Surah An-Naml 27:59-66 - Quran Translation Commentary

(27:60) Or, He who created the heavens and the earth,⁸³ and sent down for you out of heaven water⁸⁴ – then We caused to grow therewith delightful gardens;⁸⁵ it was not (possible) for you to cause their trees to grow – is there a god with Allah? But rather, they are a people who swerve away (from the truth).⁸⁶

(27:61) Or, He who made for you the earth a resting place,⁸⁷ and set amidst it rivers, and assigned for it pegs, and placed between the two seas a barrier⁸⁸ – is there a god with Allah? But rather, most of them do not know.

(27:62) Or, He who responds to the distressed when he appeals to Him and removes the evil,⁸⁹ and makes you successors in the earth⁹⁰ – is there a god with Allah? Seldom it is that you keep (this) in mind.

(27:63) Or, He who guides you through the darknesses of the land and sea, and who sends the winds as heralds of his forthcoming mercy⁹¹ – is there a god with Allah? Exalted High is Allah, above that which they associate (with Him).⁹²

(27:64) Or, He who originates the creation,⁹³ then repeats it, and provides you out of heaven and earth – is there a god with Allah? Say, ‘Bring your evidence if you are truthful.’⁹⁴

(27:65) Say, ‘None knows the Unseen in the heavens and the earth except Allah.’ And they do not know when they will be resurrected.⁹⁵

(27:66) But rather, their knowledge failed⁹⁶ as to the Hereafter; nay, they are in doubt thereof; nay, they are blind thereunto.⁹⁷

Commentary

81. Ibn `Abbas and Sufyan al-Thawri believed that the allusion by those that Allah chose is to the Companions of the Prophet (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir). Zayd b. Aslam’s opinion was that the allusion is to the Prophets and Messengers. It is they who were chosen by Allah (Ibn Kathir).

Allah teaches us that this is how we should commence our talks and speeches (Alusi).

82. “’Who is better: Allah or the gods that they associate with Him as His partners?’ The polytheists did not have the courage to face the question in this manner, for even the most hardened among them would not say that the deities were better than God. And if they accepted that God was better, the very foundation of their religion would be undermined and it would be unreasonable for them, thereafter, to say that they preferred what was inferior to that which was superior. By posing this question the Qur’an immediately disarms its opponents” (Mawdudi).

83. There is a little bit of ellipsis (ijaz) involved here. When it is said, “Or, He who created the heavens and the earth..,” it is as if being asked, “Is Allah better who created the heavens and the earth .. or the deities you suggest?” (Au.).

84. When we consider the fact that living organisms, topped by the humans, inhabit only the earth, and that none of the other ten to eleven planets, nor their dozens of moon-like satellites, some of them as large as the earth, have been graced with water, then, the true meaning of, “And sent down for you out of heaven water” dawns upon us (Au.).

85. In comparison to bustan, hadiqah is that orchard which has a fence around it (Ibn Jarir).

So, there is creation: “created the heavens and the earth,” regulation: “sent down for you out of heaven water,” sustenance: “caused to grow therewith,” and finally, beauty, “delightful gardens” (Au.).

86. That is, they are a people who swerve away from the truth (Ibn Jarir).

The words could also be translated as, “they are a people who assigns equals (to Allah).”

Majid comments: “In Vedic religion, for instance, ‘both Heaven and Earth are regarded as the parents of gods (deva-gods) even though they are said to have been generated by gods. Sometimes one god – Indira, or Agni, or Rudra, or Soma – sometimes all the gods together, are said to have generated or created heaven and earth, the whole world (ERE. IV. p. 156).”

87. That is, a mass of matter that does not shake, convulse or quiver. When it does, as during an earth-quake, it causes devastation (Au.).

88. See Surah Al-Furqan, ayah 53 for notes..

89. Accordingly, Abu Saleh reports that “when Ta’us visited me in my sickness, I said to him, ‘Pray for me.’ He replied, ‘Pray for yourself for, He responds to the distressed when he calls Him.’” Imam Ahmad has a report that,

عَنْ رَجُلٍ مِنْ بَلْهُجَيْمٍ قَالَ قُلْتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِلاَمَ تَدْعُو قَالَ « أَدْعُو إِلَى اللَّهِ وَحْدَهُ الَّذِى إِنْ مَسَّكَ ضُرٌّ فَدَعَوْتَهُ كَشَفَ عَنْكَ وَالَّذِى إِنْ ضَلَلْتَ بِأَرْضٍ قَفْرٍ دَعَوْتَهُ رَدَّ عَلَيْكَ وَالَّذِى إِنْ أَصَابَتْكَ سَنَةٌ فَدَعَوْتَهُ أَنْبَتَ عَلَيْكَ ».

