12. That is, ultimately it is Allah who will judge between the humankind differing between themselves (Ibn Jarir).

13. (The obvious meaning is that humans and animals were created in pairs in order that they may multiply in numbers: Au.), however, another possible meaning is that the animals are there in pairs in order for humans to consume them and multiply themselves thereby (Ibn Jarir).

14. To be closer to a literal rendition one could state, “There is not aught the like of Him. This is one of the most powerful of Qur’ānic statements, but little explained by the commentators. What Imām Razi writes, in harsh refutation of Ibn Khuzaymah’s views regarding the Deity’s features in his “Kitab al- Tawhid”, and vigorously, but unconvincingly expounded later by others, might not make, as Alusi remarks, one feel fully comfortable at heart.

Yet the Imām falls short of an elucidation deserving the important issue.

One has the same feeling of discomfort at quoting Gibbon (instead of one of our own scholars), but is done here, presently, in hope that someone will pick up the lead and attempt a fuller exposition. As quoted by Majid, Gibbon said about the Islamic concept of Godhead: “A creed too sublime perhaps for our present faculties. What object remains for the fancy, or even the understanding, when we have abstracted from the unknown substance all ideas of time and space, of motion and matter, of sensation and reflection?” (Au.).

The above said, Asad could be quoted for further explanation: “The phrase, ‘there is nothing like unto Him’ implies that He is fundamentally – and not merely in His attributes – ‘different’ from anything that exists or could exist, or anything that man can conceive or imagine or define; and since ‘there is nothing that could be compared with Him’ (112: 4), even the ‘how’ of His being ‘different’ from everything else is beyond the categories of human thought.”

Sayyid’s statement paraphrases the passage in the following manner: “It is binding (upon the humans) that they should refer to their Creator on matters they differ between themselves.

It is He who created them, fashioned their forms, and made their mates out of them. He organized life and knows what suits it best and what gives it firm grounds.

Following the same principles, as in the creation of the humans, He has also created the animals. They multiply themselves following the pattern and the system set in place by Him.

However, He is apart from all His creation, different from them, away and out of the systems governing the created cosmos and its contents, living and non-living: ‘there is nothing like unto Him.’ A sound mind accepts this. How can the created be like the Creator in any way? Following the theme above, it should be obvious that when the creations differ between themselves, the judgment should be His, none else’s. Why? Because, there is none else besides Him who enjoys a true existence.

“The fact stated, viz., there is nothing like unto Him, the relationship between Him and His creations remains, despite the great difference: He hears and He sees all; when He judges or commands, it is that of One who hears and who sees (in a way the creations cannot comprehend).”

The above noted, we might point out that the ‘reality’ of the created world, let alone that of Him who described Himself as, “there is none like unto Him,’ has become so murky as to be described in an intelligible language.

Tens of thousands of experiments are leading to the undeniable??? conclusion that ‘matter’ seems to be intelligent; that every atom seems to be carrying a complete information of the universe; and that ???

15. “I.e., He knows not only what every human being ‘deserves,’ but what is intrinsically – though not always perceptibly – good and necessary in the context of His plan of creation. Moreover, all that exists belongs to Him alone, and man is allowed no more than the usufruct of what is commonly regarded as ‘property’”

(Asad).

16. What is the definition of “din” as used here? The answer given by various commentators is as follows: Din: In the opinion of Qatadah, “din” at this point pertains to treating the lawful as lawful and unlawful as unlawful (Ibn Jarir).

Zamakhshari states: The “din” of “Iqamatu al-din” stands for Islam which in turn stands for: Tawhid, Allah’s obedience, belief in His Messengers, His Books and in the Day of Resurrection, as well as belief in all the rest wherewith a man can be legitimately referred to as a Muslim.

This does not include the religions as promulgated by the previous Prophets, in all their details, which have differed from each other in accordance with the situations prevalent in those times; Allah (swt) said (5: 48), “For every one of you We have prescribed a Law and a Way.” (That is to say, every nation of the past in which a Prophet was raised, received a set of Laws that were specifically for it, and suitable to it: Au.).

Razi wrote: Of necessity, this “din”

has to be different from the obligations and commandments, for, they have been different (in different religions).

Allah said, “For every one of you We have prescribed a Law and a Way.” It has to be something which remained common throughout the ages such as, belief in Allah, in His angels, His Books, His Messengers and in the Hereafter. Belief (in the above) demands shunning this world and turning towards the Hereafter, a hastening towards good morals and a dislike of the low morals.

