Surah Az-Zukhruf 43:16-25 - Quran Translation Commentary

(43:17) While when one of them is given the glad tiding of what he has likened to the Compassionate,¹² his face remains dark, as he suppresses (his grief).

(43:18) Is one then, who is brought up in ornaments? – although he is weak in dispute.¹³

(43:19) And, they have made angels females: those that are themselves worshiper of the Compassionate. Did they witness their creation? Their testimony will be recorded and they will be questioned.¹⁴

(43:20) They said, ‘Had the Compassionate so willed, we would not have worshiped them.’¹⁵ But of that they have no knowledge whatsoever.¹⁶ They are not but conjecturing.

(43:21) Or, have We given them a Book before this to which they are adhering?

(43:22) But rather, they said, ‘Surely, we found our fathers on a religion¹⁷ and we are in their footsteps, following.’

(43:23) That is how, We did not send before you any warner to a town but its affluent ones said, ‘Surely, we found our fathers on a religion and we are imitating their footsteps.’¹⁸

(43:24) He said, ‘Even if I have brought to you something better in guidance than what you found your forefathers upon?’ They said, ‘We are, of whatever you have been sent with, deniers.’¹⁹

(43:25) So We took vengeance upon them. So see, how was the end of those who cried lies!

Commentary

11. “It should be remembered that the people thus addressed were the pagan Arabs, who believed that some of their goddesses, as well as the angels, were ‘God’s daughters’. In view of the fact that those pre-Islamic Arabs regarded daughters as a mere liability and their birth as a disgrace, this verse is obviously ironical” (Asad).

12. The allusion is to angels that the pagans attributed to God as His daughters.

13. Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Qatadah and Suddi have all said that the allusion is to women who wear ornaments and are weak in argument. A minor opinion is that the allusion is to idols and deities, but this is not the preferred opinion (Ibn Jarir). Razi adds: A woman’s need of ornaments (to assert her personality) is a kind of weakness that she suffers. Further (and as pointed out by Zamakhshari), rarely it happens that a woman begins to defend herself in an argument but ends up saying what will defeat her purpose. This happens, Mufti Shafi` says, because either they say something that is not related to the topic, or leave some sentences incomplete. However, this does not rule out exceptions. The rule however is made with the majority in view.

Although the above might be construed as a remark against women, we might not forget to note that the Qur'anic words under discussion are those of pagans. Allah distributes qualities. If He takes away a quality, He compensates it with another. Women had to be different from men. They had to be complementary. And two that are complementary to each other cannot be equal. Therefore, to look for all the qualities of men in women is futile, just as to look for all their qualities in males is futile. Majid did not fail to realize this. He offers us a note from a psychologist which saves us from much research. He writes, “This refers to the almost universal custom of the ‘softer sex’ being brought up among jewelry and ornaments and to her innate love of display. ‘A woman’s skeleton, dating from the 4th century B.C. unearthed in Persia, had heaped upon the breast, necklace of pearls, lapis, turquoise, emerald and jasper.’ (CE., IV, p. 1150).” And, with reference to being weak in disputations, he writes, “Compare the findings of a modern-day psychologist: ‘Woman is admittedly weaker in logic than the male, and, because her “opinion” is partly instinctive feeling and partly immediate reaction to the momentary situation, she cannot equal man in enumerating arguments and proofs in support of her views. Her ways of thinking is what we describe as instinctive.”

Accordingly, it might be added that when women are brought up purely on rational grounds, taught the same courses of education as men, playing the same games as men, spending all their time with men, as in the West, then they begin to look like men and even think like men. (It is thought that their male hormone production is heightened). In that event the difference between the way they think and the male think is narrowed. The objection – that they think instinctively – is then removed. But the complementariness, which attracts one to the other, is also affected (Au.).

One of the opinions about why the masculine form (huwa: he) has been adopted is that the allusion by “and he is unclear in his disputation” is to he who declares that angels are female, and Allah’s daughters. Yet, one wonders whether the pronoun refers to women, but the masculine form is to deny already prejudiced men, an argument against women? Alternatively, it could be a hint at the fact that despite the efforts to give them maleness, (“she” becoming “he” as in the West), their weakness prevails and society remains dominated by the males (Au.).

14. “I.e., (their testimony) regarding the ‘sex’ of the angels, who are spiritual in nature (Razi) and, therefore, sexless” (Asad).

15. That is, “our worship of the idols has Allah’s approval. Had He disapproved, He would not have allowed it to happen” - obviously, a queer logic, which individuals of highly cultured and advanced societies also hold as true. What strikes them not is that by extension of this logic, the thousands of crimes committed against women every minute such as rape, murder, theft, bribery etc., also have God’s approval. But if they had God’s approval, there was no need for Him to raise Prophets and send messages, condemning these very acts (Mawdudi paraphrased).

16. Although there are several interpretations about what the allusion is to, one opinion is that the unbelievers have no understanding of the complications involved in predestination and Divine decree (Au.).

17. That the allusion by “ummah” at this point is to religion, is the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, Qatadah and Suddi as in Ibn Jarir.

18. Asad writes: “Commenting on this passage, Razi writes: ‘Had there been in the Qur’an nothing but these verses, they would have sufficed to show the falsity of the principle postulating [a Muslim’s] blind, unquestioning attitude of [another person’s] religious opinions (ibtal al-qawl bit-taqlid): for, God had made it clear [in these verses] that those deniers of the truth had not arrived at their convictions by way of reason, and neither on clear authority of a revealed text, but solely by blindly adopting the opinions of their forbears and predecessors; and all this God has mentioned in terms of blame and sharp disagreement.’”

The criticism, it might be noted, is directed against blind following in matters of faith (`aqidah), and not in matters of Law (fiqh), which the great majority does not have the capacity to work out on their own, but rather have been throughout the time, and will remain, dependent on the learned (Au.).

19. That is, “We have decided on a certain course in our religion. And the position remains even if you have brought something better: under no circumstance are we going to abandon our ancient practices” (Qurtubi).

Mawdudi adds: “This attitude of outright rejection has two reasons. One, the affluent ones are so absorbed in their lives, and so engrossed in the joys accruing from their wealth, property and position, as to have no time for such useless affairs as considerations of what is true and what is false. Second, the political, economic and social systems they live in, which in fact is designed by them, serve their interests so well that the moment they hear of an alternative, they realize in a flash that it will work against the prevalent system and deprive them of the advantages they draw from the established system.”