وَ لِسُلَیْمٰنَ And to Sulaiman الرِّیْحَ the wind غُدُوُّهَا its morning course شَهْرٌ (was) a month وَّ رَوَاحُهَا and its afternoon course شَهْرٌ ۚ (was) a month وَ اَسَلْنَا and We caused to flow لَهٗ for him عَیْنَ a spring الْقِطْرِ ؕ (of) molten copper وَ مِنَ And [of] الْجِنِّ the jinn مَنْ who یَّعْمَلُ worked بَیْنَ before him یَدَیْهِ before him بِاِذْنِ by the permission رَبِّهٖ ؕ (of) his Lord وَ مَنْ And whoever یَّزِغْ deviated مِنْهُمْ among them عَنْ from اَمْرِنَا Our Command نُذِقْهُ We will make him taste مِنْ of عَذَابِ (the) punishment السَّعِیْرِ (of) the Blaze یَعْمَلُوْنَ They worked لَهٗ for him مَا what یَشَآءُ he willed مِنْ of مَّحَارِیْبَ elevated chambers وَ تَمَاثِیْلَ and statues وَ جِفَانٍ and bowls كَالْجَوَابِ like reservoirs وَ قُدُوْرٍ and cooking-pots رّٰسِیٰتٍ ؕ fixed اِعْمَلُوْۤا Work اٰلَ O family دَاوٗدَ (of) Dawood! شُكْرًا ؕ (in) gratitude وَ قَلِیْلٌ But few مِّنْ of عِبَادِیَ My slaves الشَّكُوْرُ (are) grateful فَلَمَّا Then when قَضَیْنَا We decreed عَلَیْهِ for him الْمَوْتَ the death مَا not دَلَّهُمْ indicated to them عَلٰی [on] مَوْتِهٖۤ his death اِلَّا except دَآبَّةُ a creature الْاَرْضِ (of) the earth تَاْكُلُ eating مِنْسَاَتَهٗ ۚ his staff فَلَمَّا But when خَرَّ he fell down تَبَیَّنَتِ became clear الْجِنُّ (to) the jinn اَنْ that لَّوْ if كَانُوْا they had یَعْلَمُوْنَ known الْغَیْبَ the unseen مَا not لَبِثُوْا they (would have) remained فِی in الْعَذَابِ the punishment الْمُهِیْنِؕ humiliating 34. Saba Page 430 لَقَدْ Certainly كَانَ (there) was لِسَبَاٍ for Saba فِیْ in مَسْكَنِهِمْ their dwelling place اٰیَةٌ ۚ a sign: جَنَّتٰنِ Two gardens عَنْ on یَّمِیْنٍ (the) right وَّ شِمَالٍ ؕ۬ and (on the) left كُلُوْا Eat مِنْ from رِّزْقِ (the) provision رَبِّكُمْ (of) your Lord وَ اشْكُرُوْا and be grateful لَهٗ ؕ to Him بَلْدَةٌ A land طَیِّبَةٌ good وَّ رَبٌّ and a Lord غَفُوْرٌ Oft-Forgiving فَاَعْرَضُوْا But they turned away فَاَرْسَلْنَا so We sent عَلَیْهِمْ upon them سَیْلَ (the) flood الْعَرِمِ (of) the dam وَ بَدَّلْنٰهُمْ and We changed for them بِجَنَّتَیْهِمْ their two gardens جَنَّتَیْنِ (with) two gardens ذَوَاتَیْ producing fruit اُكُلٍ producing fruit خَمْطٍ bitter وَّ اَثْلٍ and tamarisks وَّ شَیْءٍ and (some)thing مِّنْ of سِدْرٍ lote trees قَلِیْلٍ few ذٰلِكَ That جَزَیْنٰهُمْ We recompensed them بِمَا because كَفَرُوْا ؕ they disbelieved وَ هَلْ And not نُجٰزِیْۤ We recompense اِلَّا except الْكَفُوْرَ the ungrateful وَ جَعَلْنَا And We made بَیْنَهُمْ between them وَ بَیْنَ and between الْقُرَی the towns الَّتِیْ which بٰرَكْنَا We had blessed فِیْهَا in it قُرًی towns ظَاهِرَةً visible وَّ قَدَّرْنَا And We determined فِیْهَا between them السَّیْرَ ؕ the journey سِیْرُوْا Travel فِیْهَا between them لَیَالِیَ (by) night