3. The meaning of “tabaaraka” as given here reflects the understanding of Ibn `Abbas as in Ibn Jarir, and of Zajjaj as in Qurtubi.

The report about Ibn `Abbas is in Ibn Abi Hatim also (Shawkani).

Linguistically however, as Zamakhshari, Razi and others point out, the word in the root is barakah which means increase in (all kinds of) good and beneficence. In this case, tabaaraka would point to overflow of benefits and goodness from Allah. It is outflow of good that resulted in the revelation of the Qur’an, and hence the importance of knowledge (Razi). There have been other explanations, quite philosophic, by Razi (though in greater detail by Alusi) while Qurtubi, as well as others inform us that the root word leads us to another meaning: that of permanence and eternity of Allah’s Attributes.

Ibn al-Qayyim explains that the attribution of “barakah” to Allah means attribution of the Qualities of mercy, power and honor to Him. In verb form the word becomes “tabaaraka” which is applicable only to Allah and none else. Hence, he on whom He bestowed “barakah” is mubaarak, e.g., the mubaarak Book, the mubaarak Messenger, etc. Here, however, as well as in all other places in the Qur’an, the word “tabaaraka” has been used as an adjective and not as a verb (Badaa’i`).

Yusuf Ali adds: “Tabaaraka: the root meaning is "increase" or "abundance". Here that aspect of Allah's dealing with His creatures is emphasised, which shows abundant goodness to all His creatures, in that He sent the Revelation of His Will, not only in the unlimited Book of Nature, but in a definite Book in human language, which gives clear directions and admonitions to all. The English word ‘blessed’ hardly conveys that meaning.”

4. The textual word for “sending down” is “nazzala” which is a verb form used for expressing exaggeration or emphasis. Here it has been used to emphasize the gradual, and therefore, fragmentized sending down of the revelation as against the previous Scriptures that were sent down as one whole (Ibn Kathir). As Allah said (3: 3), points out Razi:

{نَزَّلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَأَنْزَلَ التَّوْرَاةَ وَالْإِنْجِيلَ} [آل عمران: 3]

“He has sent down upon you the Book with the truth, confirming that which preceded it (as) He sent down the Tawrah and the Injil.”

In this ayah, Allah used two different words for two different Revelations. He used nazzala for the Qur’an, while anzala (which is for sending down in one installment) for Torah and Injeel.

5. Yusuf Ali comments on “al-furqaan”: “That by which we can judge clearly between right and wrong. Here the reference is to the Qur’an, which has already been symbolised by light. This symbol is continued here, and many contrasts are shown, in the midst of which we can distinguish between the true and the false by Allah's Light, especially the contrast between righteousness and sin.þ”

A second meaning, as most commentators have pointed out, is that of a separator – from faraqa: to separate – in this case, the separator of truth and falsehood.”

6. `Abd (slave) is an honorific title. The best that one can do is to be an `abd of Allah. When Allah uses the term for a person, it means He holds that person in high repute. Hence, on all important occasions Prophet Muhammad was referred to as an `abd in the Qur`an (Ibn Kathir).

7. Ibn Zayd has said that the pronoun of li-yakuna is for the Prophet. He was and remains a warner unto the worlds. Allah said (35: 24),

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

“And there hasn’t been a nation except a warner had been in it.”

And (26: 208),

{وَمَا أَهْلَكْنَا مِنْ قَرْيَةٍ إِلَّا لَهَا مُنْذِرُونَ} [الشعراء: 208]

“And We did not destroy a town but it had its warners.”

Initially, there was only one warner: the Messenger. After he had passed away, he became a warner unto everyone who received the message after him. The Qur’an said (6: 19),

{وَأُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ هَذَا الْقُرْآنُ لِأُنْذِرَكُمْ بِهِ وَمَنْ بَلَغَ} [الأنعام: 19]

“And this Qur’an has been revealed to me in order that I warn you and those whom it reaches.”