A man of Balhujaym said, “Messenger of Allah! What’s your call?” He answered, “I am calling unto One Allah who relieves you when you call Him in distress, who leads you back if you call Him when you are lost in the wilderness, who makes your crops grow when drought strikes and you appeal to Him.”

(The above has been shortened in view of the next that follow).

According to Albani, the report above is trustworthy: S. Ibrahim.

Ahmad has another report coming from Jabir b. Sulaym al-Hujaymi.

عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ سُلَيْمٍ الْهُجَيْمِىِّ قَالَ أَتَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- وَهُوَ مُحْتَبٍ بِشَمْلَةٍ وَقَدْ وَقَعَ هُدْبُهَا عَلَى قَدَمَيْهِ فَقُلْتُ أَيُّكُمْ مُحَمَّدٌ أَوْ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ -صلى الله عليه وسلم- فَأَوْمَأَ بِيَدِهِ إِلَى نَفْسِهِ فَقُلْتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِنِّى مِنْ أَهْلِ الْبَادِيَةِ وَفِىَّ جَفَاؤُهُمْ فَأَوْصِنِى. فَقَالَ « لاَ تَحْقِرَنَّ مِنَ الْمَعْرُوفِ شَيْئاً وَلَوْ أَنْ تَلْقَى أَخَاكَ وَوَجْهُكَ مُنْبَسِطٌ وَلَوْ أَنْ تُفْرِغَ مِنْ دَلْوِكَ فِى إِنَاءِ الْمُسْتَسْقِى وَإِنِ امْرُؤٌ شَتَمَكَ بِمَا يَعْلَمُ فِيكَ فَلاَ تَشْتُمْهُ بِمَا تَعْلَمُ فِيهِ فَإِنَّهُ يَكُونُ لَكَ أَجْرُهُ وَعَلَيْهِ وِزْرُهُ وَإِيَّاكَ وَإِسْبَالَ الإِزَارِ فَإِنَّ إِسْبَالَ الإِزَارِ مِنَ الْمَخِيلَةِ وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ لاَ يُحِبُّ الْمَخِيلَةَ وَلاَ تَسُبَّنَّ أَحَداً ». فَما سَبَبْتُ بَعْدَهُ أَحَداً وَلاَ شَاةً وَلاَ بَعِيراً.

He said, “I went to see the Prophet. He was sitting with his head-gear wrapped around his feet. Its end had fallen on his feet. I said, ‘Which of you is Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah?’ He pointed to himself. I said, ‘Messenger of Allah, I am of the desert and I discover hard-heartedness in myself. So, admonish me.’ He said, ‘Do not belittle any good deed; even if it is just meeting your brother with a smile; and even if you can empty your bucket in the water-seeker’s pot. And, if someone taunts you over something that he knows is in you, you do not taunt him back over what you find in him. You will have a reward for it while the sin will be on him. And beware! Let not your trousers hang below the ankles, for letting down the trousers is a thing of pride, and Allah does not approve of pride. And do not curse anything.’ (The Hujaymi said), "I never cursed anyone or anything after that, neither a goat nor a camel.” The hadith is also in Abu Da’ud and Nasa’i and is better reported in those books (Ibn Kathir).

We might note in the above that the man had complained of the hardness of his heart, and therefore, all that the Prophet (saws) suggested to him would have gone into softening his heart if he put them to practice. Unwittingly, the man acknowledged the effect of the counsel on him by saying, “I never cursed anyone or anything thereafter, neither a goat nor a camel.” Could any other ordinary man's words have had the same effect upon a hard-hearted rugged Bedouin? (Au.)

