91. (Although the term “ahl” is for one’s family), here the allusion is to those who believed and followed Nuh (Razi, Qurtubi).

92. Ibn Mas`ud said in explanation of the verse that a man’s sheep entered into another’s field (or vineyard) and damaged the crop. The matter was referred to Da’ud (asws). He judged that the sheep be given away to the owner of the field in compensation of his loss. Sulayman (asws) suggested instead that the shepherd should be asked to work on the farm until the damage was recovered. And, until the recovery, the flock of sheep be handed over to the owner of the orchard to look after and to make use of their milk, wool, or sell off the offspring. (In his good grace and wisdom, Da’ud accepted the suggestion even though, as Yusuf Ali put it, “it came from a little boy : Au.). Accordingly, when Bara’ b. `Azib’s camel entered into an Ansari’s orchard by night and wrought some damage, the Prophet (saws) recited this verse and ordered that the damage be repaired. Then he added, “It is upon the owner of an orchard to see that stray cattle is kept out, and upon the owner of the cattle during the night to keep them away of orchards” (Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi).

Suhnun however has said, adds Qurtubi, that the Prophetic judgment varying for day and night is because the orchards in Madinah had boundary walls. Therefore, if there are no boundaries to orchards or fields, as in many parts of the world, the owner of the flock will be charged for damage whether it happens by day or by night. Imam Abu Hanifah however has ruled that if a shepherd is accompanying the flock, then the damages are payable, otherwise not. This is in view of the hadith in the Sahihayn that says, “Damage (caused) by animals do not entail compensation.” This is a much stronger report than that involving Bara’ (Alusi, Shafi`). For greater details one might profitably look into Qurtubi.

Further, it might be noticed that although Sulayman has been praised here, Da’ud was not censored (Ibn Jarir). It is possible, adds Zamakhshari, that the value of the flock was equal to the damage that was done to the crop and so Da’ud judged that they be given away in compensation. Thus, writes Thanwi, both the judgments were correct, hence Allah’s words, “and to each We gave Judgment and knowledge.”

In Asad’s words, “.. the fact that Solomon’s judgment was more profound did not disprove the intrinsic justice of David’s original judgment or deprive it of its merit.”

In fact, even if one wished, he will find it hard to judge which judgment was better. Could the loss of the orchard owner be greater than the value of the sheep? Or, alternatively, when given charge of the sheep, could he have recovered all his losses by the time his orchard was restored to the original condition? And, when restored, would it have fetched the same price as last year’s crop? These are open questions and it is possible, as Mufti Shafi` has suggested, that Sulayman’s judgment was more of the nature of a “mutual agreement that also salvaged the relationship between the two parties, than an effort to render absolute justice” (Au.).

Report concerning Bara’ b. `Azib’s case is in Ahmad, Abu Da’ud and Ibn Majah, but may not be very strong (Ibn Kathir). Nevertheless, because of a few other supporting evidences, most jurists have accepted it as trustworthy and used it for legal purposes. As for Allah not censoring Da’ud, we also have a hadith in Bukhari which says that when a judge does his best and judges correctly, he gets double the reward. But when he does his best, yet commits an error, then he gets a single reward. And the essential point to be noted is, “when he (the judge) does his best, that is, to uncover the facts and dig out the truth” (Qurtubi).

Furthermore, close to the story of Sulayman above is another reported in Muslim (also in Musnad Ahmad – narrated by Abu Hurayrah: Ibn Kathir). The Prophet said,

بَيْنَمَا امْرَأَتَانِ مَعَهُمَا ابْنَاهُمَا جَاءَ الذِّئْبُ فَذَهَبَ بِابْنِ إِحْدَاهُمَا فَقَالَتْ هَذِهِ لِصَاحِبَتِهَا إِنَّمَا ذَهَبَ بِابْنِكِ وَقَالَتِ الأُخْرَى إِنَّمَا ذَهَبَ بِابْنِكِ فَتَحَاكَمَتَا إِلَى دَاوُدَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ فَقَضَى بِهِ لِلْكُبْرَى فَخَرَجَتَا عَلَى سُلَيْمَانَ بْنِ دَاوُدَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ فَأَخْبَرَتَاهُ فَقَالَ ائْتُونِى بِالسِّكِّينِ أَشُقَّهُ بَيْنَهُمَا فَقَالَتِ الصُّغْرَى لاَ تَفْعَلْ يَرْحَمُكَ اللَّهُ هُوَ ابْنُهَا فَقَضَى بِهِ لِلصُّغْرَى

“Two women had an infant each. A wolf snatched away one. (Both claimed the remaining one). So they appealed to Da’ud. He judged in favor of the elder woman. Then they went to Sulayman. He said, ‘Get me a knife. I’ll divide the child between the two.’ At that one the younger woman cried out, ‘No. Don’t do that – may Allah show you mercy. Let the child be given to her.’ So, Sulayman judged in favor of the younger woman (Qurtubi).