وَ اَیَّامًا and (by) day اٰمِنِیْنَ safely فَقَالُوْا But they said رَبَّنَا Our Lord بٰعِدْ lengthen (the distance) بَیْنَ between اَسْفَارِنَا our journeys وَ ظَلَمُوْۤا And they wronged اَنْفُسَهُمْ themselves فَجَعَلْنٰهُمْ so We made them اَحَادِیْثَ narrations وَ مَزَّقْنٰهُمْ and We dispersed them كُلَّ (in) a total مُمَزَّقٍ ؕ dispersion اِنَّ Indeed فِیْ in ذٰلِكَ that لَاٰیٰتٍ surely (are) Signs لِّكُلِّ for everyone صَبَّارٍ patient شَكُوْرٍ (and) grateful وَ لَقَدْ And certainly صَدَّقَ found true عَلَیْهِمْ about them اِبْلِیْسُ Iblis ظَنَّهٗ his assumption فَاتَّبَعُوْهُ so they followed him اِلَّا except فَرِیْقًا a group مِّنَ of الْمُؤْمِنِیْنَ the believers وَ مَا And not كَانَ was لَهٗ for him عَلَیْهِمْ over them مِّنْ any سُلْطٰنٍ authority اِلَّا except لِنَعْلَمَ that We (might) make evident مَنْ who یُّؤْمِنُ believes بِالْاٰخِرَةِ in the Hereafter مِمَّنْ from (one) who هُوَ [he] مِنْهَا about it فِیْ (is) in شَكٍّ ؕ doubt وَ رَبُّكَ And your Lord عَلٰی over كُلِّ all شَیْءٍ things حَفِیْظٌ۠ (is) a Guardian
(34:12) And We subdued the wind to Solomon: its morning course was a month's journey and its evening course was a month's journey.17 We gave him a spring flowing with molten brass,18 and We subdued for him jinn who, by his Lord's permission,19 worked before him. Such of them as swerved from Our commandment, We let them taste the chastisement of the Blazing Fire.
(34:13) They made for him whatever he would desire: stately buildings, images,20 basins like water-troughs and huge, built-in-cauldrons:21 “Work, O house of David, in thankfulness (to your Lord).22 Few of My servants are truly thankful.”
(34:14) When We executed Our decree of death on Solomon, nothing indicated to the jinn that he was dead except a worm eating away his staff. So when Solomon fell down, the jinn realised23 that had they known what lies in the realm beyond perception, they would not have continued to be in this humiliating chastisement.24
(34:15) For Sheba25 there was also a Sign in their dwelling place:26 the two gardens27 to the right and to the left.“ Eat of your Lord's provision, and render thanks to Him. Most pleasant is your land and Most Forgiving is your Lord.”
(34:16) But they turned away28 and so We let loose upon them a devastating flood29 that swept away the dams and replaced their gardens by two others bearing bitter fruits, tamarisks, and a few lote trees.30
(34:17) Thus did We retribute them for their ingratitude. And none do We retribute in this manner except the utterly ungrateful.
(34:18) We placed other prominent towns between them, the towns that We had blessed and had set well-measured stages between them.31 Move back and forth between them, night and day, in perfect security.
