1. While Ibn `Abbas said that the letter “sad” here is a word of oath, Suddi thought it is one of the “huruf al-muqatta`at.

On the other hand Hasan al-Busri said that “sad” is an imperative form of the word “sad” (s-a-d) meaning, “compare your deeds with the Qur’an, do they agree with each other)?” There are other explanations (Tabari, Zamakhshari [without naming authorities], Qurtubi).

Yusuf Ali adds: “Sale’s note: ‘it may stand for Solomon’: is a real howler; for in Arabic the letter sad does not occur at all in the name of Solomon.”

Sulayman starts with a “Sin” and not “Sad.” And these howlers form the dominating clan among the Orientalist tribe (Au.).

2. Or, “full of admonition.” Nonetheless, “dhi-adh-dhikr” was explained by Ibn `Abbas, Sa`id ibn Jubayr, Abu Saleh, Suddi and others as meaning, “full of honor and of high-standing” (Ibn Jarir, Zamakhshari, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir), or, as Asad put it, “endowed with eminence.”

Yusuf Ali points out, “.. the word ‘dhikr’ is far more comprehensive than any single word or phrase that I can think of in English: it implies (1) remembrance in a spirit of reverence; (2) recital, celebrating the praises of Allah; (3) teaching, admonition, warning; (4) Message, Revelations, as in “Ahlu al Dhikr” ‘those who possess the Message (xv: 43). Devotional exercises are also called ‘dhikr’, with reference to meaning (2) above.”

3. “... they refuse to acknowledge the fact of divine revelation because such an acknowledgement would imply an admission of man’s responsibility to God – and this their false pride, manifested in their arrogant belief in man’s ‘self-sufficiency’, does not allow them to do” (Asad).

As Allah (swt) said elsewhere about one of this class (2: 206),“When he told: ‘Fear Allah,’ he is led by arrogance to more sins” (Qurtubi and others).

4. Asad writes: “It is to be noted that the term “qarn” signifies not merely a ‘generation’ but also - and quite frequently in the Qur’an - ‘people belonging to a particular period and environment’, i.e., a ‘civilization’ in the historic connotation of this word.”

5. There has been a good deal of discussion over the verse, Qurtubi and Alusi devoting several pages to the beautiful term “lata hina manas.” We have given the sum and substance – if it was possible - in the translation (Au.).

The same thing has been expressed elsewhere in pointed words (21: 12-13):“When they felt Our chastisement (coming) they began to run away from it. ‘Do not run, return to the luxuries you were in, and to your homes, perhaps you will be questioned’” (Ibn Kathir).

6. In what sense did the Makkans refer to the Prophet (saws) as a sorcerer? Mawdudi explains: They used the epithet “sahir” (sorcerer, magician) for him because whoever came in contact with him, was overly influenced by him to such extent that he who declared faith in him, would not mind endangering huge material losses, was ready to face persecution, and was in fact, ready to break relations with his wife, children, parents and other dear ones. Who else, according to them, but a sorcerer could exercise such influence?

7. That is, when he claims that he receives revelation (Qurtubi), and not in personal life, in which they never experienced a lie (Au.).

In Asad’s words, “... i.e., it is not the personality of the Prophet that fills them with distrust, but, rather, the substance of the message proclaimed by him – and, in particular, his insistence on God’s absolute oneness and uniqueness, which runs counter to their habits of thought and social tradition.”

8. Thanwi writes with reference to Ruh (but which statement could not be located there: Au.), that some Sufis have used this verse as evidence to prove validity of the concept of “Wahdatu al-Wujud” (Transcendent Unity of Being). But, he writes, as did Alusi, such reasoning is unreasonable because the purpose of this Qur’anic verse is to deny the existence in reality of any deities besides Allah.

9. “This wonder is only simulated. They are full of envy and spite against one of themselves who has been chosen by Allah to be his Messenger, and they vent their spite by making all sorts of false accusations. The man who was pre-eminent for truth and conscientious considerations, they call ‘a sorcerer and a liar’!” (Yusuf Ali).

