70. Thanwi has a note relevant to da`wah workers which can be paraphrased as follows: This is the habit of the sincere callers to Islam, that when they find that the person addressed is bent on denial, they leave him alone, as against the disputants and debaters who strive to have the last word.

71. Mawdudi comments: AIn its most elementary sense even animals are possessed of the faculty of hearing. But 'hearing' in its true sense is applicable only when the act of hearing is accompanied with the attention required to grasp the meaning of what one hears, and with the readiness to accept it if it is found reasonable. Those who have fallen prey to prejudices, who have made up their minds that they will not hear, let alone accept anything, howsoever reasonable it might be, if it goes against their inherited beliefs and behavior patterns, or is opposed to living a life of heedlessness, as the animals do, or who focus all their attention on the gratification of their palate, or who recklessly pursue their lusts in total disregard of all consideration of right and wrong, may also be rightly characterized as incapable of hearing. Such people are not deaf of hearing, but their minds and hearts are certainly deaf to the truth.

That said about the unbelievers, Rashid Rida precedes Mawdudi in asking, 'Aren't there plenty of believers now who hear whole of the Qur'an recited to them in the month of Ramadan, or in assemblies of recitation, but they comprehend nothing, act by nothing, as if they heard nothing?'

72. At this point Ibn Kathir repeats a relevant hadith of Muslim and, therefore, shortens it. It reports Allah as saying,

يا عِبادِي إِني قَد حَرمتُ الظُلمَ عَلى نَفسِي وجَعلتُهُ مُحرماً بَينَكُم فَلا تَظالَمُوا .. يا عِبادِي إِنَّما هِي أَعمالُكُم أَجعَلُها عليكُم فَمنْ وجَد خَيراً فَليحمَدِ الله ، ومَن وَجدَ غَيرَ ذَلك فَلا يَلُومُ إِلا نَفسهُ

AO My slaves. I have forbidden transgression unto Myself and have declared it forbidden to you, therefore, do not commit transgression against one another... ending with, AO My slaves. It is your deeds that I reckon and then I reward you for them in full. Therefore, whoever finds goods, let him thank Allah. And whoever finds it otherwise, let him blame none but himself.

73. In the manner of those who, having lived together in this life, did not part after death, but for a short while (Alusi).

Another possible meaning is expressed by Rashid Rida: They will recall having known and interacted with each other in the past life.

74. It is possible, as Zamakhshari has said, that the words, ASurely, those who denied meeting with Allah made no gains, and they were not such as to be guided, are the words of those who will mutually recognize each other.

The translation herewith treats them as Allah's words (Au.).

Asad comments: AIn its wider sense, however it is addressed to every believer who might find it incomprehensible that life long suffering is often the lot of the righteous, while many wrongdoers and deniers of the truth apparently remain unscathed and are allowed to enjoy the good things of life. The Qur'an solves this apparent paradox by making it clear that, in comparison with the life to come, the life in this world is but a brief moment, and that it is only in the hereafter that man's destiny reveals itself in all its true aspects.

75. Shah `Abd al Qadir has said that since the complete dominance of Islam was achieved party during the Prophet's life and partly after him, during the life of the four great caliphs, Allah used the expression, AWhether We show you (O Muhammad) a part of that We promise them, or complete your life term .. (Shabbir).

In simpler words, it can be said that the above words contain a prophesy (Au.).

76. Mawdudi comments on the textual term Ummah: AThe Qur'anic term ummah is not to be taken in the narrow sense in which the word 'nation' is used... All those who, after the advent of a Messenger, happen to live in an age when the teachings of that Messenger are extant or at least it is possible for people to know about what he had taught, constitute the ummah of that Messenger... In this respect all human beings who happen to be living in the age which commences with the advent of Muhammad (peace be on him) ... are his ummah...

The verse could also be understood to mean, AFor every nation there has been a Messenger. This is in the light of this present verse and another of the Qur'an which said (35: 24)

وَإِنْ مِنْ أُمَّةٍ إِلَّا خَلَا فِيهَا نَذِيرٌ [فاطر : 24]

AAnd there has not been a nation but a warner had been to them.