(34:19) But they said: “Lord, make the stages of our journeys longer.”32 They wronged their own selves so We reduced them to bygone tales, and utterly tore them to pieces.33 Verily there are Signs in this for everyone who is steadfast and thankful.34
(34:20) Iblis found his estimate of them to be true, and they followed him, except a party of the believers.35
(34:21) Iblis had no authority over them and whatever happened was in order that We might know him who believes in the Hereafter as distinct from him who is in doubt about it.36 Your Lord is watchful over everything.37
17. See Towards. Understanding the Qur'an, Surah al-Anbiya’ 21:81, and nn. 74-75, Vol. V, pp. 285-7.
18. Some earlier Qur’an-commentators interpret this to mean that God caused a spring to flow from the earth for Solomon (peace be on him). What actually sprang forth from the spring, however, was molten copper. This statement can also be interpreted to mean that the melting of copper and the manufacture of numerous items made from that metal became so common and widely spread during the Prophet Solomon’s time that one felt as though springs of molten copper flowed there. (For further details see Towards Understanding the Qur'an, Surah al-Anbiya’ 21: n. 74, Vol. V, pp. 285-6.)
19. We have already discussed whether those made subservient 2 to the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) were human beings of agricultural and mountainous regions or actual jinn, known across the world as an invisible species. (For a detailed discussion see Towards Understanding the Qur'an, Surah al-Anbiya’ 21: n. 75, Vol. V, pp. 286-7, and Surah al-Naml 27: nn. 23, 45 and 52, Vol. VIL, pp. 146, 158 and 161.) (See also Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Tafsir al-Qur’an wa Huwa al-Huda wa al-Furqan, Patna: Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library, 1995, Vol. 3, pp. 57-72, see esp. p. 67 — Ed.)
20. The word tamāthīl (sing. timthāl) here stands for replicas of natural objects, be they men, animals, trees, flowers, rivers, or any other inanimate objects. According to Lisān al-'Arab:
"Timthāl signifies a replica of something created by God", (Q.v. timthāl, Lisān al-'Arab). According to al-Zamakhshari's famous exegesis, al-Kashshāf:
"Timthāl signifies all that has been made after the shape (surah) of any other object, be it animate or inanimate." (Zamakhsharī, al- Kashshāf, comments on verse 13.) Therefore, the Qur’anic account does not necessarily mean that the images made by the jinn for the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) necessarily consisted of statues or images of human beings and animals. Images might equally be those of plants and flowers, natural scenery, and other beautiful designs used by the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) to decorate his buildings.
Misconception has also arisen because some Qur’an-commentators have stated that Solomon (peace be on him) had images made of Prophets and angels. These statements were based on Israeli traditions.
In the light of those traditions such scholars argued that the making of such images was not prohibited in the Law of earlier religious communities. Our scholars, when they cited these traditions, did so without critically appraising their authenticity; in fact, they failed to recognize that the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) was a follower of Mosaic Law, which forbade the drawing of images and the making of statues of human beings and animals.
Mosaic Law in this regard is like the Shari'ah of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) which forbids it. These Qur'ān- commentators also ignored the fact that a group of Israelites maligned the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) out of spite. In fact, they went so far as to hurl vile accusations of polytheism, idolatry, ‘magic and illicit sex at him. Therefore, no Israeli tradition regarding such a distinguished Messenger of God should be accepted if it is discordant with the Law ordained by God. It is common knowledge that all Prophets raised among the Israelites from the time of the Prophet Moses (peace be on him) through the time of the Prophet Jesus (peace be on him) were followers of the Torah. This because none of them was granted any other Scripture which would abrogate the Torah. That it is categorically forbidden in the Torah to make images and statues of humans and animals is evident from the following passages:
You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth, (Exodus 20:4.)
You shall make for yourselves no idols and erect no graven image on pillars, and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land, to bow down to, (Leviticus 26:1.)
Beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth, (Deuteronomy 4:16-18.)
Cursed be the man who makes a graven or molten image, an abomination to the Lord, a thing made by the hands of a craftsman, and sets it up in secret, (Deuteronomy 27:15.) In the face of these explicit commands how can anyone accept the claim that the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) directed the jinn to make images or statues of Prophets and angels? How can one trust the traditions of the Israelites who had stooped so low as to accuse him of idolatry out of infatuation for his polytheistic wives? (See Kings 7:15.)