That is, those that the Qur’an reaches. Hence the Prophet is a warner unto the worlds. The Qur’an told him to announce (7: 158),

{قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ جَمِيعًا} [الأعراف: 158]

“O people. I am indeed Allah’s Messenger unto you all.”

Ibn Zayd also said that Allah never sent a Messenger to the entire world population except Nuh, with whom He began a new creation, and Muhammad, with whom He ended (the series) – Ibn Jarir.

Qurtubi also explains the verse in the above manner.

The Prophet said,

بُعِثْتُ إِلَى النَّاسِ كَافَّةً الأَحْمَرِ وَالأَسْوَدِ

“I have been sent to the entire mankind, the reds and the blacks.”

The above report of Ahmad was evaluated as Hasan by Shu`ayb al-Arna’ud (Au.).

He also said,

أُعْطِيتُ خَمْسًا لَمْ يُعْطَهُنَّ أَحَدٌ قَبْلِي … وَكَانَ النَّبِيُّ يُبْعَثُ إِلَى قَوْمِهِ خَاصَّةً وَبُعِثْتُ إِلَى النَّاسِ عَامَّةً

“I enjoy specialty in five things...and a Prophet used to be raised for his own people alone while I have been raised for the entire mankind.”

He mentioned as fifth that while others were sent to a particular nation, he was sent to all the peoples (Ibn Kathir).

Bukhari and Muslim recorded it (Au.).

8. “The worlds” – i.e., (the worlds of) the Jinn and mankind (Zamakhshari, Razi).

Sayyid adds: “The words, ‘that he may be a warner unto the worlds’ appearing in a Makkan Surah leave no room that from the first day of revelation this message was meant for all mankind; and not, as some historians state, that originally the message was for the Arabs alone; later, with the subjugation of the Arabs, the Prophet declared it for others too, as a later thought and introduction. This ayah disproves this theory.”

9. That is, created every being in form, shape, size, attributes, and potentialities in such a manner that each of them is able to perform its specific function in a precise manner (Zamakhshari).

Majid writes: “Several pagan philosophers, such as Epicurus, denied in toto the Divine superintendence of human affairs, and this human self-sufficiency was echoed by the latter-day Jews. The Sadducees among them held that there was no such thing as ‘fate’, and that ‘human actions are not directed according to it, but all actions are in our own power, so that we are ourselves the cause of what is good.’ (DB. IV. p. 53) The Holy Qur’an corrects all such misconceptions and makes it clear that every event, big or small, that comes to pass in the universe, is the direct outcome of the All-Wise, All-Righteous, All-Powerful God, and not the subject either to chance or necessity, and that the governing hand of God is visible through every process of nature, through the march of history, and through the fortunes of every individual life, steadily working out His preconceived Plan.”

10. The idols of the idolaters are a good case in point. Their worshippers create them giving them forms and shapes, many of which are so terribly ugly, that were the idols given life, they would attack their creators for making them so ugly. The point is, the idols are themselves created beings which have no power over good or bad and yet they are worshipped! (Au., with a point from Zamakhshari).

11. Mujahid said that when the Makkan pagans alleged that the Prophet had been assisted by some others in his forgery, their allusion was to the Jews (Ibn Jarir). But there were a few Makkans too who they alleged that they taught Muhammad (Qurtubi, Alusi and others).

What prevented them, Razi and Qurtubi wonder, from seeking the help of “those others” and produce a similar Qur’an?

And, what prevented them, wonders Mawdudi, from raiding the house of Muhammad, seize the relevant texts and place them before the public eye!?

But when such replies are given, their modern counterparts, the Western Orientalists, scholars and scientists pretend not to be listening (Au.).

