133. Literally Asidq is truth. In this context it could mean in its extension that the promise of settling the Israelites in their desired land (Palestine), was fulfilled.

The allusion is, according to Dahhak, Qatadah and others, as in Ibn Jarir, to Egypt and Syria. Ibn Kathir believes that Musa established his rule in Egypt after Fir`awn's drowning, and he is not far from modern research results. See note 191 of surah al A`raf.

134. The words that the reader is expected to supply here are: 'but, instead of giving thanks for those blessings, the Israelites worked up mischief by creating differences amongst themselves' (Au.).

135. This verse draws the following commentary from Mawdudi: AHere reference is made to the schism and dissensions which the Israelites caused and the ever new religious cults which they invented. It is pointed out here that they had not acted in ignorance of the truth; their actions rather emanated from mischievous designs. For they had been provided by God with the true religion and they knew its fundamental principles, its requirements and the features which distinguish the true faith from the false ones. They were also well aware of what constitutes disobedience, on what matters man will be held to account by God, and on what principles man should fashion his life. Despite these clear directives the Israelites transformed their true faith into a multitude of religious cults, and developed them all on foundations altogether divergent from those provided by God.

136. That is, if the Prophet was in any doubt about the differences that arose among the previous nations, he could ask the people of the Book whether it was true or not. That is how Ibn `Abbas, Ibn Zayd and other have understood the verse. They have also pointed out that it is only those of the people of the Book who had believed in Prophet Muhammad that were to be consulted; (since they were the only honest ones among them: Au.). It is another thing that the Prophet said, AI do not doubt and I do not ask (Ibn Jarir). These words of the Prophet are from a mursal (stubbed) report, and so a kind of weak hadith (Shawkani).

The sentence might surprise some: could the Prophet doubt revelations that came to him? But, that is because people forget that such constructions are common in every language. For instance, Ibn Jarir explains, one might say to his son, AIf you are my son, don't you do such and such a thing. Obviously, it does not mean the man is in doubt about his son's parentage.

Zamakhshari has another explanation. He says the form chosen is not to cast doubt on the Prophet's belief, rather, to confirm the correctness of the knowledge of Israeli scholars (especially those who had, in consequence of such information coming from an unlettered Prophet, embraced Islam).

Imam Razi however takes the bold step to suggest that the Prophet was, after all, a human. And human hearts are prone to occasional visitation of doubts and skepticism. A man has no control over passing thoughts. Verses of this kind were for the treatment of such passing thoughts.

Further, such usage is not foreign to the Qur'an. For example verse 89 above, which says, addressing Musa and Harun, ATherefore, follow not you two the path of those who do not know. Obviously, it was not expected of Musa and Harun that they would, being in doubt over what was revealed to them, follow the path of the ignorant. There are several verses of this nature in the Qur'an (Au.).

137. Although Ibn Jarir has said that any other interpretation except the apparent meaning has no evidence in its support, Ibn Kathir hints at, as against Zamakhshari's clear expression, the possibility that these words are directed at the Prophet's followers.

138. The translation here is literal. However, Ibn Jarir, Razi, Ibn Kathir and others have understood this passage as, AThere has not been a town that believed and profited from its belief, (so that the punishment to be sent down was withheld), except the people of Yunus. Ibn Jarir traces this understanding to Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid and Qatadah. Imam Razi quotes from Waahidi that Ibn `Abbas was of the opinion that whenever the Qur'an used Alaw laa it meant, Awhy not? except in two places. One, here, and the other in verse (11: 116). In both these places the meaning is, simply, Athere was not.

In simpler words, the ayah could be saying, ‘Why haven’t there been cities other than that of Yunus, who believed so that their belief profited them? (Au.).

It has been further explained by the same authorities that when the people of Yunus laid the lies on him, and he lost all hopes that they would mend their ways, he warned them of the punishment about to descend on them. Following that he left the town in anger. Behind him the people regretted and feared that they could be punished. And that was true. The punishment had almost struck them when they came out of the town, en masse, and supplicated for forgiveness. They were forgiven and the punishment was withdrawn.

139. It was widely believed by the Salaf that the people of Yunus (Biblical Jonah) occupied lands in Nineveh near today's Mosul (in present day Iraq) Ibn Kathir.

Yusuf Ali adds: AIts site is believed to be marked by the two mounds on the left bank of the Tigris, opposite the flourishing city of Mosul on the right bank, about 320 miles north north west of Baghdad. One of the mounds bears the name of AThe Tomb of Nabi Yunus.

