158. The reference is to abrogation, either of the text, or its meaning. That is, either a verse is taken away from memory so that people cannot recall it anymore, after having known it, or, Allah declares its meaning abrogated and replaces wtih another verse.

159. That is, Allah knew the wisdom behind abrogation.

There were several points of wisdom behind abrogation during early Islamic years. One, e.g., was to try out the earliest followers, and see if they remained true to their faith or, were they betaken by doubts when abrogation came. In this manner, a band of tested and purified men and women was created who submitted to everything that Allah and His Messenger decreed. By virtue of that they became a body that can be followed as an ideal by Muslims of the later generations. They can be emulated, but never overtaken in piety and obedience. Another reason was that for centuries human societies lived a certain kind of life: the most beastly kind. Their situation could only be changed gradually. That required allowing certain things in the early stages of change and development, to be disallowed later. Later generations would not need the same measures because, the individuals of later generations would open their eyes, or enter as new Muslims, into an already transformed society, in which they would not need to struggle against the rest of the world to follow Islam (Au.).

160. It is stated in “Kashf” that Allah (swt) brought this verse immediately after instruction to seek refuge from Satan for the reason that to many readers of the Qur’an abrogation in early Islam is one of the sources of grave doubts (Alusi).

161. `Amir Sha`bi’s following statement is transmitted on a trustworthy note, viz., for the first three years it was Mika’il who was entrusted with bringing down (non-Qur’anic: Au.) ‘words after words’ to our Prophet. Thereafter, it was Jibril who brought down the Qur’anic revelations to him. Further, we have a report in Muslim which says that Surah al-Fatihah was carried down by an angel who had never come down to earth earlier. Nevertheless, most of the commentators agree that it is Jibril who is meant by “Ruh al-Quds” at this point (Qurtubi).

As to why Jibril was referred to by this title, rather than by his name, Mawdudi explains, “By preferring to use this appellation rather than his proper name, the Qur’an emphasizes that the message of the Qur’an has been conveyed through the spirit which is free from all human weaknesses and imperfections.”

162. That is, tell them O Muhammad, it is not I who causes the abrogation. The whole thing is a revelation brought down by heavenly beings, by the command of Allah. I have no power to reveal or abrogate (Au.).

163. Such as those who ponder over the reasons and the wisdom behind abrogation in early Islam. They are led to a better understanding of it and to a greater firmness in it (Alusi).

164. The textual word is “yulhiduna” with its root in “lahada,” means, to incline, take sides, etc. Hence a “lahad grave”: one which has a side box in which the dead body is tucked (Razi), giving the grave the shape of an “L” (Au.); and hence “mulhid” for an atheist who turns away from every religion of the world (Razi).

165. There is no consensus among the early commentators over the identity of the person whom the Quraysh alleged composed the Qur’an for our Prophet (Ibn Jarir and others). That was perhaps because the Prophet was on good, even if casual, terms with several of the Makkan, non-Arab slaves and laymen.

Further, the textual word “‘ajami” is not necessarily for a non-Arabic, non-Arab, or foreigner alone. The allusion, therefore, could have been to any of the several, or all of the Arab or non-Arabs that the Makkans at one time or another alluded to. For example, one of those named was a hawker at Safa with whom the Prophet occasionally spent some time chatting. He was originally a Yemeni, and hence an “‘ajami” for two reasons: one, because he was not eloquent in the Arabic language and, two, he was a foreigner.

They were obviously not of the kind that could teach the Prophet anything, let alone the eloquent Qur’an. Indeed, when one of those casual acquaintances of the Prophet was asked if he taught the Prophet, he replied, in all the simplicity of his class, “Rather, he teaches me” (Qurtubi).

Imam Razi and Qurtubi also explain: The textual word “`ajami” has its root in “`ajama” which is to be unable to express oneself properly. Animals are, e.g., “`ajmaa’”, because they cannot express themselves. The word is thus applicable to anyone who is not eloquent in Arabic. In this sense, many Arabs are also “`ajami” since, although they can speak Arabic, they cannot explain themselves eloquently. This was the opinion of Farra’ and Ahmad b. Yahya. Further, it might be noted, Imam Razi writes, how short the Makkans must have been of reasons to reject the Prophet, that they had to rely on such silly allegations. Such doubts as they raised against the Prophet actually confirm his Prophethood rather than cast any doubt on it.