12. According to a report attributed to Ibn `Abbas and Ibn Jurayj, it was Nadr b. al-Harith, one of the Quraysh, a widely traveled man who used to say that the Qur’anic revelations were “tales of the ancients.” He would take the Prophet’s place after he had left an assembly, and narrate tales of Rustam, Isfandyar, Persians kings, and others, and ask, “Aren’t my tales better than the tales of the ancients that this man (Muhammad) narrates?” The Qur’an referred to him no less than eight times, and every time the words employed were, “tales of the ancients” – Ibn Jarir.

Adds Ibn Kathir: This was a foolish and patently wrong statement from the pagans. It was commonly known that Muhammad did not learn how to read and write: neither in his childhood nor any time later in his life. He grew up right before their eyes from the day of his birth until he proclaimed Messengership at forty. They knew very well everything about him: his honesty, trustworthiness, righteousness, and that he was far away from lies, evil deeds and every unbecoming activity. But when Allah bestowed on him the great honor, they took to enmity and began to accuse him of things every reasonable person knew he was innocent of. Sometimes they said he was a magician, at other times that he was a poet, while on other occasions that he was mad, until Allah said, “See how they strike similitudes for you! Thus they went astray and will not be able (to find) a way.”

13. That is, Allah, who knows the secrets of the heavens and the earth, also knows the plotting and scheming of the opponents of the Prophet’s call. He could have immediately punished them for their sins, but He is All-forgiving, All-merciful (Ibn Kathir, Zamakhshari, Razi and others).

Another possibility is that they are being coaxed into seeking forgiveness from One who is All-Merciful (Alusi).

Yusuf Ali writes: “The answer (to their objections) is that the Qur’an teaches spiritual knowledge of what is ordinarily hidden from men's sight, and such knowledge can only come from Allah, to Whom alone is known the secret of the whole Creation. In spite of man’s sin and shortcomings, He forgives, and He sends His most precious gift, i.e., the revelation of His Will.”

14. While promising more details later, Qurtubi points out that going about in the markets – for a purpose - is not an impious habit. Thanwi’s penetrating mind brings out the idea that the undesirability reported in the ahaadith is for purposeless sauntering in the markets (today’s window-shopping: Au.). In fact, he adds, if someone doesn’t go into the markets out of pride, then his ‘not going about’ in them is undesirable, while going about would be commendable.

What he means is that some people never go the markets out of pride, leaving it for the plebian. Also see note 26 below (Au.).

Sayyid Qutb looks at other aspects: “Allah’s honoring of Man manifests itself in this .. but those who do not appreciate the worth of this creature (Man), nor the true meaning of Allah’s honor that Allah wished for him, refuse that humans should have contacts with Allah through revelation. They refuse that one of the humans should be a Messenger from Allah. They see that angels were more suitable. They ask, ‘Why an angel has not been sent down to him to be with him as a warner?’ ...

“Allah’s wisdom manifests itself in the fact that one of the humans should appear as a Messenger unto the humans. It can only be one of the humans - who feels like they do, who experiences their emotions, who undergoes their experiences, who shares their hopes and fears, who knows their tendencies and delights, who knows their needs and burdens, and, in addition, is favorably disposed towards understanding their weaknesses and shortcomings, who has hopes in their strengths and their efforts to advance, who walks with them step by step, who understands their motives, sensitivities and responses: for, in the end he is one of them, who explores with them the way to Allah … through the revelations of Allah and seeks Divine help to face the hardships of the way – it can only be such a human who could be raised as a Messenger.

“On the other hand, they find in him a model possible of imitation. For, he is a man like them, who seeks to raise them little by little. He lives among them bearing values, deeds and burdens about which he informs them that Allah has made obligatory on them and is desirous of them. Thus, he is in his own person a living explanation of the message that he brings to them. His life, his movements and his deeds are meant to be placed in front of them so that they could transfer them (unto themselves) line by line, and put into action, in the truest possible sense. They can aim to imitate him. For, he is a living example. Had he been an angel, they would not have thought of imitating his deeds nor to follow him, for, from the start they would have realized that his nature is different from their own. In that event, it would have been obvious that his behavior should be different from theirs, which would create no desire for imitation, nor any wish to conduct themselves in the light shown by him ...

