Surah 22. Al-Haj

---

Verses [Section]: 1-10[1], 11-22 [2], 23-25 [3], 26-33 [4], 34-38 [5], 39-48 [6], 49-57 [7], 58-64 [8], 65-72 [9], 73-78 [10]

---

Quran Text of Verse 49-57قُلْSayیٰۤاَیُّهَاO mankindالنَّاسُO mankindاِنَّمَاۤOnlyاَنَاI amلَكُمْto youنَذِیْرٌa warnerمُّبِیْنٌۚclear فَالَّذِیْنَSo those whoاٰمَنُوْاbelieveوَ عَمِلُواand doالصّٰلِحٰتِrighteous deedsلَهُمْfor themمَّغْفِرَةٌ(is) forgivenessوَّ رِزْقٌand a provisionكَرِیْمٌ noble وَ الَّذِیْنَAnd those whoسَعَوْاstroveفِیْۤagainstاٰیٰتِنَاOur Versesمُعٰجِزِیْنَ(to) cause failureاُولٰٓىِٕكَthoseاَصْحٰبُ(are the) companionsالْجَحِیْمِ (of) the Hellfire وَ مَاۤAnd notاَرْسَلْنَاWe sentمِنْbefore youقَبْلِكَbefore youمِنْanyرَّسُوْلٍMessengerوَّ لَاand notنَبِیٍّa Prophetاِلَّاۤbutاِذَاwhenتَمَنّٰۤیhe recitedاَلْقَیthrewالشَّیْطٰنُthe Shaitaanفِیْۤinاُمْنِیَّتِهٖ ۚhis recitationفَیَنْسَخُBut Allah abolishesاللّٰهُBut Allah abolishesمَاwhatیُلْقِیthrowsالشَّیْطٰنُthe ShaitaanثُمَّthenیُحْكِمُAllah will establishاللّٰهُAllah will establishاٰیٰتِهٖ ؕHis Versesوَ اللّٰهُAnd Allahعَلِیْمٌ(is) All-KnowerحَكِیْمٌۙAll-Wise لِّیَجْعَلَThat He may makeمَاwhatیُلْقِیthe Shaitaan throwsالشَّیْطٰنُthe Shaitaan throwsفِتْنَةًa trialلِّلَّذِیْنَfor thoseفِیْinقُلُوْبِهِمْtheir heartsمَّرَضٌ(is) a diseaseوَّ الْقَاسِیَةِand (are) hardenedقُلُوْبُهُمْ ؕtheir heartsوَ اِنَّAnd indeedالظّٰلِمِیْنَthe wrongdoersلَفِیْ(are) surely, inشِقَاقٍۭschismبَعِیْدٍۙfar وَّ لِیَعْلَمَAnd that may knowالَّذِیْنَthose whoاُوْتُواhave been givenالْعِلْمَthe knowledgeاَنَّهُthat itالْحَقُّ(is) the truthمِنْfromرَّبِّكَyour Lordفَیُؤْمِنُوْاand they believeبِهٖin itفَتُخْبِتَand may humbly submitلَهٗto itقُلُوْبُهُمْ ؕtheir heartsوَ اِنَّAnd indeedاللّٰهَAllahلَهَادِ(is) surely (the) Guideالَّذِیْنَ(of) those whoاٰمَنُوْۤاbelieveاِلٰیtoصِرَاطٍa Pathمُّسْتَقِیْمٍ Straight وَ لَاAnd notیَزَالُwill ceaseالَّذِیْنَthose whoكَفَرُوْاdisbelieveفِیْ(to be) inمِرْیَةٍdoubtمِّنْهُof itحَتّٰیuntilتَاْتِیَهُمُcomes to themالسَّاعَةُthe Hourبَغْتَةًsuddenlyاَوْorیَاْتِیَهُمْcomes to themعَذَابُ(the) punishmentیَوْمٍ(of) a Dayعَقِیْمٍ barren 22. Al-Haj Page 339اَلْمُلْكُThe Sovereigntyیَوْمَىِٕذٍ(on) that Dayلِّلّٰهِ ؕ(will be) for AllahیَحْكُمُHe will judgeبَیْنَهُمْ ؕbetween themفَالَّذِیْنَSo those whoاٰمَنُوْاbelieveوَ عَمِلُواand didالصّٰلِحٰتِrighteous deedsفِیْ(will be) inجَنّٰتِGardensالنَّعِیْمِ (of) Delight وَ الَّذِیْنَAnd those whoكَفَرُوْاdisbelievedوَ كَذَّبُوْاand deniedبِاٰیٰتِنَاOur Versesفَاُولٰٓىِٕكَthen thoseلَهُمْfor themعَذَابٌ(will be) a punishmentمُّهِیْنٌ۠humiliating