In any case, as far as the above-mentioned Qur’an-commentators are concerned, one important point is worth noting. Alongside recounting the Israelite tradition, they explicitly stated that making imagc3 and statues was forbidden in the Shariah of Muhammad (peace be on him), and hence, no one may do so on the grounds of following the example of the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him). On the contrary, some of our contemporaries, who have a penchant to follow in the footsteps of Westerners, refer to this verse to legitimize image-making and idol-carving. They claim that since images and statues were made at the bidding of a Messenger of God, and that the Qur'ān mentions this without expressing any disapproval of his act, shows that it has, necessarily, to be considered as lawful.
The contention of these uncritical followers of the West suffers from two basic flaws: (i) The Qur'anic expression tamāthīl does not necessarily mean human or animal representations. The word can also be used to signify images of inanimate objects. It is wrong, therefore, to infer on the basis of this that the Qur’an sanctions human and animal representation. (ii) It is established by several authentic ahādīth that the Prophet (peace be on him) forbade, in quite categorical terms, the drawing and keeping of living beings' images. Of these the following ahādīth are noteworthy:
a. 'Ã'ishah relates that Umm Habībah and Umm Salamah had seen images in a church in Abyssinia and they narrated that to the Prophet (peace be on him). He told them: "Such was the state of those people that when some righteous member of their community died, they erected a shrine at his grave and made images in it. On the Day of Judgement, they will be declared the worst creatures in God's sight". (Bukhārī, Kitāb al-Salah, Bāb Hal Tunbashu Qubūr Mushrikī al-Jāhilīyyah wa Yuttakhadhu Makānuhā Masājid; Muslim, Kitāb al-Masājid, Bāb al-Nahy 'an Binā' al-Masājid 'alā al-Qubūr wa Ittikhādh al-Şuwar fihā ...; and al-Nasā'ī, Kitāb al-Masājid, Bāb al-Nahy 'an Ittikhādh al-Qubūr Masājid.)
b. Abū Juhayfah relates that the Prophet (peace be on him) cursed those who made images. (Bukhārī, Kitāb al-Buyū', Bāb Mu'kil al-Ribā; Kitāb al-Țalāq, Bāb Mahr al-Baghiy wa al-Nikāḥ al-Făsid, and Kitāb al-Libās, Bāb Man Ia'ana al-Muşawwir.)
c. Abū Zur'ah relates: "Once I entered a house in Madīnah with Abū Hurayrah and saw an image-maker at the top of the house, making images". On observing this, Abũ Hurayrah said: "I have heard the Prophet (peace be on him) say that God says: 'Who can be a greater wrong-doer than he who imitates Me in My [act of] creation. Let them just create a grain or an ant' ". (Bukhārī, Kitāb al-Libās, Bāb Naqd al-Şuwar; Ahmad ibn Hanbal Musnad, narrated by Abu Hurayrah; Muslim, Kitāb al- Libās, Bāb Tahrīim Taşwir Şürat al-Haywan.... The traditions in Muslim and Aḥmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, identify this house to be Marwān's.)
d. Abū Muhammad al-Hudhalī relates on the authority of 'Alī that once he was with the Prophet (peace be on him) attending a funeral. [On that occasion] the Prophet (peace be on him) said: "Who of you will go to Madīnah and then leave no idol but shatter it, no grave but level it down, and no image but destroy it?” A person said: “I will go, O Messenger of God”. He then went but returned home without (accomplishing these tasks) for fear (of reprisal from) the people of Madinah. Then ‘Ali said: “I will go there, O Messenger of God”. The Prophet (peace be on him) said: “Then go”. He went there and returned and said: “O God’s. Messenger, there is no idol which I have not shattered, nor any grave which I have not levelled down, nor any image which have not destroyed”. Then the Prophet (peace be on him) said: “Anyone who hereafter makes any of these things has rejected what was revealed to me”. (Ahmad, Musnad, narrated by ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib; Muslim, Kitab al-Jana’iz, Bab al-Amr bi Taswiyat al-Qabr; Nasa’, Kitab al-Jana’iz, Bab Taswiyat al-Qubur idha Rufi‘at.)
e. ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas narrates from the Prophet (peace be on him):” [Whoever makes any image will be punished and will be tasked to breathe a soul into it. And he will not be able to breathe a soul into it”. (Bukhari, Kitab al-Ta'bir, Bab Man Kadhiba fi Hulumihi; al-Tirmidhi, Abwab al-Libas, Bab ma ja’a fi al-Musawwirin; al-Nasa'I, Kitab al-Zinah, Bab Dhikr ma Yukallafu Ashab al-Suwar Yawm al-Qiyamah; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, narrated by ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas.)
f. Sa‘id ibn Abi al-Hasan narrates that one day he was with ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas when someone came to him. He said that he was a person who made his living by his hand, by making ' images. ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas said to him: “I will narrate to you only what I heard the Prophet (peace be on him) say. And I heard him say: ‘Whoever makes an image God will chastise him until he breathes a soul into it and he will never be able to do so’. Upon hearing this, the person was greatly enraged and his face turned pale. Ibn ‘Abbas told him: ‘If you insist on making images, then make images of trees, but don’t make the image of an object with a soul’”. (Bukhari, Kitab al-Buyu‘, Bab Bay’ al-Tasawir allati laysa fiha Rah wa ma Yukrahu min Dhalik; Muslim, Kitab al-Libas, Bab Takrim Taswir Surat al-Haywa...; Nasa‘I, Kitab al-Zinah, Bab Dhikr ma Yukallafu Ashab al-Suwar Yawm al-Qiyamah; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, narrated by ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas.)
g. Abd Allah ibn Mas‘ud relates that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: “On the Day of Judgement those who make images will be given the severest punishment”. (Bukhari, Kitab al-Libas, Bab ‘Adhab al-Musawwirin Yawm al-Qiyamah; Muslim, Kitab al- Libas, Bab Tahrim Taswir Surat al-Haywan...; and Nasa‘l, Kitab al-Zinah, Bāb Dhikr Ashadd al-Nās 'Adhāban; Aḥmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, narrated by 'Abd Allāh ibn Mas'üd.)
h. According to 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar, the Prophet (peace be on him) said: "Those who make images will be punished on the Day of Judgement. They will be asked to breathe life into what they have made". (Bukhārī, Kitāb al-Libās, Bāb 'Adhāb al-Muşawwirin Yawm al-Qiyāmah; Muslim, Kitāb al-Libās, Bāb Tahrīm Taşwir Şūrat al-Haywan...; Nasā'ī, Kitāb al-Zīnah, Bāb Dhikr mā Yukallafu Aşhāb al-Şuwar Yawm al-Qiyāmah; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, narrated by 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar.)
i. 'Ã'ishah narrates: "I bought a pillow with images on it. When the Prophet (peace be on him) arrived, he kept standing at the door but did not step inside. I said: 'I turn in repentance to God for the sin that I might have committed'. He asked me about the pillow. I explained that it was for his comfort so that he might recline. However, he told me that those who make such images will be chastised on the Day of Judgement. They will be asked to imbue with life all that they have made. Angels of mercy do not enter a house wherein there are images".
(Bukhārī, Kitāb al-Libās, Bāb man Kariha al-Qu'üd 'alā al-Şuwar; Muslim, Kitāb al-Libās, Bāb Taḥrīm Taşwir Şürat al-Haywän...; Nasă'ī, Kitāb al-Zīnah, Bāb al-Taşāwir; Ibn Mājah, Kitāb al-Libās, Bāb al-Şuwar fi al-Bayt; Mālik, Muwațța', Kitab al-Isti'dhān, Bāb mā jā'a fi al-Şuwar wa al-Tamāthīl.)
j. 'Ã'ishah relates: "Once the Prophet (peace be on him) came to me. I had hung in my room a curtain with images on it. On spotting it, his complexion changed. He tore the curtain to pieces, saying: 'On the Day of Judgement the severest punishment will be given to those who try to make the like of God's creation' ". (Muslim, Kitūb al-Libās, Bāb Tahrīm Taşwir Şürat al-Haywan...; Bukhārī, Kitāb al-Libās, Bāb mã Wuți'a min al-Taşãwir; Nasā'ī, Kitāb al-Zīnah, Bāb Dhikr Ashadd al-Nās 'Adhāban.)
