak to them, either directly as He speaks to the angels, or through the angels as He speaks to the prophets, and that He should Himself proclaim his injunctions to them so as to make the intervention of a new prophet unnecessary, or should at least announce that He had sent Sayyidna Muhammad (sallallahu 'alaihi wasallam) as a prophet, thus making it easy for them to have faith in him and to follow his guidance. Should Allah ('azza wa jal) choose not to accept this demand, they were ready with another -- that is, Allah should send them a sign or proof in confirmation of his prophethood.
In reply to them, Allah puts this demand down as being no more than a foolish custom which has all along been unthinkingly practised by ignorant people even in the earlier ages. Then, the verse traces the origin of this demand to a distortion of the heart, in respect of which all the ignorant people, past or present, are alike, hence the parrot-like repetition of the same demand throughout the ages.
The first of these demands was, on the face of it, silly enough, for, with all the grossness of their minds and hearts, they had the audacity to place themselves on the level of angels and prophets. So, the Holy Qur'an dismisses it as being unworthy of a reply. But in answer to the other demand, Allah reminds them that He has sent, not one, but a number of clear signs and proofs to confirm and establish the prophethood of Sayyidna Muhammad Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam: Peace be upon him. But these signs and proofs can be of help only to those who sincerely wish to know the truth and to attain certitude. As for those who are not in search of the truth, but enjoy being stuck in their malice and obstinacy, there is no help for them.
At this point, we had better say a word to resolve a difficulty that is likely to arise. The Jews and the Christians were "the People of the Book", and some of them were men of learning, and yet Allah calls them ignorant. Why? The reason is that although Allah had sent such a large number of clear signs and definite proofs to establish the prophethood of Sayyidna Muhammad Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam: Peace be upon him, yet they persisted in their denial. This is the mentality and the conduct of the ignorant.
This cannot be undone and I am sure it will be greatly appreciated.
We apologise but you have been denied access to report posts in this thread. This could be due to excessively reporting posts and not understanding our forum rules. For assistance or information, please use the forum help thread to request more information. Jazakallah