Alsui writes that in his times (the 19th century), some (Syrian) Christians believed that the Prophet repaired to the Hira cave every now and then, only to learn the Qur’an from a pair of unknown Jew and Christian! How could it happen, Shabbir asks, that if another person wrote the Qur’an, a great author of his kind was completely neglected, while he who supposedly re-told it, was accepted by millions as a Messenger of Allah?

Sayyid writes: A conference held by the Orientalists in Soviet Russia in 1945, concluded that it was unthinkable that Prophet Muhammad would have composed this Qur’an singly. There must have been a whole group of people helping him in this feat. In fact, it did not seem possible to the participants that the whole of the Qur’an was written in the Arabian Peninsula. Some of its parts must have been composed outside of it! (Because such wide and varied seem to be its sources, if it is assumed that the Qur’an is a human production: Au.)

It is strange it did not occur to the Makkans, nor to their blind followers of the modern Western world, who raise similar doubts even today, that what could have prevented the other man (the original writer) from claiming the authorship of this wonderful, inimitable, masterly Qur’an? Have these clever Orientalists never considered that, as authors, did they ever contribute a sentence to a book without expecting its acknowledgment in the preface? The truth is, there is nothing that they can think of as a good reason to reject the Qur’an, but the Qur’an’s contents rejects it. This is one ramification of the words, “Falsehood will not enter into it: neither from the front nor from the rear.” That is, neither the earlier generations, nor the later generations can ever explain the Qur’an, but in one way: that it is a Revelation. Gary Miller (a new Canadian Muslim) quotes from a recent publication of Catholic Encyclopedia, to the effect: “All that has been said so far about the Qur’an, does not explain its origin to anyone’s satisfaction” (Au.).

166. That is, because of their refusal to believe, Allah does not guide such people to Paradise (Razi).

Ibn Kathir comments: Allah tells us that He does not guide those who are heedless to that which He revealed to His Messenger. This class of people will never be guided to faith by any of Allah’s other signs either.

167. That is, those who impute a lie to the Prophet, are themselves confirmed liars. This verse befits the Western scholars, writers and journalists, who float lies for their laymen, who blindly believe in them in such matters of high importance, while treating all else that they write, about worldly affairs, with extreme skepticism, if not disbelief. It is this class of people who are the subject of the next verse (Au.).

168. The words, “while his heart was firm in faith,” is the basis of the opinion held by some that faith (iman) is the attestation of the heart and that, its verbal pronunciation is not a condition. However, it will be more precise to say that although verbal assertion is not part of faith, it is necessary as a sign and confirmation of what is in the heart (Alusi).

169. Passing doubts, therefore, Thanwi points out, are not blameworthy (so long as not given permanent residence in the heart), since they are not the result of one’s free will.

170. Ibn ‘Abbas, Qatadah and Abu Malik have said that the immediate reference was to ‘Ammar b. Yasir. He was severely tortured by the pagans until he spelt the words of disbelief that they were demanding from him. Later he reported to the Prophet (in tears: Zamakhshari).

قَالَ : كَيْفَ تَجِدُ قَلْبَكَ؟ قَالَ : مُطْمَئِنًا بِالإِيمَانِ. قَالَ : إِنْ عَادُوا فَعُدْ.

The Prophet asked him, “How do you find your heart?” He replied, “Firm in faith.” The Prophet told him, “If they repeat, you also repeat” (Ibn Jarir).

But of course, Zamakhshari writes, the allusion could be to all those who suffered persecution, notably Bilal, Suhayb, Khabbab, Salim, Jabr al-Hadrami, and, `Ammar and his parents Yasir and Sumayyah. The brutality of the tortures can be gauged from the fact that the last named Sumayyah was tied to two camels and then Abu Jahl thrust a spear in her vagina until she died. Yasir was also killed: the first two to die in the cause of Islam. In fact, under extreme torture delivered by his master, Jabr renounced Islam. However, his master himself later became a Muslim, and the two, master and slave, migrated to Madinah (Zamakhshari). (How fast Islam changes relationships! (Au.)