Qurtubi: “din” is (belief in) Allah’s oneness and His obedience, belief in His Messengers and Books, belief in the Day of Reckoning and in all that by virtue of which a man is declared a Muslim. Allah did not mean to include the details of religion which have been different in different religions.

He expands: It has been one “din”, that is, the fundamental principles that have remained common throughout the times such as Tawhid, Prayers, zakah, Fasts, pilgrimage, seeking closeness to Allah by means of virtuous deeds, honoring the trusts and promises, joining the kin, forbiddance of disbelief, murder, adultery, avoiding any harm to the creations, torture of animals, and avoidance of all sorts of low morals.

These are all fundamentals of Islam and the common elements between our religion and those of the past Prophets.

Ibn Kathir: The “din” that every Prophet brought was: devotion to Allah alone who has no associates and hence the words, “that you establish the religion and differ not therein”.

Alusi: The allusion by “din” is to Islam which in turn is: Allah’s oneness, His obedience, belief in His Books, in His Messengers, the Hereafter, and all the rest which make a man Muslim.

Shawkani: “Laid down the ‘din’: that is, Tawhid, the religion of Islam and those fundamental elements in which the messages of the previous Messengers did not differ, and which are the common points amongst the Scriptures. Mujahid has said, “Allah did not send a Messenger but enjoined Prayers and zakah, and obedience to Allah. This is the “din” that He laid down for them.”

Asad could be quoted for a summary: “Since, as the sequence shows, the term din cannot apply in this context to ‘religion’ in its widest connotation, including religious laws – which, by their very nature, have been different in each successive dispensation – it obviously denotes here only the ethical and spiritual contents of religion, i.e., ‘faith’ in its most general sense. With this verse, the discussion returns to the theme sounded at the beginning of this Surah, namely, the unchanging sameness of the spiritual and moral principles underlying all revealed religions.”

17. Now, what does “Iqamatu aldin”

imply? Since the meaning was obvious to most commentators, they paid scant attention to it. At all events, the following are opinions of a few authorities: Suddi said: It means: put it to practice (Ibn Jarir). Iqamah is in the same sense as used when enjoining the Prayers, (that is, when it was said, “aqimu al-salah” it meant, “do it regularly and properly”: Au.) - Ibn Jarir.

Imām Razi says that the Prophets of past were charged that they should establish the “din” in such a manner as to remove all differences and disputations (in matters of religion).

Qurtubi: By saying “aqimu” the allusion is to consistency, continuity, well-guarded performance (against error), without controversies and dubitations thereof.

Alusi: By “Iqamah” the allusion is to do well and thoroughly all its constituents, and safeguarding it (the “din”) from twists and corruptions finding their way in, and, subjecting it to good practice.

In view of changed meanings of “din”

and “Iqamah” current among some non-Arab Muslims, it would be appropriate to add a few lines of clarification here: Referring to the views stated above in connection with what the term “din” stands for and, what the implication of “Iqamah” of this “din” is, a contemporary commentator writes that “this is a superficial view”, in fact, “a dangerous view.” He compares the understanding of the above authorities to the view held by “Saint Paul who presented the doctrine of the separation of the din (religion) and Shari`ah (law) and corrupted the community of the Prophet Jesus!!” He goes on to explain the two terms “din” and “Iqamah”, categorically stating that the Ummah of the past centuries failed to establish a proper meaning to these terms.

It is obvious that he was influenced by the connotation that the word “Iqamah” carries in the Urdu language.

He writes: “The word iqamat (to establish)... when used in respect of a thing which is not material but spiritual in nature does not merely imply preaching it but also acting according to it as best as one can, introducing it and enforcing it practically..

When the Qur’ān enjoins the establishment of the Prayer (salat ), it does not imply that one should merely preach and exhort others to the Prayer but that one should not only perform it oneself, observing all its conditions, but should also strive to make arrangements so that it becomes a regular practice among the believers. There should be mosques, there should be arrangements for offering the Prayer collectively and for the Friday congregational Prayer, and for making calls to the Prayer punctually; give sermons, and the people should visit the mosques regularly and punctually and make offering the Prayer an essential part of their daily routine.”

He goes on to devote a few pages to expound the two terms under discussion.

A detailed refutation might not be necessary after the quotations from the classical scholars presented above. But, in contrast to the detailed study that he alleges was lacking on part of the scholars of the past, a cursory look into the Qur’ānic usage of the terms would demonstrate that the meaning and implication as given by him do not find support, e.g.: أَقِمِ الصلاَّةَ لِدُلُوكِ الشَّمْسِ إِلَٰ غَسَقِ اللَّيْلِ “Establish the Prayer at the sun’s decline until the darkness of the night” (17: 78). “Establish the Prayer (O womenfolk of the Prophet’s house) and give out in charity” (33: 33).