k. 'Ã'ishah narrates: "Once when the Prophet (peace be on him) returned from a journey, a curtain with images of winged horses was hanging at my door. He asked me to take that curtain off, and I took it off". (Muslim, Kitāb al-Libās, Bāb Tahrīm Taşwir Şürat al-Haywan...; Nasā'ī, Kitāb al-Zīnah, Bāb al-Taşãwir.)
l. Jābir ibn 'Abd Allāh relates that the Prophet (peace be on him) forbade keeping images in the house and also forbade making them. (Tirmidhĩ, Abwāb al-Libās, Bāb mā jā'a fi al-Şürah.)
m. ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas nazrates from Abu Talhah al-Ansari that the Prophet (peace be on him) said: “Angels of mercy do not enter a house which has a dog or an image”. (Bukhari, Kitab al-Libas, Bab man Kariha al-Qu‘ud ‘ala al-Suwar.)
n. ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Umar said: “Once Gabriel promised [to visit] the Prophet (peace be on him) but delayed [in coming] for quite a while, so much so that he was distressed and went out of his house. There the Prophet (peace be on him) met Gabriel and complained to him about the incident. Gabriel told him: “We do not enter a house which has a dog or an image in it.” (Bukhari, Kitab al-Libas, Bab 1a Tadkhu! al-Mala’ikah Baytan fihi Surah.)
Several ahadith with the same import are recorded by Bukhari, Muslim, Kitab al-Libas, Bab Tahrim Taswir Surat al-Haywan...; Abu Da’ud, Kitab al-Libas, Bab fi al-Suwar; Tirmidhi, Kitab al-Isti'dhan wa al-Adab, Bab ma ja‘a fi ann al-Mala’ikah la Tadkhul Baytan fihi Surah wa la Kalb; Nasa'i, Kitab al-Zinah, Bab Dhikr Ashadd al-Nas ‘Adhaban; Ibn Majah, Kitab al-Libas, Bab al-Suwar fi al-Bayt; Malik, Muwatta’, Kitab al-Isti’dhan, Bab Ma ja’a fi al-Suwar wa al-Tamathil; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, narrated by ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, on the authority of several Companions.
As opposed to these ahadith, some other ahadith are also put forward. These appear to make some allowance for images. For example, Abi Talhah al-Ansari maintains that one is allowed to use a curtain where the material has an image embroidered on it, (Bukhari, Kitab al-Libas, Bab La Tadkhul al-Mala’ikah Baytan fihi Surah.) Of similar import is ‘A’ishah’s report that when she tore off the material with images on it for making a mattress, the Prophet (peace be on him) did not object to it. (Muslim, Kitab al-Libas, Bab Tahrim Taswir Surat al-Haywan....) Likewise, Salim ibn ‘Abd Allah maintains that the prohibition is directed only against those images that are displayed prominently, but not against those that are spread on the floor. (Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, narrated by ‘Abd Allah ibn Umar.) However, none of these traditions contradicts the fourteen ahadith quoted above. Moreover, as far as the making of images is concerned, no tradition declares it to be lawful. The traditions which are cited to legitimize image-making are related to the images that had already been made. In this connection the tradition narrated by Abu Talhah al-Ansari that it is allowed to use a curtain with an image embroidered on it is patently unacceptable for it runs counter to many authentic ahadith that state that the Prophet (peace be on him) not only expressed ‘interdiction of hanging curtains with images on them, but also had them torn down. Furthermore, Tirmidhi and Malik state that Abi Talhah al-Ansari’s own practice was that he felt uneasy about using any cloth that had images on it. This was his attitude as regards carpets, let alone curtains. (Tirmidhi, Kitab al-Libas, Bab ma jaa fi al- Surah; Malik, Muwatta’, Kitab al-Isti’dhan, Bab ma jaa fi al-Suwar wa al-Tamathil.) As for the above-mentioned reports narrated by ‘A’ishah and Salim ibn ‘Abd Allah, at the most they suggest the lawfulness of using fabrics with images on them provided they are not an object of esteem. They may be tolerated if they are so placed on the floor that they are trodden over by people’s feet. These ahadith, however, cannot be stretched so far as to legitimize the cultivation of a whole culture that regards making images and statues a proud achievement of human civilization and which seeks to promote it among Muslims.