A narration in Bayhaqi says that unable to stand the tortures, `Ammar disowned the Prophet and praised their deities. Hence the scholars have ruled that whoever is put to severe tortures might opt for one of the two ways of escape: either outwardly disown his religion, or, stay firm unmindful of what happens to him. Bilal opted for the latter and despite rocks on his chest, laid on hot desert sands, adhered to saying, “Ahad, Ahad” (One, One) and refused to say one word that would please the torturers. Indeed he said, “By Allah. If I knew another word that would madden them more, I would have said it.” That is what Habib b. Zayd opted for when he and another Companion were caught (spying on Musaylimah the Liar: Shawkani). Musaylimah asked the other man if he testified that Muhammad was a Messenger of Allah. He said, “Yes.” Musaylimah next asked, “Do you testify that I am a messenger of Allah?” He said, “Yes.” So he freed him. But when he asked Habib, “Do you testify that Muhammad is a Messenger?” Habib replied, “I do.” He asked him next, “Do you testify that I am a messenger?” Habib said, “I do not hear you.” When Musaylimah ordered that his body be severed, limb by limb, Habib still kept on repeating those words at every time he was questioned. The severing went on with each question and answer, until he died. Thus, Habib opted for ‘azimah (firm resolve) - Ibn Kathir. But the Prophet did not censure the other person who escaped from Musaylimah the Liar (Zamakhshari). The report comes through Hasan al-Busri and is evaluated as Hasan (Shawkani).

In fact, continues Ibn Kathir, we have another incident worth mentioning. This is from Ibn ‘Asakir who recorded it in the biography of `Abdullah b. Hudhafa al-Sahmi, a Companion. Once he was captured by the Byzantines. They took him to the king. He proposed, “Become a Christian and I’ll declare a share for you in my kingdom and give you my daughter in marriage.” `Abdullah replied, “If you gave me the whole of your kingdom, and the whole of the Arab kingdom, on condition that I abandon my religion, just for a moment, I would not do it.” The king threatened to kill him, got him fixed to the cross and ordered his men to shoot arrows around his hands and feet. He again offered him Christianity and again he refused. So the king got a large copper vessel filled with oil and heated up. Then one of the captured Muslims was brought and cast into it. `Abdullah stood there watching him as he was fried to scorched bones. But `Abdullah would not budge. So the king ordered that `Abdullah be thrown into the vessel. `Abdullah wept. The king thought `Abdullah had softened. He called him and offered that he become a Christian. `Abdullah said, “I only cried because I have command over only a single life. I wish I had as many lives as the hair on my body and each of them taken away in the path of Allah.” Finally, the king suggested, “Kiss my forehead and I’ll let you go?” `Abdullah asked, “Will you free every Muslim prisoner?” The king said yes. `Abdullah kissed his forehead and was freed along with all the Muslim prisoners. When he came back, `Umar ibn al-Khattab said, “It is `Abdullah’s right that everyone should kiss his forehead. And let me be the first to do it” (slightly shortened).

Qurtubi also points out that the legal implication of the verse is that its principle is extendable to other affairs of lesser importance. (If someone is forced to do something wrong, on threat to his life, he cannot be blamed for his actions). In fact, there is a hadith to this effect, which although lacks a strong chain of narrators, is correct in its import. It says,

إِنَّ اللَّهَ تَجَاوَزَ لِى عَنْ أُمَّتِى الْخَطَأَ وَالنِّسْيَانَ وَمَا اسْتُكْرِهُوا عَلَيْهِ

“Accountability is removed off my Ummah for things done by mistake, forgetfulness or what they are forced to do.”

Abu Muhammad Abdul Haq has said that from the point of view of its chain of narration also, the report is trustworthy. (Shu`ayb al-Arna’ut declared it as meeting with the conditions set by Bukhari and Muslim: Au.). In any case, the above does not apply to murder. Someone cannot murder another because his own life is under threat.

