229. The scholars are divided over messengers to the Jinn, whether they were raised from among themselves or those of the mankind addressed them too. Dahhak has said that messengers were sent to them from among them, but Ibn Jurayj feels differently, and a statement of Ibn `Abbas implies that the messengers to them were from mankind. As for the words here "from among you", the explanation is that they are in the same vein as the verse speaking of both river and sea waters: "pearls and corals come out of them," (55: 22) although what is meant is from one of them (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir).

Rashid Rida however rejects the argument and points out that the verse quoted to prove the point does not hold its ground because ancient Arabs did not know that even rivers can produce pearls and precious stones as remarked by Sale, the famous translator of the Qur'an, in his notes on Baydawi. All the same, the verse:

إِنَّا سَمِعْنَا كِتَابًا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ بَعْدِ مُوسَى [الأحقاف : 30]

"We have heard a Book sent down after Musa" (46: 30) tell us that at least Musa (asws) was sent unto them too.

Nonetheless, Kalbi has stated that the messengers unto the Jinn were from among themselves until the commissioning of our Prophet who was the messenger unto both men and Jinn (Zamakhshari).

Imam Razi feels that in the absence of clear evidence, one might accept the face value of the words of the verse in question: "O assembly of Jinn and mankind! Did not Messengers come to you from among you?"

Qadi Thana'ullah Panipati has also stated in his Tafsir Maz hari that since the Jinn were there before men on earth, messengers from among themselves should have been sent to them (Ma`arif).

230. Here it is stated that the unbelievers will admit that they were on the wrong. But elsewhere in the Qur'an, it is stated that they will refuse to admit that they were associators. E.g.,

وَاللَّهِ رَبِّنَا مَا كُنَّا مُشْرِكِينَ [الأنعام : 23]

"By God, O our Lord, we were not of the associators (6: 23)". How do we reconcile the two? The answer is, the Day of Judgment will be a long affair, with people passing through various stages. At one stage they might deny, but at another, they would admit (Razi).

231. Another interpretation has been to understand "zulm" here as "the sin of association." The meaning then would be, "That is because your Lord was not such as to destroy the towns for their sin of association, while its people were unaware (of the message and the messengers)." Ibn Jarir, Zamakhshari. Or, in the words of Majid: "This is because thy Lord is not one to destroy a town for its wrong doing while its people are unaware."

232. The verse implies, says Qurtubi, that the righteous of the Jinn will be with mankind in Paradise, while the sinners will share the Fire with them.

233. The word ghafil of the original is used when someone is unable to pay attention to something because of his pre occupation with another affair (Qurtubi).

234. The addition of "full of mercy" to the earlier Attribute, "the Self sufficient", is to emphasize that although Allah is in no need of anyone's service, and that the attitudes of His slaves do not matter to Him at all, yet, despite being "Self sufficient" in the absolute sense, He is not blind to the needs of His slaves, as some people, although Islamically educated, seem to believe (Thanwi).

In contrast, adds Shafi`, Allah has not made any of His creation self sufficient in any sense. For, instead of co operating with others of his kind, when a man sees himself self sufficient, he begins to act tyrannically towards others. The Qur'an has said:

كَلَّا إِنَّ الْإِنْسَانَ لَيَطْغَى (6) أَنْ رَآهُ اسْتَغْنَى [العلق : 6 ، 7]

"Man rebels if he perceives himself self sufficient." (96: 6, 7)

235. Yusuf Ali comments: "Allah is not dependent on our prayer or service. It is out of His Mercy that He desires our own good. Any race or people to whom He gives chances should understand that and that its failure does not affect Allah. H could create others in their place, as He did in times past, and is doing in our own day, if only we had the wit to see it."

Mawdudi elaborates: "The Qur'anic statement: ‘Your Lord is Self sufficient' signifies that God is in need of nothing from anyone, that none of His interests will be jeopardized by disobedience to Him, and that no benefit will accrue to Him from obedience. Even if all human beings became disobedient, God's dominion will not shrink, nor will His dominion expand, if everybody were to become obedient and serve and worship Him as they ought to. God is dependent neither upon their show of veneration nor upon their offerings. He lavishes His limitless treasure on human beings and seeks nothing in return.