Majid comments and quotes on the multiplicity of gods: “In the realm of polytheism the number of gods, higher and lower, and sub-deities is such that one is, in fact overwhelmed by their vast medley. ‘Starting from the theology of savage tribes the student arrives at the polytheistic hierarchies of the Aryan nations. In ancient Greece, the cloud-compelling Heaven-god reigns over deities as the god of War and the goddess of Love, the Sun-god and the Moon-goddess … In modern India, Brahma, Vishnu-Siva reign pre-eminent over a series of divinities … such figures as Indra of Heaven and Surya of the Sun, Agni of the Fire … the divine Rivers, and below the ranks of nymphs, elves, demons, ministering spirits, of heavens and earth.’ (PC., II, p.251).”

Asad delves below the surface to explain: “Divorced from its purely historical background, this criticism acquires a timeless significance, and may thus be paraphrased: ‘Does he claim that all creative powers and qualities are inherent exclusively in what he conceived as “one God”?’ – a paraphrase which illustrates the tendency of many people to attribute a decisive influence on human life – and, hence, a quasi-divine status – to a variety of fortuitous phenomena or circumstances (like wealth, ‘luck’, social position, etc.) rather than to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence, in all observable nature, of God’s unique existence.”

It is reported in this context by Ibn `Abbas that when Abu Talib fell sick a group of the chiefs of Quraysh went to him (afraid that he might die and leave the affair of the Prophet (saws) unsettled: Au.; and alarmed at `Umar’s Islam: Razi and Qurtubi) and told him to restrain his nephew who insulted their deities. Abu Talib sent for the Prophet. When he arrived, Abu Jahl hurried to occupy a vacant seat next to Abu Tablib fearing that the Prophet might soften his heart. So the Prophet had to sit near the door. Abu Talib told him that the Quraysh chiefs were complaining about him saying that he insulted their deities. The Prophet replied,“

O my uncle, all I want from them is a single word; if they said it, the Arabs will follow them and the non-Arabs will pay them tribute.”

They jumped and said, “One word, why, take ten from us.” The Prophet said, the word is,“There is no deity save Allah.” They tore their clothes and said (38: 5), “What? Has he made out of (several) deities, a single Deity?” (Ibn Jarir, Zamakhshari, Razi, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir).

The narrative is in Tirmidhi (who declared it Sahih); Nasa’i, Hakim, who also thought it was trustworthy, and many other collections (Shawkani).

10. As we would say today in journalistic language, “points to a hidden agenda” (Au.).

11. Ibn `Abbas, Suddi and other said that the allusion by the “last religion” is to the last revealed religion, Christianity. Mujahid and Qatadah however thought the reference was to the religion of the Quraysh: paganism (Ibn Jarir, Razi without naming authorities).

12. This sentiment echoes in other verses. E.g. (43: 31),“Only if this Qur’an had been revealed to a man of these two major towns,” where the allusion was to Makkah and Ta’if (Zamakhshari).

Nevertheless, the point was not that it should have been revealed to the noblest of them, (which the Prophet was, both genealogically as well as morally), but rather, the richest of them (Razi).

The Orientalists use verses of this kind to prove that the Prophet (saws) was not genealogically the best of them. That is, if the Quraysh thought Muhammad was not the noblest of them, which is what their objection implies, then, they were right. See EI art., Muhammad. Ironically, their argument reveals that at heart the Orientalists believe that the Qur’an is not the Prophet’s product, since, if it was, it would not have contained verses that deny him noble lineage (Au.).

13. “I.e., ‘Do they think that it is for them to decide as to who should and who should not be graced with divine revelation?” (Asad).

14. The textual “al-asbab” has been explained by some of the Salaf as meaning “the heavens.” That is, let them climb up to the heavens (Ibn Jarir).

Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Sa` id b. Jubayr and others said the allusion is to the “ways or means (such as ladders: Zamakhshari), to the heavens (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir). In other words, they understood “al-asbab” as meaning, “the means by which they could ascend” (Au.).

But Tabari also has a strange statement coming from Anas: “Asbab: It is thinner than hair, stronger than iron and exist in every place except that it is invisible.”

It is strange because the allusion could either be to gravitons (particles yet to be discovered but which are strongly believed to fill the universe, through which the gravitational force works), or, to the new concept of the true nature of space. It is being said by the physicists that at ultramicroscopic distances - distances shorter than the Planck length - violent fluctuations are noted in the special fabric. A new field of study therefore, is now developing to unravel the mystery of the nature of space. This theory, known as the string theory, tries to reconcile the two irreconcilable theories: Einstein's theory of relativity, and the laws of quantum physics. Writes a contemporary scientist:

"According to string theory, the elementary ingredients of the universe are not point particles. Rather, they are one-dimensional filaments somewhat like infinitely thin rubber bands, vibrating to and fro ... (But) unlike an ordinary piece of string, which is itself composed of molecules and atoms, the strings of string theory are purported to lie deep within the heart of matter. The theory proposes that they are ultramicroscopic ingredients making up the particles out of which atom themselves are made. The strings of string theory are so small – on average they are about as long as the Planck length – that they appear pointlike even when examined with our most powerful equipment." (Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe, p. 136, Vintage Books, New York, 2003) – Au.