The above is Bukhari’s version (Au.).

93. That is, Allah (swt) bestowed on Sulayman in that particular case an understanding that He did not bestow on Da’ud (Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi).

94. It is reported that when Da’ud recited Zabur, birds gathered around to listen. When our own Prophet Muhammad passed by Abu Musa al-Ash`ari reciting the Qur’an, he stood by listening to him. Then he remarked,

لَقَدْ أُوتِيتَ مِزْمَارًا مِنْ مَزَامِيرِ آلِ دَاوُدَ

“Surely, you have been given a melody from the melodies of Da’ud’s kinsfolk.”

And Abu `Uthman al-Nahdi said, “I have never heard any melody as sweet as that of Abu Musa al-Ash`ari. Yet and, despite that, the Prophet said about him, ‘Surely, he has been given a melody from the melodies of Da’ud’s kinsfolk". (That is, one can imagine the power and beauty of Da’ud’s melodies if Abu Musa’s was of such order that the Prophet stood by to listen: Au.).

95. The words, “for you” denote that when the intention is to serve the people then learning of a trade or skill has promises of rewards in the Hereafter, whatever the worldly advantages (Shafi`).

Qatadah has said that earlier to Da’ud’s manufacture, coats of mail used to be in one piece-sheet. He was the who first molded the chain-mails.

Mawdudi comments: “This point is further elaborated upon in Surah Saba’:

وَأَلَنَّا لَهُ الْحَدِيدَ (10) أَنِ اعْمَلْ سَابِغَاتٍ وَقَدِّرْ فِي السَّرْدِ [سبأ : 10 ، 11]

‘We made the iron soft for him (David) and commanded him: make coats of mail, balancing well the rings of the chain armor’ (Saba’ 34: 10-11). Thus we learn that God granted David complete mastery over iron, especially for military purposes.

“In the light of the historical and archaeological information these verses can be explained as follows: The Iron Age began somewhere between 1200 B.C. and 1000 B.C. which was the time of the Prophet David. The Hittites, inhabitants of Syria and Asia Minor, who had their hey-day during the period 2000 B.C. to 1200 B.C., were the first to invent techniques for melting and manufacturing iron; an expertise which they kept a closely-guarded secret. The iron that was thus made was, however, extremely expensive – like gold and silver – and consequently the requisite techniques were not widely used. Later on, the Philistines also acquired this knowledge but they too kept it a closely-guarded secret. Before Saul’s ascension to the throne, the Hittites and Philistines had continually defeated the Israelites and had almost driven them out of Palestine. According to the Bible, one of the factors which had ensured their superiority was their use of chariots and other weapons manufactured from iron (Joshua 17: 16; Judges 1: 19 and 4: 2-3). When Saul, under God’s command became ruler in 1020 B.C., he crushed the Hittites and Philistines and recovered a major portion of Palestine. The Prophet David (1004 B.C.-965 B.C.) extended the Israelite domain to the rest of Palestine to Transjordan and a major part of Syria.

“It was during this period that smelting technique, thus far only known to the Hittites and Philistines, were disclosed. Within a short period of time, other techniques of iron-manufacturing produced inexpensive iron, as a result of which iron products were manufactured and commonly used. Edom, in the southern part of Palestine, is immensely rich in iron ore. Recent archaeological excavations show at several places remnants of furnaces obviously used for melting and moulding iron. Indeed a furnace excavated near Ezion-Geber, a port on the Gulf of Aqaba in the days of the Prophet Solomon, appears to have been built on the very same principles which are employed to this day in blast furnaces. Quite naturally, David would have used this discovery of iron for military purposes since it was armour manufactured from this metal which in the then recent past, had created such difficulties for the Israelites.”