As a jurist, Qurtubi goes into many cases of law to explain as to when “being forced” is acceptable as an excuse and when not - with or without a threat to one’s life. In today’s world where the Muslims are a target of repression, even in their own countries, a few examples given by Qurtubi could be used as guidelines. For instance, if someone knows that his words could harm an innocent Muslim, he can testify to a lie as did the Companion who, when asked by Musaylimah if he testified that he was a Messenger, said “Yes.” For example, in Tunis Abu Sa`id b. Ashras was asked by the ruler to swear that he had no idea where Malik was hiding. The king was, of course, after Malik’s life. The condition the ruler placed was that if ibn Ashras was lying his wife would stand irrevocably divorced. Ibn Ashras readily swore, although he knew very well where Malik was hiding. When he went home he asked his wife to go away to her parents. Then he journeyed to Qayrawan to meet with Bahlul and discuss the issue. Bahlul told him that although Malik himself had a different opinion, according to Hasan (al-Busri) he was not required to honor the oath. That is, the divorce was not effective. Anas b. Malik expressed the same opinion when he was asked whether a man could swear falsely to save another innocent man’s life. He answered, “As for me, I would rather swear false oaths seventy times than risk the life of a Muslim.” Similarly, it is reported that Walid b. `Abd al-Malik had a large force of secret servicemen spying on the people. Once, one of them participated in the lecture circle of the famous scholar R`ja’ b. Haywah. He heard one of the participants criticizing Walid and reported to him. Walid sent for R`ja’ and said, “I am criticized in your circles and you do not stop them.” Raja’ denied that he was ever criticized. Walid asked him to swear, and he swore. So Walid got the secret serviceman whipped. The man later came to Raja’ and complained, “O Raja’. You are used as the means of access (wasilah) for seeking rains, yet seventy stripes on my back?!” Raja’ answered, “That you should get whipped seventy times is better than that a Muslim be killed.” And, Qurtubi adds, in all such cases, one need not even offer expiation for the false oaths. In the same vein, if one can escape from an ill-consequence of what he had said, he might say, as Ibrahim Nakha`i said, “By Allah. If I had said any such thing, Allah would have known it.” The listener presumes that the man did not say, while he might have, yet he did not lie by swearing by Allah. A condition however is that one’s intention should not be to deceive anyone. When Ibrahim Nakha`i himself did not wish to see someone he would enter into his own little prayer-hall (masjid: place of prostration within the house) and tell his slave girl to say to the unwanted man, “By Allah. He is in the masjid.”

Nevertheless, (lest the permission be misused) Imam Abu Hanifah has warned, that the hadith quoted above, is with reference to the accountability in the Hereafter. That is, forgetfulness, acting by error, or being forced to do something, could all prove to be acceptable excuses in the Hereafter. But, in the affairs of this world, they might not be sufficient. For example, if someone murdered another person by mistake, his plea will not release him from blood-wit. Similarly, if someone claimed that he did something because he was forced, the jurists will look into the surrounding conditions to determine the nature of the crime and nature of the forces acting on the man, and then pronounce the judgment (Shafi`).

171. The reference is to those people who made up their minds about what they wished to do vis a vis the new message. When they made up their minds, Allah allowed that they act, in words and deeds, in accordance with their intentions. When He allowed them to act, and they had acted, in words and deeds, as they had wished, then, in consequence of this second wrong (first being their evil intention), they were barred from receiving any guidance. Subsequently, as they continued in their disbelief, totally blind to the call of reason and the truth that dawned upon them from time to time, Allah set a seal upon their senses. So, although materially well off now, they will be total failures in the Hereafter (based on Thanwi).

172. According to some reports, this verse came down in connection with some people who had embraced Islam at Makkah but secretly. The pagans forced them out against the Muslims at Badr. Later, their well-wishing Madinan Muslims wrote to them the verse (4: 97),

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَوَفَّاهُمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ ظَالِمِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ قَالُوا فِيمَ كُنْتُمْ قَالُوا كُنَّا مُسْتَضْعَفِينَ فِي الْأَرْضِ قَالُوا أَلَمْ تَكُنْ أَرْضُ اللَّهِ وَاسِعَةً فَتُهَاجِرُوا فِيهَا فَأُولَئِكَ مَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ وَسَاءَتْ مَصِيرًا [النساء : 97]

“Indeed, those whom the angels take (in death) while wronging themselves, ask, ‘how were you in?’ They say, ‘We had been weakened in the earth.’ They say, ‘Was not Allah’s land vast so that you could migrate?’ So, these, their abode is Jahannum, an evil destination.” They wrote to them that they had no reason to stay back in Makkah. So a group of them left for Madinah. However, on their way they were caught up by the pagans. Fighting ensued. Some died, others escaped. Then another verse was revealed (29: 10),

وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَنْ يَقُولُ آمَنَّا بِاللَّهِ فَإِذَا أُوذِيَ فِي اللَّهِ جَعَلَ فِتْنَةَ النَّاسِ كَعَذَابِ [العنكبوت : 10]

“And of the people are some who say, ‘We believe in Allah.’ But when one of them is harmed for Allah, he considers the trial of the people as a punishment of Allah.” So, the Madinans again wrote to the remnants in Makkah and they came out intending Madinah, and this present verse was revealed. A few other reports offer other reasons for the revelation of this verse (Ibn Jarir).