---

Translation of Verse 49-57

(22:49) Say (O Muhammad): "O people! I have been sent to you only as a plain warner⁹⁴ (before the Doom strikes you)."

(22:50) So those who believe and act righteously shall be granted forgiveness and an honourable sustenance,⁹⁵

(22:51) whereas those who strive against Our Signs, seeking to profane them, they are the friends of the Fire!

(22:52) Never did We send a Messenger or a Prophet⁹⁶ before you (O Muhammad), but that whenever he had a desire,⁹⁷ Satan interfered with that desire.⁹⁸ Allah eradicates the interference of Satan and strengthens His Signs.⁹⁹ Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.¹⁰⁰

(22:53) (He does this) in order that He may make the evil caused by Satan a trial for those in whose hearts there is sickness (of hypocrisy), whose hearts are hard (and vitiated). Surely these wrong-doers have gone too far in their dissension.

(22:54) (He also does this) in order that those endowed with knowledge may know that it is the Truth from your Lord and that they may have faith in it and their hearts may humble themselves before Him. Verily Allah always directs those that believe to the Right Way.¹⁰¹

(22:55) The unbelievers will not cease to be in doubt about it until the Hour suddenly comes upon them, or the chastisement of an ominous day¹⁰² overtakes them.

(22:56) On that Day all sovereignty shall be Allah's and He will judge among them. Then those who believed and acted righteously shall be in Gardens of Bliss.

(22:57) A humiliating chastisement awaits those who disbelieved and denied Our Signs.

---

Commentary

94. It is clarified here that the decision about the fate of a people does not rest with the Prophet (peace be on him). His job is merely to warn them before God’s punishment actually overtakes them. As for the ultimate decision, it rests with God alone. He alone decides who is to be granted respite and till when, _ and who is to be punished and in what manner.

95. The word maghfirah signifies overlooking one’s faults, weaknesses and being indulgent. The other expression used here, rizq karim, signifies the sustenance which is both intrinsically good and which is provided in an honorable manner.

96. For further clarification on the distinction between the terms rasul and nabi see Towards Understanding the Qur’an, vol. V, Maryam 19, n. 30, pp. 161-3.

97. The word tamanna is employed in Arabic to denote two things (see m-n-y in Lisan al-'Arab — Ed.): (1) to wish and yearn for something, and (2) to recite.

98. Were the word tamanna to be taken in the first sense, the verse would mean that Satan obstructs the fulfilment of the wishes of all Prophets and Messengers, but God fulfils them despite Satan’s efforts. Taken in the second sense, (namely, that of recitation), the verse would mean that whenever the Prophet (peace be on him) recited the Word of God to people, Satan sowed doubts in their hearts, dressed it up with weird meanings, and prompted people to misconstrue the Qur’an in every possible sense other than the right one.

99. According to the first meaning, the import of the statement is that notwithstanding Satan’s obstructions, God will see to it that the Prophet's wish is fulfilled. And, quite obviously, what can a Prophet (peace be on him) wish for other than the successful accomplishment of his mission? God subsequently confirmed the truth of His promise made to the Prophet (peace be on him) when his mission was indeed fully accomplished.

If, however, the word is understood in the latter sense, the statement would suggest that God removes all the doubts Satan planted in peoples’ minds and that He repels all the incriminations made about the teachings of the Prophets.

Additionally, whatever misconceptions people might entertain regarding a particular verse are clarified by God in His revealing another verse with clearer import.