In the context of Allah helping the distressed, Ibn Kathir has two stories, both of which are in Ibn `Asakir’s work. The first reports Muhammad b. Da’ud al-Daynouri - better known as Daqi Sufi. He narrated from another man who said, “I used to rent my mule’s back to people wishing to travel to other towns. Once I took a man with me and as I was outside the town, he asked me to take an unknown direction. I said I was unfamiliar with that route. He said he knew it well enough and that it was a shortcut. But, as we reached a desolate place with lots of human remains in a valley, the man alighted. He gathered his clothes, brought out a knife, and began to advance towards me as if he wanted kill me. I tried to run away but he caught up with me. I told him he could keep my mule and all that it carried. He said they were his anyway and that nothing but my life would satisfy him. When I saw that I couldn’t escape, I asked to be allowed to Pray two cycles. He told me to do it fast. But when I tried to recite the Qur’an, not a word would come to my mind and I stood there in silence. He was urging me to get over with it quick. Finally, the following words came to my mind:

{أَمْ مَنْ يُجِيبُ الْمُضْطَرَّ إِذَا دَعَاهُ وَيَكْشِفُ السُّوءَ} [النمل: 62]

No sooner had I said these words that a horseman began to approach through the mouth of the valley. He had a spear which he hurled at the man striking him in his chest. In a moment he lay dead. I asked the horsemen who he was. He said, ‘I am sent by Him who responds when a distressed person calls upon Him.’”

Another story has it that there was a man whose horse spoke to him during a battle against the Romans, to the effect that it was being mistreated by his syce. The story spread and people would visit him just to hear the story directly from him. The news reached the Romans whose ruler said that if there was such a man among them they wouldn’t be able to overcome the Muslims. So he sent an apostate to kidnap the man. He came pretending having embraced Islam anew in all earnestness, and became friendly with him. One day, as they were going together somewhere, another man appeared. It was clear that they had pre-planned to kidnap him. When the man saw that he was overpowered, he supplicated, “O Allah, You know they have deceived me. So help me in whatever way You will.” Two wild beasts appeared and devoured the two men.

Quote from Ibn Kathir ends here.

90. That is, one generation of men succeeds another (Ibn Jarir).

Had Allah willed, He could have brought out all the people He wished to create till the end of Time, at once, at one time on the earth. But rather, He willed that they should appear one generation after another, one nation after another, and so on (Ibn Kathir).

91. The allusion is to the cool, fragrant winds that precede rains (Au.).

92. Majid comments on how multiple deities find their place in human society: “Once an erring humanity has formed conception of a multiplicity of gods, there is no end to god-manufacturing. ‘It is the first step that costs: once you have got the idea of a god fairly evolved, any number of gods may be invented or introduced from all quarters. A great pantheon readily admits new numbers to its ranks from many strange sources … The Romans, indeed, deified every conceivable operation of nature or of human life: they had gods or goddesses for the minutest details of agriculture, of social relations, of the first years of childhood, of marriage and domestic arrangements generally’ (Allen, Evolution of the Idea of God, p. 21).”

93. Majid offers us a comparison: “Contrast this with the openly polytheistic teaching of the NT, ‘Giving thanks unto the Father … hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son … Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creation: For by him were all things created, that are in heavens, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist … For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell’ (Col. 1: 12-19).”

Origin of the World

After three centuries of intense research, experimentations, observations, and theoretical speculations, the scientists are now in a vicious circle of their own making. They are in the same position which the Prophet (saws) had predicted, but without the solution that he offered. He said, as in reports of Bukhari, Muslim and others, “Shaytan comes to one of you and asks, ‘Who created such and such a thing? such and such a thing?…’ until he asks, ‘who created your Lord?’ When he reaches this (stage of thought), let him seek Allah’s refuge and stop thinking further.” One does not need to be extraordinarily intelligent to conclude that if he did not stop, he will remain within the circle.

Science has simple facts at the bottom. Hence, a good scientific theory is one which, according to most scientists, is simple. (In most cases also beautiful). One of the simple statements of science is that every cause has an effect. If it is said, therefore, that such and such a thing happened by Allah’s will, directly, following His command, then, according to the scientists, one has not spoken science. Science wants something material, specific, demonstrable, and that which follows physical laws. So, according to them, for anything to happen there has to be a physical cause. Applied to the universe, it can be said safely that today’s universe is the effect of the causes of yesterday. One may go on backward to a point when it would have started. But, as one travels backward to the other end, as the scientists attempt, once again he enters into the circle.