And, “And, if you happen to be among them (O Prophet), and are establishing the Prayer, then, let a group stand.” (4: 102). “Then, when you are in peace (after the situation of fear), establish the Prayer” (4: 103).

(Unable to set up Prayer houses because of the fear of Fir`awn, the Israelites were told), and establish the Prayer” (10:87).

It should be obvious from the above usages that the definition of “Iqamah”

as “acting according to it as best as one can, introducing it and enforcing it practically, preaching and exhorting...” does not fit into the contexts. The following Qur’ānic usage clarifies it further: “Say, ‘My Lord has ordered justice and (that) you should set your faces at every Prayer and call upon Him making the religion sincerely His. Even as He began you, you shall return’” (7: 29).

Thus, Iqamah has the connotations of doing a thing well, and aqimu aldin primarily means to live by the Shari`ah punctiliously, rather than enforcing it upon others, althoug, the nature of the Din is such that that establishing it in the society and community of Muslims at large, is ‘part’ of its demand; but it is not the primary demand (Au.).

18. Asad very nicely presents earlier opinions: “Most of the great commentators (e.g. Zamakhshari, Razi, Ibn Kathir) understand this as an unequivocal reference to the ecumenical unity of all religions based on belief in one God, notwithstanding all the differences with regard to ‘the [specific] statutes and practices enjoined for the benefit of the various communities in accordance with their [time-bound] conditions (`ala hasab ahwaliha)’ as expressed by Zamakhshari in his comments on the verse under discussion.”

19. “Hard it was for the pagans that from among them it was Muhammad who was marked out for receiving the Revelation. They wanted it to be sent down upon a man of great reputation and honor. Muhammad had no special qualities, that is, by their standards, except that he was trustworthy. He belonged to a tribe of average status. They wanted him to be leader of a powerful tribe.

“It was also hard upon them that with the coming of the new mission, their old religious system – of deities, idols, myths and superstitions - that promised them privileges should collapse and they reduced to the status of common men. Pure monotheism was hard upon them and so they clung hard to their ancient religion.

“It was also hard upon them that they should hear people say that their fathers and grand fathers who died on paganism were wrongly guided.

In their idiocy they accepted to end up in Hell because they did not wish to hear criticism of their ancestors”

(Sayyid Qutub).

20. “Guides to Himself ”: i.e., induces them to piety, live a goodly life following Prophetic teachings, and avoid His disobedience (Ibn Jarir).

This Ayah is similar to that of Al- Ahzab, numbered 7, which also named the same five Messengers, starting from Nuh, ending with Muhammad, and three in between: Ibrahim, Musa and `Isa, the five otherwise known as “Messengers of Strong Will” (Ibn Kathir). However, there is no hadīth to this effect.

Shafi` adds: Adam (asws) was not mentioned perhaps because there was no corruption (of doctrinal or moral nature) during his time.

21. Asad explains, “Lit., ‘they did not break up their unity until after knowledge had come to them’ – i.e., the knowledge that God is one, and that the teachings of all of His Prophets were essentially the same.”

22. The word that preceded was to the effect that they would not be punished for their disbelief and transgression but at an appointed time.

23. That is, those who differed in such primary tenets as Allah’s oneness or other such basic principles, and corrupted their Scriptures, did not do it out of ignorance or misunderstanding.

There could not have been any confusion or obfuscation in issues of fundamental importance.

They did it out of obstinacy, envy, hatred for each other and in order to make worldly gains. However, after they had achieved their objectives, and different sects and parties had firmly pitched their tents, there came their progenies who were led into doubts and such debutant theories that would not give them peace of mind. All this happened because Allah (swt) gave freedom to His slaves.

Had He wished, He could have restrained them and removed all their differences. But He decided to allow them respite and reserve the judgment until the next life (Shabbir).

Sayyid quotes J.H.Denison from his “Emotion as the Basis of Civilization”: “In the fourth and fifth centuries the human civilization was on the borders of a pit about to fall into it. The values that help in the establishment of the civilization had collapsed without the availability of an alternative. It looked as though the Great City which had taken four thousand years of hard labor to build, was about to cave in and collapse, and the humans were very doubtful that it would ever return to what it was a second time because of the savagery that had visited it. Tribes were fiercely fighting and eliminating each other in a world in which neither there was any law nor any order.