Asad takes up yet another issue hidden in the verse, “Do they think that human beings are so highly endowed that they are bound to attain, some day, to mastery over the universe and all nature, and thus to God-like power?”

In contemporary context we might point out that the Qur’anic prediction that humans will never be able to go beyond a certain distance in space, has come to be acknowledged by the scientists. It was not but a few decades ago when the scientists were talking about going deep into space, traveling from star to star, galaxy to galaxy, and coming back enriched with resources essential for human survival on earth. Some of them boasted of taking the earth itself – through human power – out of the decaying Solar system, and placing it into another area in space orbiting around another sun, where, enriched by the new environment, the human race could continue living forever instead of the presently predicted mere four billion years. Four billion years is the estimated time that the sun will take to burn all its hydrogen after which it will flare up into a huge fire-ball burning its helium when its size will grow to such a magnitude as to engulf the earth, burning down all that there is on it now – a prospect that had dismayed Bertrand Russell.

But now it is being realized that anything that moves anywhere near the speed of light assumes such mass that it becomes impossible to be moved: ever increase in speed implies ever increasing mass of the moving body, in turn implying ever increasing demand on the supply of energy for the journey; in other words, a self defeating enterprise. Secondly, movement in space implies movement through time, meaning, a much faster movement of time for the travelers in space than those on the earth, so that a couple of years through a distant space would mean perhaps thousands of years on earth. Any venture deep into the universe then is doomed to failure from the start (Au.).

15. Mujahid has said that by “jund” (forces) it is the Quraysh that are meant, while by “ahzab” (confederates), the allusion is to forces of the past. And, to put the verse differently, adds Tabari: “These are forces like the forces of the past nations, (lying) defeated there.”

Allah (swt) said elsewhere (54: 44-45), “Or, do they say, ‘We are a band (that will emerge) victorious.‘ Soon the band will be defeated and will show their backs” (Ibn Kathir).

The verse held a prediction which came true when the Quraysh too, along with the confederates, returned defeated in their purposes from the battle of the Trench (Qurtubi in brief).

Most commentators have pointed out that the forces of this occurrence were routed at Badr. But, if we consider the situation at the Battle of the Ditch, when a confederate of forces came down intending to annihilate the Muslims root and branch – some 20,000 against perhaps 3-4000 Muslims – but were virtually routed by Allah’s forces, then we can legitimately say that the ayah made a perfect prediction of that event (Au.).

16. With reference to “awtad,” Suddi and Ibn Anas said that Fir`awn used to torture people by pegging them to the ground (and setting loose on them snakes and scorpions: as noted by most commentators), and hence “the man of pegs or stakes” (Tabari). Another possibility, among others, is that Fir`awn commanded a huge army that, when it pitched its tents, made a terrifying site with numberless pegs (and poles: Asad), and hence “he of the pegs” (Razi, Qurtubi).

Asad adds: “In classical Arabic, this ancient Bedouin term is used idiomatically as a metonym for ‘mighty dominion’ or ‘firmness of power’ ([as in] Zamakhshari). The number of poles supporting a bedouin tent is determined by its size, and the latter has always depended on the status and power of its owner; thus, a mighty chieftain is often alluded to as, ‘he of many poles.’”

17. That is, the people of Shu`ayb (Razi).

18. That is, those were confederates, and forces like you are, O Quraysh. But what was their end?

19. Yusuf Ali places this note slightly above: “In their day, Noah’s contemporaries, or the ‘Ad and the Thamud, so frequently mentioned, or Pharaoh the mighty king of Egypt, or the people to whom Lot was sent (cf. xxxvii. 75-82; vii. 65-73; vii. 103-137; vii. 80-84) were examples of arrogance and rebellion against Allah: they rejected the divine Message brought by their messengers, and they all came to an evil end. Will not their posterity learn their lesson?”