As is generally known, the Universe is expanding. Yesterday’s universe was smaller than today’s. We go way back some 15 billion years, when it was infinitesimally small in size - to be precise 10-32 cm across - and was all energy, highly compressed, and no matter. Why not lesser than that? Because calculations fail below this size and below a point in time 10-42 seconds after the start of the event of creation, or at the event of the Big Bang. (These are known as Planck’s constants). It was at that point that, according to the theoreticians, time, space, the forces of nature, and laws came into being. Who caused the Big Bang? No answer. What caused it? No answer either. From where did the universe get its time, space, the four forces of nature, and laws that govern it? No answer. Now we are in a circle. Timothy Ferris, an emeritus professor at the University of California sums up:

“The first paradox may be stated: There can be no effect without a cause. Whatever events transpired near the outset of time, each must have been caused by some prior event. So we can never attain an account of the very beginning.”

“The second paradox: You can’t get something from – or for – nothing. The ‘origin’ of the universe, if that concept is to have any meaning, must create the universe out of nothing. Therefore there can be no logical explanation of genesis.”

“The third, and most telling cosmogonic paradox holds that: Regardless of its net energy, the universe must have originated from another system, and that system must in turn have an origin of some sort. And so we are caught in infinite regress.”

The author then proceeds to demonstrate, over several chapters, how these paradoxes can be resolved. In his words,

“Examining their thrown bones suggests that each has the potential of being resolved by shifting from a classical to a quantum paradigm. Attaining a quantum perspective is difficult. Living in a macroscopic world where quantum phenomena are rarely manifest, we humans came upon classical physics first, and tend to think of quantum physics as a special case. Nevertheless, it’s beginning to look like the universe is fundamentally a quantum system” (The Whole Shebang, Timothy Ferris, p. 246-48, Touchstone, Simon & Schuster, 1997).

To put it in simpler words what the above means is that when classical physics and cosmology (of Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus and Newton), fail to resolve the above paradoxes; quantum physics (that of Neils Bohr, Maxwell, Weinberger and Max Plank) rescues the situation. The universe at large gives no clue of its origin. Every theory that has been advanced in this regard has its own disadvantages and fails to answer the questions that arise if assumed as true. Furthermore, the explanations fail below Max Planck constants. That is, equations start to fail when taken beyond the Planck Time of 10-42 seconds after the big bang event, and below the size 10-32 cm. Below these levels, the problem has to be handed over to the world of quantum physics.

But, as explanations are launched in subsequent chapters of the book, it comes to light, to the discomfiture of the scientists, that quantum physics is fuzzy. At that level, sub-atomic particles seem to be endowed with contradictory qualities. E.g., they can both be particles as well as waves. They can be in two places at one time, crossing the limit set by Einstein’s equations, which suggest that nothing can travel at speeds greater than that of light. How will a particle behave, whether as a wave or a particle depends, amazingly, on the observer. If it is not observed, it behaves like a particle, but when subjected to observation it begins to behave as a wave. Of course, if science did not have experimental proofs, it would have been thought that they were taking the people for a ride. The sub-atomic particles behave in such inexplicable and unpredictable ways that their behavior is now referred to as weird. One another weird qualities of sub-atomic particles is that they seem to know what’s happening at the other end of the universe!

So the theories that explain the universe at the quantum level cannot be advanced in a straightforward logical manner. They need a few – almost philosophical – turns. They need some “ifs”, “perhapses”, “assumptions”, “suppositions” and words of this class to stand on their own. Hence the careful choice of words in the above statement. Note for example: “Examining their thrown bones suggests,” (note the words ‘suggests’), “that each has the potential” (note the words ‘has the potential’) “of being resolved by shifting from a classical to a quantum paradigm. Attaining a quantum perspective is difficult.” (So do not worry yourself about it. Just take it as true). “Living in a macroscopic world where quantum phenomena are rarely manifest, we humans came upon classical physics first, and tend to think of quantum physics as a special case.” (Note the words, “tend to think”). “Nevertheless, it’s beginning to look like the universe is fundamentally a quantum system” (note the words, ‘it’s beginning to look like’).

To be sure, studies and experiments at the quantum level have neither been able to, nor give hope of, the removal of ambiguities, anxieties and uncertainties. Some scientists have begun to make statements similar to what Darwin made when asked about how life began. He remarked that it was a meaningless question.