"The other statement, namely that ‘Your Lord is full of compassion', has been made here to emphasize two things. First, that when God urges human beings to follow the Right Way, and asks them not to do anything in conflict with the Ultimate Reality, He does not do so because their good behavior benefits Him or their misconduct harms Him. He does so because good conduct is beneficial to man himself, as evil conduct is harmful to him. Hence it is out of sheer benevolence that God urges man to develop righteous conduct, for it will raise him to great heights, and He urges him to avoid evil conduct because it will lead to his own degradation. Second, that God is not unduly stern in judging man. He gets no pleasure from punishing people. He is not on the look out for slight lapses for which to convict and punish and persecute people. God is highly compassionate towards all His creatures and governs with utmost mercy and benevolence, and the same characterizes His dealings with human beings as well. Hence, He constantly forgives the sins of the people. Many disobey, indulge in sins, commit crimes, disregard God's commands, even though they are nourished by the sustenance He provides. God, nevertheless, continuously treats them with forbearance and forgives them. Again and again, He grants them respite in order that they may take heed, understand things properly and reform themselves. Had He been excessively stern, He could have obliterated them instantly and raised up another people. He could have put an end to humanity and brought into being an altogether different species of creation."

236. Some have understood "makanatikum" as "tamakkunikum", i.e., "within your range of possibility" (Ibn Jarir and others). The whole sentence then would be: "O my people! Do whatever is in your range of possibility," or, as Asad has worded it, "Do all that may be within your power."

237. In this is the censure of the innovations of our times some approved by the Shuyukh – that in fact are a lot similar to what is depicted here as the innovations of the pre Islamic times.

238. Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Qatadah and Suddi have said that the allusion is to a practice of the pagan Arabs. At the time of the harvest of grain or fruits, they assigned a share to Allah and a share to their idols and deities. Now, if the wind blew a part of the share of the deities into that assigned to Allah, they would bring it back. (According to one report, saying, "This, [i.e., the deity], is after all poor"). But if the share assigned to Allah got mixed up with that of the idols, they would not bother about it, and hence the verse (Ibn Jarir).

239. "Evil is the way they judge:" Evil for more than one reason. First, transgression upon the laws of Allah. Second, commitment of the sin of association in the worship of Allah since, no one should be given any share in an act with which Allah's nearness is sought. Third, preferential treatment of those associated with Allah. And fourth, doing something that has no basis in reason and logic (Manar).

Mawdudi writes: "In order to grasp what lay at the root of these superstitions, it is essential to know that the portion which these ignorant people earmarked for God was devoted to helping the indigent, the poor, travellers and so on. On the other hand, the portion earmarked for offerings to the ‘partners' actually went directly to the coffers of the priestly class or was offered at the shrines and thus ultimately reached the priests and caretakers of those shrines. Over the course of centuries these selfish religious leaders had impressed upon those simple minded people that there was no harm in God's share being reduced, but that of God's dear ones, far from being diminished, should be increased."

Mufti Shafi` has a perceptive point: Much the same is the attitude of most practicing Muslims today. Out of their total time of the day, they assign a share to Allah (for the purposes of worship, acts of devotion, etc.), and a share to worldly activities. But, if their worldly activities demand excess time, they take it out of what is assigned to Allah. In contrast, they never let the time allotted for this worldly activities to be encroached by the time assigned for next worldly activities. Evil is the way they judge.

240. Majid comments: "This may possibly refer to the ancient Semitic practice of child sacrifice, which had been very general, (vide ERE. I, pp. 390 91). Infanticide with a religious motive has also been wide spread. In India, for example, ‘children were thrown into the sacred river Ganges, and adoration paid to the alligators who fed on them.' (EBr. XIV, p. 516, 11th ed.). The allusion may also be to the modern craze for ‘contraception' a subtle form of infanticide."