100. God knows full well the tricks to which Satan resorted and what their impact was. God’s wisdom counters all Satan’s evil designs, and frustrates them.

101, That is, God made Satan’s evil designs a means of testing people so that those who are righteous may be distinguished from those who are evil. In the nature of things, those whose minds have been corrupted derive wrong conclusions from such things and this in turn becomes a means of misleading them. As for those whose minds are straight, those very things lead them to confirm the truthfulness of God’s Prophets and His Books. The result is that these people are led to believe that all these are no more than Satan’s mischiefs. They know that the Prophet’s call is essentially to nothing other than truth and righteousness. Had this not been so, Satan would not have carried on so desperately. If one bears in mind the context of the present discourse, one can easily grasp the import of the present verse. The specific stage through which the mission of the Prophet (peace be on him) was then passing misled many of those who were ‘concerned only with appearances. Such people, therefore, behaved as though the Prophet had failed in his mission. For what people could observe was simply that the person who wished his people to believe in him, virtually found no other way after thirteen years of striving than to bid farewell to his homeland and this with only a handful of followers. When people considered the Prophet's claim that he was God’s Messenger and that he enjoyed God’s support in this context, or when they considered the proclamation of the Qur’an that unbelievers who reject a true Prophet are seized with God’s scourge, they were inclined to doubt the veracity of both the Prophet and the Qur’an. In this way the detractors of the Prophet (peace be on him) were encouraged to let their tongues loose, so much so that they started - mocking him, saying: ‘Where is God’s support that you so much talk about? What has happened to God’s scourge against which you have been warning us?’ The preceding verses contain a response to these questions, as indeed do the present ones. There is, however, a difference: while the preceding verses were addressed to the unbelievers, the current ones are addressed to those believers who are somewhat influenced by the unbelievers’ propaganda. The main thrust of the present discourse is as follows: There is nothing new about a people’s rejection of the Messenger sent to them, nor about their calling him a liar. History is replete with such instances.

At the same time, the tragic fate which these rejecters suffered is also well known; a fate which they could see with their own eyes in the ruins of the nations of Arabia that were obliterated by God’s scourge. Those who wished to draw any lesson from all that could do so.

As for the query as to why God’s punishment did not overtake the Makkans following their rejection of the Messenger (peace be on him), and their branding him a liar, it is pointed out that the Qur’an nowhere says that God’s punishment will strike down wrong-doers the very moment that they deny the Prophet (peace be on him). Furthermore, the Prophet (peace be on him) never claimed that it would be he who would strike them down with a scourge. It is God Alone Who decides such punishment, and He does not punish a whole nation in a hurry. Instead, before punishing a people He grants them sufficient respite. He has done so in the past and is doing so even now. Periods of respite sometimes extend to several centuries. Hence, if a nation that denies a Prophet has not been punished so far, this does not mean that the warnings in the Qur’an amount to no more than empty words.

Also, there is nothing new in the fact that obstructions were set in motion so as to prevent the desires and aspirations of a Prophet from materializing. Nor was there anything new in the false allegations or the storm of doubts and objections against the teachings of a Prophet. All this had been witnessed by previous Messengers. What is important to note, however, is that eventually God smothers all such Satanic mischiefs.

Despite all obstructions, the call to truth flourishes and any doubts and misgivings that are created are obviated by the revelation of clear and unambiguous verses. Satan and his disciples employ a variety of designs to bring disgrace to God’s Signs. God, however, thwarts these designs and turns them instead into a means of distinguishing between good and bad people. Thus, good people are attracted to the truth, and evil ones are separated, and become distinct from it.