“One of naïve objections raised by the unbelievers was that the Messenger went about in the markets, seeking his livelihood… But Allah did not wish that he should possess a treasure or an orchard. He wished that he should be a complete example for them, who bore the responsibilities of messengership, while, at the same time struggled to earn his livelihood, as anyone of his followers did. So, that, no one of his followers who tired himself in earning his sustenance should say, ‘So far as the worldly needs are concerned, the Prophet had been taken care of. He never struggled to earn and hence was able to free himself for his beliefs, his message and his responsibilities thereof. He never faced any of the hardships (as I do).’ But, in actual fact, here was the Prophet, striving, in order to earn while he also struggled for his cause. So, the least that one of his followers can do today is to bear his own meager share of the Prophet’s burden. And he has his example before him. Yes, the Prophet did receive wealth later, toward the end of his life. That was in order that he should be an example of the other extreme also, and so that his example should remain complete. He did not allow the wealth that arrived to prevent him from any of his duties. But rather, he became like a wind unleashed in his generosity and came out the better when tested with wealth. So that, no one could say after him, ‘The Messenger lived in poverty, wealth never distracted him in any way.’ For, there he was, wealth coming to him in abundance, but he carried on as usual with his call, behaving those days as if he was poverty stricken.”

15. That’s what Fir`awn had said about Musa (43: 53),

{فَلَوْلَا أُلْقِيَ عَلَيْهِ أَسْوِرَةٌ مِنْ ذَهَبٍ أَوْ جَاءَ مَعَهُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ مُقْتَرِنِينَ } [الزخرف: 53]

“Then why not has he been given golden bangles or came with him angels (in) close company?” (Ibn Kathir).

16. Qurtubi, Alusi and Shawkani repeat the story narrated by Ibn Is-haq involving `Utbah b. Rabi`ah, Abu Sufyan, Nadr b. al-Harith, Abu al-Bakhtari and several others seeking a compromise solution with the Prophet, during which they made demands of the nature mentioned in this verse. See surah al-Isra’ note 144.

One can notice how the pagans came down in their demands. First they said “What’s with this Messenger that he eats food and walks about in the markets?” That is, why is he not an angel without the need to eat and drink? Then they scaled down their demand to say that if he could not have been an angel, then, at least there should have been an angel in his company. They said (verse 7), “Why an angel has not been sent down to him to be with him as a warner?” Then they dropped the demand that an angel should accompany him. Yet, some sort of special treatment was, according to them, in order. Therefore they suggested, “A treasure (should have been) poured down on him.” Finally, they scaled down to demanding that he could be a human like them in every sense except that at least economically he should be well off. So they demanded that “he should have had an orchard he could eat therefrom” (Zamakhshari).

17. This because the true path is one single path. Whoever lost it, will never find another, no matter in what direction he heads thereafter (Ibn Kathir).

Mawdudi sums up: “These objections to the claim of Prophethood are not described here in order to refute them. Rather, they are mentioned simply to show the extent of the opponents’ blindness which arose from their spite and prejudice. Indeed, the charges so made against the Prophet were not even worth refuting. Rather, it was sufficient to mention them in order to demonstrate that they had no logical argument to support their contentions, and that they were opposing a sound and reasonable message with nothing more than vile and stupid statements. When they were told that polytheism, on which their faith and culture rested, was erroneous and devoid of every bias, they made no effort to marshal any rational arguments in support of their beliefs. Instead, they sought to decry the Prophet (peace be on him) by saying that he was a man bewitched. When the Messenger of God (peace be on him) demonstrated that monotheism was the operating principle of the whole universe and when he pointed to the manifest proofs which supported his truth, they merely rebuffed his claim by saying that he was no more than a magician.”