17. It could be said defining the connection between the previous verses and the following is that if it caused pain to the Prophet that some of his people he was sent to were not going to believe, then he might mention to them - as well as remind himself - of the story of an earlier people. In comparison you might note, the Prophet is told, that after all, you alone have been raised for your people, while three Messengers were raised in an earlier nation. Further, they were inhabitants of a single city, while you have been sent to entire mankind.

Is there for you any comfort in this? (Razi).

18. ‘Ikrimah has said that the allusion is to two envoys that ‘Isa ibn Maryam sent to Antakiyyah (Antioch),

but Wahb b. Munabbih (as reported by Ibn `Abbas and Ka`b al-Ahbar) thought that it were Messengers proper who were sent to Antakiyyah (Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi).

Ibn Kathir however disputes this report, (which obviously has its origin in Jewish sources: Au.). He says that the city of Antakiyyah was in fact the first to believe in the call of Jesus: the reason why it is one of the four cities that the Christians venerate. The others are Bayt al-Maqdis, being the birth place of Jesus Christ, Alexandria where the first church was established, and Rome whose emperor embraced Christianity and supported the early Christians.

Another difficulty, continues Ibn Kathir, is that the assumption of the destruction of Antakiyyah after the appearance of Jesus Christ contradicts the belief of the Salaf that Allah did not destroy any nation after the advent of Musa (asws). Statements to this effect can be found at the point the following verse is explained (28:43),

“We did give Musa the Book after We had destroyed the earlier generations.”

Also see note 75 of Surah Al-Qasas in this work.

Thanwi notes that another Tafsir work (not accessible to this writer) demonstrates how the comments of the Salaf are reconcilable. But, his own point is, the identification is not important. It is the lesson which is the main point of narration.

19. “The objection,” (viz., ‘You are no more than men like us,’) and its repetition throughout the history of the Prophets, reveals naivety and lack of basic understanding on the part of the people, as it also reflects a failure to appreciate the functions of a Messenger. Those people always expected that there should be some kind of mystery surrounding the life and personality of a Messenger. They thought that he should bear behind his outward mien, another person:

closer to mythologies and fantasies of their own imagination. How could his personality be open, free of all complexities, one which carried no secrets and bore no mysteries? How could Messengers be ordinary persons – of the kind that filled the market places? “They could not appreciate the simple fact that for a Messenger to receive revelation, and to be in touch with the other world, was itself a thing of wonder for them. Further, they failed to realize the point that one who had to function in the earth (and not in the heavens), who had to deal with real human situations, and offer guidance to real human problems, had to be, by the very nature of his call and function, one of them: a human being like any other.”

20. “[This passage alludes] to people who like to think of themselves as ‘believing’ in God without, however, allowing their ‘belief ’ to interfere with the practical concerns of their lives: and this they justify by conceding to religion no more than a vaguely emotional role, and by refusing to admit the fact of objective revelation – for the concept of revelation invariably implies a promulgation, by God, of absolute moral values and, thus, a demand of one’s self surrender to Islam” (Asad).

How correct Asad’s reading is can be judged from an unconnected and unintended event: a recent new Muslim has written a book which he entitles, “Struggling to Surrender” (Au.).

23. Ibn `Abbas, Ka`b al-Ahbar, Wahab b. Munabbih and many others of the Salaf thought that the man was named Habeeb (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir). But there are no confirmed reports about this, and, in fact, some of the Salaf have also thought that Habeeb was the name of the “believer” in Fir`awn’s court who concealed his faith (Au.).

22. That is, your deeds will determine your augury.

23. Ibn `Abbas, Ka`b al-Ahbar, Wahab b. Munabbih and many others of the Salaf thought that the man was named Habeeb (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir). But there are no confirmed reports about this, and, in fact, some of the Salaf have also thought that Habeeb was the name of the “believer” in Fir`awn’s court who concealed his faith (Au.).

24. The brief narration of his talk with the people indicates that the man had been involved in previous discussions with the people, and that he must have been a person of some standing to say, ‘As for me, what’s with me that I should not believe?’ Had he been an ordinary person, his coming to belief or not coming to belief would not have made any difference to those he was debating with (Au.).

25. The same authorities as above were one in opinion that he was instantly killed.

Islam has similar examples. Ibn Ishaq reports that when Musaylimah the Liar captured two Muslims, he demanded to know from one of them whether he would vouch that Muhammad was a Prophet. The captured Muslim would reply, “Yes.”

Then he would ask him whether he would vouch that he (Musaylimah) was also a Prophet? He would reply, “I do not hear you.” Musaylimah would say, “May Allah curse you.

Do you hear that, but do not hear this?” He would say, “Yes.” Finally Musaylimah ordered that his limbs be severed one after another. After each limb was severed, he was asked the same questions and he answered in the same manner until he was dead. When Ka`b the narrator was told that his name was Habeeb, he remarked, “By Allah, the man mentioned in Yaa Seen was also called Habeeb” (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir).

26. This is a striking example of goodness inherent in true believers.

They do not wish ill of their adversaries (Au.).

Ibn `Abbas is reported as having said, “The man wished his people well: dead and alive” (Qurtubi).

Mawdudi comments: “The man had no ill-will or feelings of vengeance against a people that had murdered him. He did not wish Hell for his murderers but that they should come to faith and win the Paradise that he had won.”

“Allah has narrated this event,” continues Mawdudi, “to impress upon the Makkans that this Prophet too was not invective towards them. He was not their enemy. His only wish was that they should achieve the everlasting bliss of the Hereafter.”

27. The textual word “khamada” is used for a dying fire. Literally it means, “To get low (of fire) [or] to faint and die” (Penrice),“ the extended meaning being, to die out, fade away, cool off, to be extinguished, to become extinct (Au.).

28. Asad comments: “...the term qarn which literally signifies a ‘generation’ or ‘people living at the same period’, has in this context the wider meaning of ‘society’ or ‘civilization’ in the historical connotation of these terms. Thus, the downfall and utter disappearance of the past societies, and civilizations is here linked to their spiritual frivolity and consequent moral failure. A further lesson to be drawn from this parable is the implied conclusion that the majority of people in every society, at all times (our own included), refuse to be guided by moral considerations, regarding them as opposed to their conventional mode of life and their pursuit of materialistic values – with the result that ‘never has an apostle come to them without their deriding him.’”

29. We have adopted this mode of expression following one of the several explanations offered by Ibn Jarir for the word “lamma” occurring at this point (Au.)