This, then, is the thrust of these verses, as understood in the context against which this discourse was revealed. Regrettably, however, one particular report of this incident has given rise to a serious misunderstanding. This is of such a serious nature that not only the meaning of the verses in question is distorted, but the very foundation of Islam seems to be jeopardized. We are taking note of this, here, such that the students of the Qur’an are aware of the manner in which they can distinguish between adequate and inadequate methods in the use of historical reports for a proper understanding of the Qur’an. Basically, we are treating this question at some length so that one may become aware of the unwholesome consequences of accepting, uncritically, all historical reports, and become conscious of the pitfalls in excessive traditionalism, and that one, thus, may come to know the right ways of critically examining the reports that have come down to us. For, if one makes any mistakes in examining these reports, one is bound to end up with faulty interpretations of the Qur’an. The incident in question is reported as follows: The Prophet (peace be on him) once felt the desire that God reveal something in the Qur’an that might remove the hatred of the unbelieving Quraysh for Islam so that they might come close to it; or at least that the Qur’an should not say anything so blatantly critical about their faith that might antagonize them further. It was whilst the Prophet (peace be on him) had this wish in mind, and he was sitting in a large gathering of the Quraysh that Sarah al-Najm was revealed to him. He, thus, began to recite it, but when he reached the verses: (Have you seen al-Lat and al- ‘Uzza, and another, the third, al- Manat, al-Najm 53: 19-20), suddenly he involuntarily uttered the following words: (These are exalted deities whose intercession should surely be looked forward to.) He then proceeded further, reciting the remaining verses of the surah. At the conclusion of the surah when the Prophet (peace be on him) prostrated himself, all those present in the gathering, both believers and unbelievers, followed suit. The unbelieving Quraysh said that there no longer remained any disagreement between them and Muhammad (peace be on him). They contended that their belief was also the same: that while God was the Creator and Sustainer, that did not detract from the fact that other gods and goddesses would still intercede him.

The angel Gabriel visited the Prophet (peace be on him) that same evening and expressed his disapproval of what he had done; his having added to the revelation the sentences which he [i.e. Gabriel] had not brought to him. This grieved the Prophet (peace be on him) intensely, whereupon God revealed the following verses which occur in

Bani Isra’ il: They had all but tempted you away from what We have revealed to you that you may invent something else in Our Name. Had you done so, they would have taken you as their trusted friend. Indeed, had We not strengthened you, you might have inclined to them a little, whereupon We would have made you taste double [the chastisement] in the world ~ and double the chastisement after death, and then you would have found none to help you against Us (Bani Isra’il 17: 73-5).

This incident, however, continued to torment the Prophet (peace be on him) until this above verse of the present surah was revealed. This aimed at consoling him, identifying as it did that something similar had happened to the earlier Messengers as well.

At the same time, the Muslims who had migrated to Abyssinia also came to learn that the Quraysh had prostrated themselves along with the Prophet (peace be on him) when the latter had recited this verse. Understandably, this led them to assume that a reconciliation had been brought about between the Prophet (peace be on him) and the unbelievers. Many migrants, therefore, returned to Makka, only to learn that the report was false and that the hostility between Islam and unbelief persisted as before. (See the comments of Ibn Kathir and Qurtubi on verse 52 — Ed.) This incident is mentioned by Tabari in his Tafsir as well as by several other commentators in their exegeses of the Qur’an. It is also found in Ibn Sa‘d’s Tabaqat, in al-Wahidi’s Ashab al-Nuzul, in the Maghazi of Musa ibn ‘Uqbah, and in the Hadith collections of Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Marduwayh and al-Tabarani. The report has also been transmitted on the authority of the following narrators: Muhammad ibn Qays, Muhammad ibn Ka‘b al-Qurazi, ‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, Abu Salih, Abu al-‘Aliyah, Sa‘id ibn Jubayr, Dahhak, and Abu Bakr ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Abbas, the only one among the Companions said to do so.

Leaving aside several minor discrepancies in the details of these various accounts, there are two serious areas of disagreement. First, the utterance ascribed to the Prophet (peace be on him) in praise of the deities differs in almost every single report. We have attempted to examine all these reports and have found at least fifteen different versions of what the Prophet (peace be on him) is supposed to have said. The other major discrepancy is that according to some reports this utterance was instigated by Satan and the Prophet (peace be on him) mistook this Satanic inspiration for genuine revelation. In other reports, it is claimed that the sentences uttered by the Prophet (peace be on him) reflected his own desire.