Majid writes: ASon of Amittai, he lived probably in the middle of the 8th century B.C. `He spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai, the prophet, which was of Gath hepher.' (2 Ki. 14: 25). 'The story presupposes a pre exilic date, when Assyria was at the height of its power and Nineveh was the metropolis of the world' (VJE. p. 325). Mawdudi has a few more details, but, perhaps originating from the Biblical sources, are not too trustworthy.

140. Mufti Shafi` cites the following commentary by Mawdudi: AHowever, were one to reflect on the allusions to the story of Yunus in the Qur'an, and on the information provided by the 'Book of Jonah', it comes out very clearly that Prophet Yunus fell short in his Prophetic duties. Perhaps in his impatience he left his place before it was appropriate. (Unless there are two versions of the original commentary in Urdu. Quotation cited by Shafi` do not match the present English version, although quite close in sum and substance: Au.).

After citing the above, Shafi` raises the objection to the use of such strong terms of disrespect for a Prophet, when it is well known that Prophets can neither commit a sin nor abandon their duty. Further, he points out, Biblical texts as claimed by the said commentator might support his conclusions, but the Qur'an does not: neither here, nor in surah al Saffaat. Moreover, the supposition that Allah broke His own rule (as the commentator has stated) is nowhere in the Qur'an. (Shafi` cites another example of Allah forgiving a people after the Punishment was brought close: AWe raised the Tur (saying), hold fast unto what I give you@- 2: 63). Also, where does the Qur'an or the Sunnah state that AYunus left the place before it was appropriate?" The supposition that Allah broke His own rule of punishing a people (for their denial) because Yunus had failed in his duties is a completely wrong understanding of the verse.

In contrast, commentary works such as Bahr, Maz hari, Ruh al Ma`ani, as well as of Tabari, Qurtubi and Zamakhshari, have all expressed a different opinion. They have said that the people of Yunus were spared the punishment after they had seen its signs because they earnestly sought forgiveness and not because Yunus failed in his duties. Zajjaj has said that actually they saw the signs of punishment and not the punishment itself, a view supported by Qurtubi. Ibn Mas`ud is close to this opinion. None of the above mentioned commentators have said that Yunus fell short of his duties. As for Allah's censure (directed at Yunus [asws] in surah al Saffat), it was because after warning his people and leaving the town, Yunus wished to leave the land altogether. But since he was not yet ordered to migrate, his further journey was, in keeping with Qur'anic way of strong reprimands over minor errors committed by Prophets and, in view of their high position with Allah, was deemed as Arunning away. This is how, more or less, Alusi has explained the verse in question.

When these details were pointed out to Mawdudi, Shafi` continues, he cited the opinion of a few authorities, who actually did not hold such an extreme opinion, except for Wahab b. Munabbih about whom it is well known that he relied on Israeli reports. Shafi` cautions that although he himself has relied on some Israeli reports in the explanation of Yunus' intended emigration, they must be taken with a grain of salt. Infallible Qur'anic texts should not be interpreted in the light of Jewish reports.

141. The textual addition of Ajami`an after Akulluhum is for emphasis (Ibn Jarir).

142. Our rendering is literal. The meaning offered by Ibn `Abbas for the Qur'anic word Arijs however, is, as in Ibn Jarir, Aanger.

143. ANudhur can either be the plural of Aindhaar (the choice made here: Au.) or the plural of Anadheer meaning Awarners (Shawkani).

144. The term AMessengers (in plural) offers a difficulty. The previous verse addressed Prophet Muhammad's contemporary unbelievers. They were told to wait for days like the days of the previous unbelievers who were destroyed. The following verse should have said, to a common reader, AThen (when the day comes) We shall deliver the Messenger (meaning Muhammad); but instead, it says, AThen We deliver the Messengers. The answer is, after the declaration of what could happen to the unbelievers of the Prophet's time, this present verse leaves out what is understood without being stated, a technique called Aijaz in Arabic and ellipticism in English. What has been left out after the concealed threat to the unbelievers in verse 102 is the following, AThe days of the past nations (mentioned in verse 102) were evil days: the days when they were punished. Now, if you are waiting for similar days, then you should know that whenever such days visited the past nations, Our rule happened to be what remains today, viz., We deliver the Messengers and their followers, punishing only the unbelievers. With the missing sentence supplied, verses 102 and 103 should be understood in the following manner: A[102] Are they then waiting for (a day) similar to the days of those who went before them? Say, '(If that is so) then wait. I am also with you among those who are waiting.' (Those were the days when the past nations were destroyed for their denial. And, Our rule is that when such punishments descend) [103] We deliver Our Messengers and those who believed. It is Our bound duty (that) We should deliver the believers (Au.).

Rashid Rida has called this verse (103) as, in the words of Asad, Aone of the most outstanding examples of the elliptic mode of expression (ijaz) to be found in the Qur'an.