96. It seems Sulayman had complete control over the winds so that when he desired they moved forcefully, or mildly as said in the verse (38: 36),

فَسَخَّرْنَا لَهُ الرِّيحَ تَجْرِي بِأَمْرِهِ رُخَاءً حَيْثُ أَصَابَ [ص : 36]

“We subjected to him the wind, it blew gently by his order whithersoever he wished” (Razi). Another possibility is that they moved as fast as high winds do, but remained mild in their effects (Alusi).

97. Commentators report that Sulayman was a great warrior too. The winds helped him up the sea voyage to a month’s distance, and back in another month. Hence Allah’s words, ‘And We subjected the wind to Solomon: its morning stride was a month’s journey, and the evening stride a month’s journey’ (Qurtubi).

98. The use of the term Shayatin in place of Jinn, contains the hint that they were unbelieving Jinn (Razi).

99. That is, the Jinn dived for him into the sea for pearls, and help build buildings and monuments (Ibn Jarir).

Mawdudi explains, “The furnace which Solomon had built at Ezion-Geber for melting and moulding iron ore was substantial – no other furnace of like size has been so far discovered anywhere in Eastern Asia or the Middle East. Archaeologists believe that the ore used in this furnace was brought from the iron and copper mines of ‘Araban in Edom. The iron and copper melted in this furnace was used for ship-building and for other purposes. This would thus explain the meaning of the Qur’anic verse:

وَأَسَلْنَا لَهُ عَيْنَ الْقِطْرِ [سبأ : 12]

‘And We caused molten copper to flow for Solomon’ (Saba’, 34: 12).”

He also writes, “The point is thus elaborated in Surah Saba’:

وَمِنَ الْجِنِّ مَنْ يَعْمَلُ بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ بِإِذْنِ رَبِّهِ وَمَنْ يَزِغْ مِنْهُمْ عَنْ أَمْرِنَا نُذِقْهُ مِنْ عَذَابِ السَّعِيرِ (12) يَعْمَلُونَ لَهُ مَا يَشَاءُ مِنْ مَحَارِيبَ وَتَمَاثِيلَ وَجِفَانٍ كَالْجَوَابِ وَقُدُورٍ رَاسِيَاتٍ [سبأ : 12 ، 13]

‘There were jinns that worked in front of him by the permission of his Lord and if any of them turned aside from God’s command, God made him taste the penalty of the Blazing Fire. They worked for him as he desired, making arches, images, basins as large as reservoirs, and cooking cauldrons fixed in their places.”

100. Lest the Devils got out of control (Qurtubi and others).

101. Majid comments and quotes the Bible, “(He suffered sudden loss of wealth property and family). He had seven sons and three daughters, all of whom suddenly died in a house collapse (Job. 1: 2,9).”

However, as Mawdudi has pointed out, the account of Job in the Biblical Book of Job cannot be reconciled with the concept of Prophethood as presented by the Qur’an, and hence it cannot be stated with any certainty that the two are speaking of the same person.

102. (It is possible that some people will miss the subtlety of the prayer. An illustrative example from the early Muslims might help). A woman complained to Sa`d b. Mu`adh that her house had no rats. He ordered that she be supplied with some good amount of bread, butter and meat (Alusi).

Sa`d understood that she had no provisions at home for rats to visit (Au.).

103. In the absence of reports coming from the Prophet or the Companions, it is difficult to establish Ayyub’s identity (Wahab b. Munabbih thought he was an Israelite). It is also not clear as to what trials Ayyub was subjected to. The authenticity of what is reported – in great detail – by some early commentators and narrators cannot be established. All the same, in sum it is as follows: Ayyub (asws) was subjected to trials affecting his wealth, crops, livestock, and children until he was left with nothing but a wife. She served him faithfully during his prolonged sickness and even worked outside to earn the living while Ayyub lay in bed. Notwithstanding the troubles, he stayed firm, not losing hope in Allah’s mercy. The period of trials over, he was given back all that he had lost, twice over. A report of Abu Hurayrah, preserved by Ibn Abi Hatim, whose sum and substance is in Bukhari, says,

لَمَّا عَافَى اللَّهُ أَيُّوبَ أَمْطَرَ عَلَيْهِ جَرَادًا مِنْ ذَهَبٍ، فَجَعَلَ يَأْخُذُهُ بِيَدِهِ وَيَجْعَلُهُ فِي ثَوْبِهِ، فَقِيلَ لَهُ: يَا أَيُّوبُ، أَمَا تَشْبَعُ؟ فَقَالَ: وَمَنْ يَشْبَعُ مِنْ رَحْمَتِكَ

“When Allah cured Ayyub, he sent a shower upon him of golden locusts. He began to collect them together in his garment. He was asked, ‘Ayyub, have you not had enough?’ He replied, ‘Sure, my Lord. But who can claim to have had enough of Your mercy?’” (Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir).