According to still others, the Prophet (peace be on him) had dozed off for a short while and these sentences were uttered in that state, or that he deliberately uttered them, meaning to couch them in the form of a question so as to negate the power of the deities concerned to intercede with God, or that Satan pronounced these words, joining his voice with the Prophet’s, the assumption being that that statement was made by the Prophet (peace be on him), or in other reports that the words were uttered by one of thé idolaters. .

Ibn Kathir, Bayhaqi, Qadi ‘Iyad, Ibn Khuzaymah, Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi, Razi, Qurtubi, Badr al-Din al-‘Ayni, Shawkani and Alusi are among the scholars who reject this report lock, stock, and barrel. Ibn Kathir, for instance, says: ‘All the chains of transmission of this report that have been narrated are mursal and munqata’‘ (interrupted).’ Bayhaqi, rejects it, saying that it is not established according to the canons of transmission. When Ibn Khuzaymah was asked about it he said: ‘It is an invention of Zanadiqah (heretics).’ Qadi ‘Iyad states: ‘That this report is weak is established by the fact that none of the compilers of the six authentic collections of Hadith have narrated it, nor does it occur in any sound, uninterrupted, fault-free chain of narration; nor is it narrated by trustworthy narrators.’ Razi, Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi and Alusi all examined this report in detail and forcefully rejected it. On the other hand, however, such a leading scholar of Hadith as Ibn Hajar, a distinguished jurist such as Abu Bakr al-Jassas, and the rationalistically inclined commentator of the Qur'an al-Zamakhshari, and a no less distinguished authority on Tafsir, history and Fiqh than Tabari are of the opinion that this report is genuine and regard it as the right explanation of the verse in question. Here is the argument advanced by Ibn Hajar: The chains of narrators of this report, except the one by Sa‘id ibn Jubayr, are either weak (da‘if) or interrupted (munqata‘). However, the sheer numerousness of the chains of narration of the report suggests that there is some basis to the report. Moreover, it has also been reported through a chain of narration as an uninterrupted tradition backed up by a chain of reliable narrators which has been recorded by al-Bazzar. (This refers to the following chain of narrators: Yusuf ibn Hammad, Umayyah ibn Khalid, Shu‘bah, Abu Bishr, Sa‘id ibn Jubayr, ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas.) Although two chains of narration of this tradition are mursal, its narrators fulfil the conditions as laid down in the standard works of Hadith. Both these chains of narration have been recorded by Tabari; the one through Yunus ibn Yazid, is Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri’s and the other through Mu'ammar ibn Sulayman and Hammad ibn Salamah is from Da’ ud ibn Abi Hind from Abu al-‘Aliyah. ‘So far as the supporters of this report are concerned, they consider it completely sound. Even its detractors have failed to subject it to critical scrutiny.

One group of scholars rejects it simply on the ground that its chains of narrators are not sound. In other words, had this been so, i.e. the chain sound, they would have confirmed the truth of the narration. Another group reject it out of hand on the premise that if the story is accepted as true, everything pertaining to Islam becomes doubtful. To accept the report means there is no strong basis for belief in any of the teachings of Islam. This because there is no way of knowing which elements of Islam have retained their original, pristine form, and which have been corrupted under the influence of Satan, or as a result of human desires.

Obviously, to reject this tradition may appeal to those who are determined to remain loyal to their faith. But surely it is not persuasive for those who are either already in a state of reluctance or who are inclined to skepticism ‘about Islam. Nor does this argument satisfy those who have not made up their minds about whether they should believe or not, and would like to do so only after making further inquiry. Surely, such people cannot accept the proposition that whatever renders Islam doubtful should be rejected ipso facto. The contention being that as long as this tradition is endorsed by as much as at least one well-known Companion, several Successors, and a number of reliable narrators of Hadith, why should it be dismissed simply on the basis that it renders doubtful the basic tenets of Islam? Why should Islam not be considered doubtful when this story proves it so? Let us now turn to the right method of criticism to be followed in evaluating the soundness of the tradition in question. If this method is followed, it is evident that regardless of the soundness of the chain of narration, this story is altogether incredible.