To our relief, not every scientist subscribes to the view that the world’s origin has a perfect scientific explanation. In the words of Ferris himself, (who places this piece of writing at the beginning rather than at the end of the discussion),

“Science as we know it is built on cause and effect, space and time. How can it comprehend as uncaused effect that, by definition, could not have occurred within a preexisting framework of space and time? Many scientists think it can’t. ‘Ultimately, the origin of the universe is, and always will be, a mystery,’ writes the astronomer Stuart Bowyer’. Says the physicist Charles Townes, ‘I do not understand how the scientific approach alone, as separated from a religious approach, can explain an origin of all things. It is true that physicists hope to look behind the “big bang,” and possibly to explain the origin of our universe as, for example, a type of fluctuation. But then, of what is it a fluctuation and how did this in turn begin to exist? In my view, the question of origin seems always left unanswered if we explore from scientific view alone.’” (The Whole Shebang, p. 245-46) - Au.

94. Asad comments, “The implication being that most people who profess belief in a multiplicity of divine powers, or even in the possibility of One God’s ‘incarnation’ in a created being, do so blindly, sometimes only under the influence of inherited cultural traditions and habits of thought, and not out of a reasoned conviction.”

95. Accordingly, `A’isha has said that whoever said that he – the Prophet – knew what tomorrow held, fastened a lie upon Allah, for Allah Himself said, ‘None knows the Unseen in the heavens and the earth except Allah’ (Ibn Jarir, Zamakhshari, Ibn Kathir).

In fact, the Prophet himself objected to being referred to as someone who knew what tomorrow held in store. On the authority of Rabi` bint Mu`awwaz, she said,

عَنْ الرُّبَيِّعِ بِنْتِ مُعَوِّذٍ قَالَتْ دَخَلَ عَلَيَّ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ غَدَاةَ بُنِيَ عَلَيَّ فَجَلَسَ عَلَى فِرَاشِي كَمَجْلِسِكَ مِنِّي وَجُوَيْرِيَاتٌ يَضْرِبْنَ بِالدُّفِّ يَنْدُبْنَ مَنْ قُتِلَ مِنْ آبَائِهِنَّ يَوْمَ بَدْرٍ حَتَّى قَالَتْ جَارِيَةٌ وَفِينَا نَبِيٌّ يَعْلَمُ مَا فِي غَدٍ فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَا تَقُولِي هَكَذَا وَقُولِي مَا كُنْتِ تَقُولِينَ

“The Prophet (saws) entered upon me the day I was being prepared (for marriage). He sat down on my bed as you (the next narrator) are sitting down now. Young girls were beating a tambourine and singing in praise of those of their fathers who had been martyred at Badr; until one of them sang out, ‘And amongst us is a Prophet who knows what tomorrow holds.’ The Prophet (saws) interrupted, ‘Do not say this. But rather say what you had been saying earlier’” (Au.).

And Qatadah has said in a trustworthy report, “Ignorant people have ascribed effects to stars. They say, ‘He who married according to such and such stars …, he who traveled when such and such stars …, he who was born by such and such star …’ and such other things, whereas neither do the stars, nor animals, nor birds know anything about the Unseen. Allah has decreed that no one shall know what is in the Unseen except He, and they do not know when they will be raised up” (Ibn Kathir).

96. Ibn `Abbas and Ibn Zayd said that the meaning is, “they missed its meaning.” There have been other alternative readings of the term “iddaraka” and hence as many interpretations (Ibn Jarir, Zamakhshari, Shawkani). A few other meanings forwarded are, “their knowledge about it is equal.” That is, they are equally ignorant. Or, their knowledge about the Hereafter will only be complete when they are actually raised in the Hereafter. Another interpretation is, “Their knowledge stops short of knowing when it will be” (Ibn Kathir).

97. Yusuf Ali comments on the hopeless state in which the deniers are: “The Unbelievers are generally materialists, who cannot go beyond the evidence of their physical senses. As to a spiritual vision of the future, their physical senses would only leave them in doubt and uncertainty, while their rejection of the spiritual Light makes them blind altogether to the next world.”

Asad adds: “I.e., (they are) blind to its logical necessity within God’s plan of creation. For, it is only on the premise of a life after death that the concept of man’s moral responsibility and, hence, of God’s ultimate judgment can have any meaning: and if the absence of choice is taken for granted, all differentiations between right and wrong become utterly meaningless as well.”