Qurtubi in passing and Shawkani in full report the following hadith of Hakim, who declared it creditable, which is also in the Sahih of Ibn Hibban (declared trustworthy by Haythami: S.Ibrahim): Anas reports the Prophet (saws) as having said,

إِن نَبِي الله أَيُّوب صلى الله عَلَيْهِ لبث فِي بلائه ثَمَان [عشرَة] سنة فرفضه الْقَرِيب والبعيد إِلَّا رجلَيْنِ من إخوانه كَانَا من أخص إخوانه كَانَا يغدوان إِلَيْهِ ويروحان ، فَقَالَ أَحدهمَا لصَاحبه : تعلم وَالله لقد أذْنب ذَنبا مَا أذنبه أحد من الْعَالمين . فَقَالَ لَهُ صَاحبه : وَمَا ذَاك ؟ قَالَ : قد أَصَابَهُ مُنْذُ ثَمَان [عشرَة] سنة لم يرحمه الله فَيكْشف مَا بِهِ . فَلَمَّا رَاحا إِلَيْهِ لم يصبر الرجل حَتَّى ذكر ذَلِك فَقَالَ أَيُّوب : لَا أَدْرِي مَا يَقُول ، غير أَن الله يعلم مَتى أَنِّي كنت أَمر على الرجلَيْن ينازعان فيذكران الله ، فأرجع إِلَى بَيْتِي فَأكفر عَنْهُمَا كَرَاهِيَة أَن يذكرُوا الله إِلَّا فِي حق . وَكَانَ يخرج إِلَى الْحَاجة فَإِذا قَضَاهَا أَمْسَكت امْرَأَته بِيَدِهِ حَتَّى يبلغ ، فَلَمَّا كَانَ ذَات يَوْم أَبْطَأت عَنهُ وأوحي إِلَى أَيُّوب فِي مَكَانَهُ أَن {اركض برجلك هَذَا مغتسل بَارِد وشراب} قَالَ : فاستبطأته امْرَأَته فَتَلَقَّتْهُ تنظر ، وَأَقْبل عَلَيْهَا قد أذهب الله مَا بِهِ من الْبلَاء وَهُوَ أحسن مَا كَانَ ، فَلَمَّا رَأَتْهُ قَالَت : أَي بَارك الله فِيك ، هَل رَأَيْت نَبِي الله هَذَا الْمُبْتَلى ، وَالله على ذَلِك مَا رَأَيْت أحدا أشبه بِهِ مِنْك إِذا كَانَ صَحِيحا ؟ قَالَ : فَإِنِّي أَنا هُوَ . قَالَ : وَكَانَ لَهُ أندران أندر للقمح وأندر للشعير ، فَبعث الله - تبَارك وَتَعَالَى - سحابتين فَلَمَّا كَانَت إِحْدَاهمَا على أندر الْقَمْح أفرغت فِيهِ الذَّهَب حَتَّى فاض ، وأفرغت الْأُخْرَى فِي أندر الشّعير الْوَرق حَتَّى فاض

“Ayyub remained under trial for 18 years. His friends, relatives, just everyone abandoned him except for two men who were his close brotherly companions. They used to visit him morning and evening. One day one of them remarked to the other, ‘Ayyub must have committed some grave sin for Allah not to have forgiven him for 18 years.’ The other mentioned it to Ayyub. He replied, ‘I don’t know what they are talking about. But Allah knows that I used to pass by two people arguing (and swearing in Allah’s name). I would come to my house and expiate for them as I did not like that Allah’s name be thus desecrated (through false oaths).’

“In any case,” the Prophet continued, “Ayyub used to go out to attend to the nature’s call. His wife would hold him by hand and help him return. One day she delayed in coming and Allah revealed to him at that place (Sad, 42), ‘Strike with your foot. This is good for a bath – cold, and (good for) drink.’ By the time she arrived, Allah had removed his affliction and he had become as good looking as he ever was. As she came close she asked him, ‘Did you happen to see Allah’s Prophet, the one who has been put to test? And, by Allah, he was almost like you, before he was afflicted.’ He assured her, ‘I am he.’ He had two large bottles, one for wheat storage, and the other for barley. Allah sent two patches of clouds. One of them poured gold into the wheat bottle to its fill and the other filled his barley bottle with silver.” (Free translation, with explanation from Qurtubi).