The first and foremost factor which establishes the falsity of the report is the internal evidence of the story itself. In this respect, the incident took place at a time when the Muslims had already migrated to Abyssinia and when these migrants heard about it all a number of them returned to Makka. Let us take a look, then, at the chronological sequence of events. (See Ibn Sa‘d, Tabaqat, vol. 1, pp. 213 f. — Ed.) According to authentic, historical reports, the migration to Abyssinia took place in the month of Rajab in the fifth year of Prophethood. On learning about this incident and the resultant reconciliation between the Prophet (peace be on him) and the Makkan unbelievers, a group of migrants returned to Makka after three months, i.e. in the month of Shawwal during the fifth year of Prophethood.

This, unmistakably, establishes that the incident took place in the fifth year after the conferment of Prophethood on Muhammad (peace be on him).

It is claimed that the verse of Bani Isra’il under discussion was revealed as a means of reproaching the Prophet (peace be on him). The fact is, however, that these verses were revealed after the Prophet’s Ascension (Mi‘raj). Furthermore, according to the most reliable historical reports, Mi ‘raj took place in the eleventh or twelfth year of Prophethood. This means, then, that God took the Prophet (peace be on him) to task for what he had done some five or-six years previously! Moreover, as is clearly indicated by the context, the verse was revealed in 1 A.H. In other words, two and a half years after the Prophet (peace be on him) was reproached in Surah Bani Isra’il, it is pointed out that the unjustified addition to God’s revelation was made by him at the prompting of Satan, and that the addition now stood abrogated.

Can any sensible person believe that the Prophet (peace be on him) would be reproached for one of his acts six years after it occurred, and that almost nine years after the Prophet’s utterance which had brought about God’s reproach it ‘would be declared abrogated? Moreover, according to this report, the incident i in question was alluded to in Surah al-Najm. When the Prophet (peace be on him) reached the words (See al-Najm 53: 19-20), he added a statement either of his own volition or under Satan’s influence. However, after he had added those few words, he resumed the recitation of subsequent verses of the siirah.

The tradition in question mentions that on hearing the Prophet’s praise for their deities, the Makkan unbelievers felt intensely happy and declared that the difference between them and the Prophet (peace be on him) had ended.

Now let us attempt to read the relevant verses of Surah al-Najm, adding the words the Prophet (peace be on him) is supposed to have interjected, and see how it reads: Have you then considered al-Lat and al-‘Uzza? And al-Manat, the other one, the third? These are exalted deities whose intercession should surely be looked forward to. Shall sons be yours and for Him (i.e. Allah) there should be daughters? This is an unfair division! Nay, these are but names that you have named and Allah has sent down no authority for it. They are merely following conjectures and fancies of their liking without receiving any guidance from Allah (al-Najm 53: 19-23).

Just consider the location of the italicized words and you are bound to be struck by its incongruity, by its being totally discordant with the main thrust of the discourse. For, if these words are there, the relevant verses would assert in one breath that the deities of the Makkan unbelievers are exalted and have the power to intercede with God, and in the very next, emphasize the stupidity of the doctrine by identifying the unfairness of the division, ie. daughters for God, and sons for themselves. This is not only mischievously unfair, but also something for which God has not given any sanction.

Let us disregard for the moment that this statement is too preposterous to have been made by an. intelligent person. Let us assume instead that for a moment Satan temporarily had such influence over the Prophet (peace be on him) that he indeed uttered these words in praise of other deities. But what happened to the audience, the Quraysh? Had they gone altogether insane that notwithstanding a devastating refutation of their beliefs in subsequent verses, they took these two sentences, supposedly uttered by the Prophet, at face value and assumed that their deities had indeed been extolled? It will be seen that the whole thrust of Surah al- Najm, right from its opening verse to the one that concludes it, is in blatant opposition to the statement that allegedly occurs in between — a statement which affirms an exalted position for the deities of the Quraysh. Does it stand to reason that the Quraysh would listen to the whole of Surah al-Najm, and still remain convinced that they had ceased to have any differences with the Prophet (peace be on him)? This is the internal testimony of the account which establishes its utter baselessness and absurdity. The next point to be considered is whether the circumstantial context mentioned for the revelation of these three verses is in consonance with the sequence of revelation of the Qur’anic text.