As for the order that Christianity had newly brought, it was indeed working to disunite and disintegrate rather than unite and build… It was in this situation of universal anarchy that there appeared a man who was to unite the world..” (That is, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him).

24. This rendering is following an understanding viz., “to this Qur’ān then, invite the people.” Another possible meaning is, it is to this religion – upon which Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa and `Isa were – that you should invite the people (Ibn Jarir).

25. That is, when such is the situation that the people around you are in grave confusion over the religions they have inherited, which is the cause of the present anarchy, you should, O Prophet, in this scenario remain steadfast on your part, not paying any attention to this one or that one in the least.

26. Given the context and the period of revelation, it is not clear what exactly is meant by judging between the unbelievers justly. Most commentators have passed over it. Asad’s comment could be thought over. He writes: “I.e., ‘to induce you to be more tolerant of one another’: evidently an allusion to the bitterness which stands in the way of understanding between the various sects and schools of thought in all revealed religions.”

However, one is tempted to believe that the Ayah is announcing the emergence of a new leadership after the test period has elapsed at the oncoming point of Emigration (Au.).

27. It might be noted that this verse consists of ten complete sentences.

From this angle it resembles – though briefer – Ayah al-Kursiyy which also consists of ten sentences (Ibn Kathir).

Shabbir paraphrases the Ayah: Whether it is words or deeds, you should, O Prophet, stay firm with the mission and the guidance that you have been bestowed, unmindful of criticism that surrounds you. You should announce that so far as I am concerned, I believe in the truth that Torah, Njīl and other Books of Allah contain. I have been ordered to judge equitably between you in matters in which you have been differing.

But if you disagree and continue to go your way, then, I am not here to enforce my guidance on you. Our Lord is, after all, one Lord God to whom all will return. He will reward everyone according to his deeds. So, to you your deeds, and to us, ours.

Let everyone be ready to face the consequences of his choices. There is no point in quarreling, nor any use in polemics.

28. At the first instance, the reference seems to have been to the Jews and Christians who had begun their polemics with Muslims although the Prophet was still in Makkah, where they were not represented, and who never ended their argumentation and disputations thereonward over the truth of Islam. The Jews, for instance, claimed that theirs was the most ancient revealed religion, and hence the best! Although believers in God, the Jews and Christians could not reconcile themselves to absolute and pure monotheism, the coming down of a fresh revelation, the raising of a new Prophet among the non-Israelites, and the submission of some people to the Islamic way of life. Since its inception Islam has remained, whether in their neighborhood, or far away in the distant Arab world, a little bone struck in their throats that they can neither gulp down nor cast out: a perpetual cause of acute discomfort (Au.).

29. Allah (swt) has sent down a material, physical, balance wherewith physical substances are measured.

He has sent down another, incorporeal balance which is known as “the sound intellect” (`aqlu salim). There is yet another balance (criterion) which is known as the moral balance that functions with the help of “sound intellect.” However, the most important of balances (criterion) is the true religion which helps judge the rights of Allah against the rights of His creations (Shabbir).

30. What’s the connection between these three: sending down of the Book, the balance, and closeness of the Hour? The answer is that the revelation of the Book demands that justice be rendered which can be achieved with the help of the balance.

Now, just as there has to be rendering of justice in the world, there has to be another, final judgment of deeds. This will happen when the Hour is struck. So, an unbeliever may ask, “When is the Hour going to be?” (meaning, when will that Final Judgment be?), the answer is, “It is close at hand” (based on Zamakhshari).

Ibn Kathir writes: It has been reported through so many chains of narration that the report reaches mutawatir status; and is found in Sahih collections (such as Bukhari and Muslim), as well as in several other collections, that during a journey a man addressed the Prophet in a pretty loud voice, “O Muhammad!” The Prophet (saws) replied to him in the same pitch, “Here I am.” He asked, “When will the Hour be?” The Prophet answered him, “Woe unto you. It has to be.

But what have you prepared for it?”

He answered, “Love of Allah and His Messenger.” The Prophet told him, “You will be with those you love.”

31. The textual “Latif ” in its present form indicates superabundance both in quantity as well as in quality and is a noun that applies to Him who knows infinitesimally minute details of people’s needs and, (ignoring the people’s disbelief: Shabbir), administers His blessings in a most subtle and concealed manner (finely suited to the needs of the recipients: Yusuf Ali). In its ultimate sense it is applicable to Allah alone (Alusi).