Shu`ayb al-Arna’ut treated this narration found in Sahih of Ibn Hibban as meeting with the requirements of Muslim (Au.).

It can be guessed in explanation of the above report that when Prophet Ayyub said, ‘I used to pass by two people arguing ..’ that he was speaking of those very two persons one of whom conjectured that ‘he (Ayyub) must have committed a grave sin..’ In other words, he subtly complained, in effect, ‘if that was my way with you – that I prayed for you in secret – this is your way with me, that you send across taunts to me!’ Thus, this hadith should be enough to reject Ayyub’s identity with Job of the Bible, which heaps upon him innumerable blasphemies and statements unbecoming of a Prophet. E.g., (Job, 10: 2-3), “I will say to God, Do not condemn me; let me know why thou thus contend against me? Does it seem good to oppress, to despise the work of thy hands, and favor the design of the wicked?” (Au.).

104. Yusuf Ali comments, “Isma`il is mentioned specially, apart from the line which descended through Isaac (xxi, 72), as he was the founder of a separate and greater Ummat.” Then he follows up to bring to light what most commentators have missed out, “His suffering began in infancy .. but his steady constancy and submission to the will of Allah were specially shown when he earned the title of ‘Sacrifice to Allah’ .. That was the peculiar quality of his constancy and patience.”

105. Opinions have varied among the earliest scholars whether Dhu al-Kifl, was a Prophet or merely a pious person (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir). But the company in which he has been mentioned here leads us to the opinion that perhaps he was a Prophet (Thanwi).

Majid offers us some information, although it cannot be wholly trusted for its veracity, since towns and people with identical names have always existed. His comments run as follows: “(Dhu al-Kifl is) Probably an Arabicized form of Ezekiel. ‘He was among the aristocracy whom Nebuchadnazzar (597 B.C.), after the first capture of Jerusalem, carried off to be in exile in Babylonia .. His prophecies extended over twenty-two years (JE. V. 313). ‘The traditional burial-place of the prophet Ezekiel, .. is shown at Kefil near Bira Nimrud: for centuries it has been a favorite place of pilgrimage for Mohammedans as well as for Jews’ (p. 316). Speaking of the ruins of Babylon, says an explorer and traveler of the last century:- ‘To the south-west, in the extreme distance, rose the palm trees of Kefil, casting their scanty shade over a small dome, covering the tomb of Ezkiel. To this spot flock in crowds, as their forefathers have done for centuries, the Jews of Baghdad, Hillah and other cities of Chaldea the descendants of the captives of Jerusalem, who still linger in the land of their exile’ (Layard, Nineveh and Babylon p. 281).”

106. “I.e., steadfast in faith” (Majid).

107. Lit., man of the fish, the allusion is to Yunus bin Matta of Nineveh (a town in the area of Mosul in northern Iraq), so called because he remained imprisoned in a fish’s stomach for some time.

Yusuf Ali writes: “He was the Prophet raised to warn the Assyrian capital Nineveh .. When his first warning was unheeded by his people, he denounced Allah’s wrath on them. But they repented and Allah forgave them for the time being. Jonah meanwhile, departed in wrath, discouraged at the apparent failure of his mission. He should have remained in the most discouraging circumstances, and relied on the power of Allah; for Allah had power both over Nineveh and over the Messenger He had sent to Nineveh. He went away to the sea and took a ship, but apparently the sailors threw him out as a man of bad omen in a storm. He was swallowed by a big Fish (or Whale), but in the depth of darkness, he cried to Allah and confessed his weakness.. Allah Most High forgave him. He was cast ashore, he was given the shelter of a plant in his state of mental and physical lassitude. He was refreshed and strengthened, and the work of his mission prospered.”

108. Whom was he angry with? One of the answers is, for the sake of Allah. He was angry with his people, for not having believed in Allah’s message. There are other explanations coming down from the past commentators, but none from the well-known experts such as Ibn `Abbas, Ibn Mas`ud, or their students. For details see Surah Yunus, note 138-140 of this work.