According to accounts of the incident, the verses in question were made a part of Surah al-Najm, revealed in the fifth year of Prophethood. However, the verses which are supposed to contain the Prophet's reproach occur in Surah Bani Isra’il (verses 73—5). Thereafter, the verses concerned were abrogated and the whole incident explained in Surah al-Hajj (see verses 52-4 — Ed.).

Quite naturally, either of the two things must have happened. The first possibility is that the verses containing the Prophet’s reproach and the abrogation of the verses were revealed, one following the other, shortly after the incident took place. In this case, the verses of reproach should have been revealed along with Surah Bani Isra’il and the verse of abrogation along with Surah al-Hajj. If so, it seems very strange, indeed inexplicable, that these interrelated verses did not form part of Surah al-Najm, Instead, the verses which supposedly censure the Prophet (peace be on him) were deferred for a full six years, and were then made part of Surah Bani Isra’il. Likewise, it seems strange that the verse clarifying the whole incident was held in abeyance for a further two and a half years, and then not made part of any surah until the revealing of Surah al-Hajj. This runs counter ~ to the process of the collection of the Qur’an. For it would suggest that the verses revealed on different occasions were left lying dispersed, separated from one another, and only placed in different surahs after a lapse of several years.

If the first alternative is not tenable, let us consider the second: that the verses of reproach were revealed six years after the incident, and the verse of abrogation eight or nine years later. This of course lends itself to the criticism we have made above, namely, that this is extremely odd. Moreover, it raises the question of what the events were which occasioned the revelation of these verses of Surah Bani Isra’il and Surah al-Hajj.

This brings us to the third canon of criticism, namely, that the adequacy or otherwise of the interpretation of a Qur’anic verse should be determined on the basis of whether it fits into the context of the Qur’anic text. Let us now look at verses 73-5 of Surah Bani Isra’il. Taking note of those verses that precede and follow the ones in question, do we find in them anything that calls for the reproach of the Prophet (peace be on him), and that too with regard to an incident that had taken place six years previously? One may well consider whether the words employed here (‘They had all but tempted you away...’ Bani Isra’il 17: 73) indicate that the Prophet (peace be on him) was reproached; and also whether the verse can be considered to endorse or refute the Prophet’s having fallen prey to the unbelievers’ mischievous designs. Likewise, let us look at Surah al-Hajj which is before us, and specifically at the verses that precede and follow the one in question (i.e. verse 52). Is there any reasonable ground to believe how, in this context, the Prophet (peace be on him) would be abruptly reassured and told not to be too concerned at his act of having mixed with the Qur’an something extraneous to it? He need not worry because Satan had caused the Prophets of the past to do similar acts, and whenever a Prophet makes such a mistake, God abrogates those verses which have been mixed with true revelation under Satanic influence, and subsequently strengthens His own signs.

We have emphatically stated earlier and would like to reiterate here that no matter how well-supported a tradition might be in respect of its chain of narration, it can never be accepted if it testifies to its own falsity, or if the words of the Qur’anic text or their context and sequence are in discordance with that tradition.

In fact, arguments based on these considerations are so unassailable that they should convince both those who are overly skeptical and those who are unbiased seekers after the truth that the account in question is altogether false.