241. In the like manner, to some Muslims various acts amounting to shirk, such as, visiting the graves, making offerings there, seeking the intercession of the buried, slaughtering animals in their name, etc., are decked out fair. Although, such of those as do these things, do not term them as acts of worship, but, for all purposes they are no less than that (Manar).

242. "Had Allah willed, they would not have done it": The verse obviously does not mean that the deeds of the sinners are imposed upon them by way of pre destination: something over which they have no control as the Jabariyyah have alleged. Rather, it was Allah's will that He equip the humans with reason and intellect, make them susceptible to influences, good and bad, and give them the power to choose between good and evil. He could have, of course, if He willed, forced everyone to right conduct, but He did not do that for the purposes of trial. Hence the latter verse adds that they did that out of ignorance and foolishness. Were they to exchange their ignorance with knowledge, they would not commit such vile things (Manar).

243. Such cattle were named as Sa'ibah, Wasilah and Bahirah (Ibn Jarir).

244. Yusuf Ali writes: "A taboo of certain foods is sometimes a device of the priesthood to get special things for itself. It has to be imposed by pretending that the prohibitions for others is by the will of Allah."

245. There were cattle that they forbid their backs unto themselves, that is, they neither rode them (not even for Hajj: Abu Wa'il) nor used them for yoke (Ibn Jarir).

246. Mujahid has said that they marked out certain camels over which they would not spell Allah's Name under any circumstance, neither when they rode on them, or loaded on them, nor when they milked them (Ibn Jarir).

247. They related these practices to Allah's commands, forging lies against Him (Ibn Jarir).

Asad writes: "The pre Islamic Arabs falsely claimed that the taboos were ordained by God, as is made clear in the last part of this verse. One of these supposed, arbitrary "ordinances" laid down that only the priests of the particular idol and some men belonging to the tribe could eat the flesh of such dedicated animals, while women were not allowed to do so (Zamakhshari)."

248. Ibn `Abbas and Qatadah have said that the allusion by the words "ma fi butuniha," is to their milk which their men drank but not their women. But Mujahid has said that the reference is to what the wombs carried. Both could be correct (Ibn Jarir).

249. This piece would apply to those cattle whose womb contents the pagans forbid unto their women (Au.).

250. The reference is to the pagan practices (more prevalent in the tribes of Rabi`ah and Mudar) of burying alive female infants either out of fear of poverty (`Ikrimah), or out of shame in giving her away to a male when she grew up (Au). Some of them killed them and fed them to the dogs (Ibn Jarir and others). The allusion could also be to the vows that some of the pagans made that if they received so many males, they would sacrifice one of them, such as the vow of `Abdul Muttalib (Zamakhshari, Razi).

Qurtubi writes: It is reported that one of the Companions used to appear in a grievous mood. Once, the Prophet asked him the reason. He replied, "Messenger of Allah. I've committed a sin that I wonder if Allah will forgive despite my Islam." The Prophet asked him to explain what it was. The man said: "I was one of those who used to bury their female infants. Once my wife gave birth to a girl and pleaded that I let her live. I agreed. She grew into a most beautiful girl. Proposals began coming in. But a shallow sense of honor took over me. I did not want her to be married off, and I did not want to keep her unmarried. One day I told my wife that I was proposing to visit such and such a tribe and wished to take the daughter along. She was pleased, got her ready with some bright clothes, jewelry, and all that stuff, and then took promise from me that I would safeguard her. On the way we stopped at a well. I peeped in. The daughter's sixth sense told her that I wished to push her in. She clung to me with tears in her eyes and pleaded, ‘Father! What do you want to do this with me?' I felt kind at her. But then I looked at the well and my false sense of honor got better of me. She again clung to me and pleaded for mercy. I felt kind towards her. But, as I looked at the well, and at her in turns, my false sense of honor took charge of me and I pushed her down, head first. She cried from the well, ‘Father! You killed me.' I hung along until she ceased calling. Then I left the place." The Prophet and his Companions wept and he said: "If I were to punish someone for a deed of the pre Islamic times, I would punish this man."