109. The translation is literal. But the literal meaning, although coming down from Hasan al-Busri, stands, according to almost all ancient commentators, rejected since it is unbecoming of Prophets to think in those terms (Alusi, Shawkani). Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Qatadah and others have explained the meaning as, ‘He (Yunus) thought he would not be taken to task (for having left his people).’ That is, he left the town and his people before he was specifically commanded by Allah to do so, (thus making an error in judgment) [Zamakhshari]. A few other lesser class of commentators have offered one or two other explanations, but Ibn Jarir prefers the above as correct as does Ibn Kathir and others. Qurtubi also mentions this as one of the possible meanings and most of them quote the following verse in evidence (65: 7):

وَمَنْ قُدِرَ عَلَيْهِ رِزْقُهُ فَلْيُنْفِقْ مِمَّا آتَاهُ اللَّهُ [الطلاق : 7]

“But he whose resources are restricted, may spend according to what Allah has bestowed on him.”

It may be noted that in the above verse the word “qudira” has not been used in the sense of “power” but in sense of “restriction. The well-known hadith about the fearful man who instructed his corpse burnt and ashes spread into the sea, also uses the word “qadira” in more or less the same sense.

110. The textual word is “zulumat” i.e., darkness in plural. What darknesses were they? The answer given, although uncertain is: darkness of the night, darkness of the seas, and darkness of the whale’s belly (Ibn Jarir). This is reported of several of the earliest commentators (Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir).

111. Majid comments, “The forgiveness he craves is for the error of judgment, and not for any sin. The Prophets of God are the very first to own and acknowledge their mistakes, however unintentional or trivial they may have been.”

A hadith (of Ahmad, Abu Da’ud, and Nas a’i [in Yawm wa Laylah]: Ibn Kathir) reports the Prophet as having said that no Muslim uttered these words:

لا إِلَهَ إِلا أَنْتَ سُبْحَانَكَ إِنِّي كُنْتُ مِنَ الظَّالِمِينَ

in his prayer for anything, but Allah responded (Ibn Jarir, Zamakhshari, Razi, Qurtubi).

112. Yusuf Ali once again, “It is not that I crave a personal heir to myself: all things go back to Thee, and Thou art the best of inheritors: but I see no one around me sincere enough to carry out my work for Thee; wilt Thou give me one whom I can train?

113. That is, cured her of her sterility. Another reported explanation is that she was loose-tongued and Allah cured her (Qurtubi, Shawkani).

114. Asad comments, “..the expression allati ahsanat farjaha occurring in the above verse .. (is) rejection of the calumny (referred to in 4: 156 and obliquely alluded to in 19: 27-28) that the birth of Jesus was the result of an ‘illicit union.’”

115. The use of the phrase “of My spirit” draws the following from Asad, “This allegorical expression, used here with reference to Mary’s conception of Jesus, has been widely – and erroneously – interpreted as relating specifically to his birth. As a matter of fact, the Qur’an uses the same expression in three other places with reference to the creation of man in general – namely in 15: 29 and 38: 72, ‘when I have formed him .. and breathed into him of My spirit’; and in 32: 9, ‘and thereupon He forms [lit., ‘formed’] him fully and breathes [lit., breathed] into him of His spirit.’ In particular, the passage of which the last-quoted phrase is a part (i.e., 32: 7-9) make it abundantly and explicitly clear that God ‘breathes of His spirit’ into every human being. Commenting on the verse under consideration, Zamakhshari states that ‘the breathing of the spirit [of God] into a body signifies the endowing it with life’: an expression with which Razi concurs.”

116. The translation of the textual Ummah as religion follows the understanding of Ibn `Abbas and Mujahid as in Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir and others.

The word has been used in this sense at another place in the Qur’an. Allah said (43: 23),

إِنَّا وَجَدْنَا آبَاءَنَا عَلَى أُمَّةٍ [الزخرف : 23]

“Indeed, we found our forefathers on a religion..” (Shawkani).

Majid comments, “I.e., this way of life which is prescribed for you is the same as has been preached and practiced by all the prophets and holy men and women, howsoever widely divided by time and space; Islam is only a continuation of that old religion.”

An off chance exists that the Ummah alludes to community or nation. Yusuf Ali might then be quoted, “Our attention has been drawn to people of very different temperament and virtues, widely different in time, race, language, surroundings, history, and work to be performed, but forming the closest brotherhood as being men and women united in the highest service to Allah. They pre-figure the final and perfected Brotherhood of Islam.”

117. The textual “amr” refers to religion. That is, they split away from the true religion of One God, or differed between themselves to give rise to sectarianism (Ibn Jarir).