As for a believer, it is obvious that he can never accept the account in question because it conflicts sharply with a large number of Qur’anic verses and, hence, can in no way be considered authentic. It is easier for a believer to accept that it was the narrators of the report who were misled by Satan rather than to believe that the Prophet (peace be on him) was so misguided that he added anything, however insignificant, to the text of the Qur’an. Nor can a believer entertain the view that the Prophet (peace be on him) would have toyed with the idea, even for a moment, of adulterating the pure Message of monotheism with elements of polytheism so as to win over unbelievers. Nor is it conceivable that the Prophet (peace be on him) would have desired that God not reveal to him something that would offend the unbelievers. Nor can it be imagined that revelation was communicated to the Prophet (peace be on him) in a manner that was not absolutely safe and beyond all doubt. For it is only in such circumstances that it is possible for both Gabriel and Satan to communicate messages to the Prophet (peace be on him), causing uncertainty in his mind and mistaking the words of” Satan for those of Gabriel. Each of these assumptions is opposed to explicit statements of the Qur’an and is antithetical to our well-established beliefs regarding the Qur’an and the Prophet (peace be on him). May God save us from that exaggerated traditionalism which prompts us to accept monstrosities about the Qur’an and the Prophet (peace be on him) simply on such technical grounds as the uninterrupted transmission of a tradition, or the trustworthiness of the narrators of that tradition, or the sheer numerousness of the channels through which it has been transmitted.

It seems pertinent at this point to remove a misunderstanding which might agitate some minds because of the story being told by a large number of narrators of Hadith. For one might ask: if there is no truth in this story, how could a calumny, which calls into question the integrity of the Qur’an and the Prophet (peace be on him), gain currency among the Muslims? How did it come about that such a large number of narrators, including some very prominent and trustworthy ones, took part in transmitting it? _ The problem can be well appreciated by turning to the Hadith literature itself. The incident, as reported in the works of Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Da’ud, Nasa’ and Ahmad ibn Hanbal is as follows: The Prophet. (peace be on him) recited Surah al-Najm and when at its conclusion he prostrated himself, all” those present followed suit. This is what took place and there is nothing for us to question about why it did. First, people fell into prostration because of the unusual force of the Qur’anic verses, made all the more effective by the moving manner in which the Prophet (peace be on him) recited them. We know that the unbelievers of Makka, despite their lack of belief in the Qur’an, were nonetheless well aware of its attractiveness. In fact, it was precisely for this reason that they branded the Prophet (peace be on him) a sorcerer. However, it appears that some of the Quraysh subsequently regretted their being involuntarily carried away, even if temporarily, by the spell of these verses. It is likely, therefore, that in order to justify their actions they fabricated the story that they had actually joined the Prophet (peace be on him) in prostration following his recitation of certain verses of the Qur’an which extolled their deities.

Let us, now, consider the other part of the story, that is that the news about the incident reached the Muslim migrants to Abyssinia in such a way that they were given the impression that reconciliation had come about between the - Prophet (peace be on him) and the-Quraysh. The basis for this notion being that many people had actually seen both believers and unbelievers together in a state of prostration. The rumor that the two groups had become reconciled spread far and wide, with the result that 33 migrants returned to Makka. These three components of the story, the Quraysh falling into prostration, their reason for their so doing, and the return of Muslim migrants from Abyssinia, became so mixed up over the course of a century that a fanciful story emerged to the point at which people who were otherwise trustworthy began to narrate it. Human beings are, after all human beings. Hence we occasionally come across lapses even by those who are otherwise extremely righteous and blessed with mature understanding. Understandably, their lapses cause much greater harm than those of ordinary people.

Those who go to excess in the veneration of our esteemed forbears are at times inclined to uncritically accept their mistaken notions along with the sound opinions that have come down from them. Indeed, they even go a step further and reckon those mistakes as among the good deeds which characterize their overall behavior. On the other hand, there are those who, actuated by evil intent, deliberately collect and parade the lapses of good people, arguing that the entire heritage of Islam passed on to us by such people should be dumped and set on fire.

102. Literally the word ‘aqim means ‘barren’. Here the word has been employed to characterize a particular day. The implication being that it would be an ominous day when no effort would succeed, when every endeavor on man’s part would end in failure, when every hope would turn into despair.

The other meaning of the expression ‘barren day’ is that it is a day destined not to turn into night.

In both senses, the expression signifies that the day on which a nation’s destruction takes place will be a barren one for that nation. For instance, the day the people of Noah witnessed the great flood was a barren day for them.

In like manner, the people of ‘Ad, Thamud and Lut, the people of Midian, and several other nations were totally annihilated by God’s scourge. Each of these days was a barren day for the people in question. This because they were unable to witness its morrow. Nor had they any effective device whereby they could avert the disaster.