People often inquire about nations which, presumably did not receive a Prophet in the past, such as, e.g., the Russians or Indians. If can be said in reply that nations which did not preserve their history, cannot now claim that a Prophet was not raised among them. Another question that is raised is, AIs it possible that famous figures such as Buddha, Confucius, or Indian mythological figures were Messengers? Some people assume that those were Messengers, since, as they argue, AFor every nation there has been a Messenger. A proper explanation may be offered along the following lines:

Firstly, the Qur'an has used a term (Aummah@) of its own definition and which is not equivalent of a nation. However, with nation as the term of reference, it might be asked, were the Russians in living memory, or according to authentic historical accounts, ever a nation prior to the advent of Islam? The same question can be asked about the Australians, or Indians. A nation is a well organized unit, over a well defined geographical area, ruled by a central authority, inhabited by a homogenous people who share a language (or a few languages), culture and religion. Its identity as a nation lasts through several centuries. Has that been the case with Russia, or Australia or India in the past? To take the example of Indians, it was never a nation in the true sense of the term. In ancient times India was no more than a land mass, supporting a vast number of villages and settlings. The peninsula was divided into as many regions as there were interrupting forests, range of mountains, rivers or other such natural boundaries. At best there were conglomerations of villages spread all over perhaps several thousands of them that could have been (though we are not sure) ruled by a chieftain, but which broke into disparate elements with his death. A few villages of that group were then incorporated by the adjoining rulers, if there were any, while others remained scattered - without a central town or inhabitation as the seat of political, military, or religious power controlling them, without a common culture, and without a single unifying language. The areas that were nominally ruled by a chieftain, a ruler, or a so called king, (in truth a war lord) were never cemented into a nation with its citizens acquiring that kind of identity, and they relating themselves to the state in that manner. A major difficulty, apart from the lack of well organized civilized life, means of transportation and communication, etc., was the absence of a unifying language. Never did any sizable territory in India have a language that was understood in its four corners. (There are hundreds of active dialects in present day India). Had there been a Messenger, he would have had to receive revelation in dozens of languages at a time to be able to communicate his message effectively.

As regards the ancient and mythological figures, whether they could have been Messengers, it is anybody's guess. However, if one considers the teachings of the Messengers as mentioned in the Qur'an, (however compressed to a few points as done by Rashid Rida: constituting Allah's oneness, a rough concept of the Hereafter, and emphasis on righteous deeds), then, one might open the "so called" Holy Scriptures and look for these basic elements of Prophetic messages in the teachings of the Messenger candidates. A short exercise will categorically rule out Messengership for the candidates proposed.

It might be suggested that their followers could have corrupted their pristine message. But, if that is granted, then that would qualify many past figures to Messengership. Every pervert person's teachings can be said to be the corrupt forms of a true Messenger's message (Au.).

77. When Prophet Muhammad could not cause any harm or profit unto himself, could he do that to any other? Further, if he could not do when alive, can he do it now when he is in the grave? How strange of the faithful who imagine that the past Prophets or the so called saints in their graves, or angels, can cause them good or evil? If the noblest of creatures, Muhammad (on whom be peace) was ordered to announce that he had no power of good or evil unto himself, on what grounds can the Muslims of today seek help from those much lower than him? (Rashid Rida).

78. The expression, 'by night or by day' occurring in this context denotes the suddenness and unexpectedness with which Allah's punishment comes. For all its appearance, it could take the form of a natural calamity, and so, as usual, unpredictable (Au.).

79. Seeing that none of its parts will treat them kindly, which of its parts are they demanding to be hastened? (Zamakhshari).

80. Some scholars have suggested that the questioning has been assumed, since the pagans would not have asked the Prophet, having rejected him anyway. Rashid Rida believes that it is fairly possible that they actually asked him the question. The Arabs of that time were an upright people, who trusted others as upright. Lying was extremely uncommon among them. So, someone might have asked the question in earnest, besides those who raised questions of this kind in jest. We have a few traditions on the topic, such as the one preserved by the Sheikhayn, in which Damaam b. Tha`labah abjured the Prophet to tell him 'by the Lord' if he was really the sent one, and was well satisfied when assured that 'by Him' that was the case.