The ultimate rule bequeathed by the Prophet (peace be on him) with regard to images is evident from the practice of his Companions.
It is a standing principle of Islamic law that the authentic Islamic position is that which was promulgated by the Prophet (peace be on him) in the later years of his life after a gradual unfolding of legal injunctions and the grant of temporary allowances. The fact that the more distinguished Companions adhered to a particular practice after the Prophet's time further proves that that was his final ruling. Let us, therefore, examine the Companions’ attitude on the question of images:
i. ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab told the Christians: “We do not enter your churches because of statues with images.” (Bukhari, Kitab al-Salah, Bab al-Salah fi al-Bi’ah.) ii.
iii. ii. ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abbas used to offer Prayer in churches except in those that had images. (Bukhari, Kitab al-Salah, Bab al-Salah fi al-Bi'ah.) iv.
v. iii. Abu al-Hiyaj al-Asadi relates that ‘Ali told him: “Shall I not send you to accomplish the same mission for which the Prophet (peace be on him) had once sent me: leave no statue until you have destroyed it, and leave no elevated grave until you have levelled it down, and leave no image until you have erased it.” (Muslim, Kitab al-Jana’iz, Bab al-Amr bi Taswiyat al-Qabr; Nasa‘i, Kitab al-Jana’iz, Bab Taswiyat al-Qubur idha Rufi‘at.) vi.
vii. iv. Hanash al-Kindni relates from ‘Ali that he deputed his security chief on a mission and said: “Are you aware of the nature of your mission? It is the same mission that the Prophet (peace be on him) assigned to me. It consists in destroying all images and levelling down all graves”. (Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, narrated by ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.) viii.
This well-proven rule has been recognized by Muslim jurists to be the authoritative Islamic position. Referring to an authoritative legal text, al-Tawdih, Badr al-Din al-‘Ayni maintains:,
Our [i.e. Hanafi] and other jurists consider the making of images of any animate object not only forbidden, but do so quite vehemently and consider it a major sin, regardless of whether one makes them to show disrespect or for any other purpose. Making images is forbidden in all circumstances for it amounts to imitating God’s act of creation. Every image is forbidden, be it on a piece of cloth, or on dinars, dirhams or on coins of small value, or on pots or walls. However, making images of inanimate objects, for example trees, etc., is not forbidden. It is immaterial whether the image casts a shadow or not. This is the position of Malik, Sufyan al-Thawri, Abu Hanifah and other jurists. According to Qadi Iyad, dolls are the only exception to the above rule. Malik even disapproves of the purchase of dolls. (Badr al-Din al-’Ayni, Umdat al Qari on Bab ‘Adhab al-Musawwirin Yarum al-Qiyamah. Nawawi amplifies this viewpoint in his Sharh Muslim, Kitab al-Libas wa al-Zinah, Bab Tahrim Taswir Surat al-Haywan...)
This, therefore, is the Islamic position as regards making images. As for using images made by others, the Islamic ruling as held by jurists has been expressed in the following words by Ibn Hajar al- ‘Asqalani:
The Maliki jurist Ibn al-’Arabi says that the unlawfulness of an image which casts a shadow is unanimously recognized as forbidden, regardless of whether it is an object of respect or of disrespect. Dolls for girls are exempt from the above ruling which enjoys consensus. Ibn al-‘Arabi is also of the opinion that if there is an image which casts no shadow and remains in its actual state, [that is, it is unlike the reflection in a mirror but is unchanging like printed images], that too is forbidden.
It is immaterial whether such an image evokes respect, or disrespect. However, if its head is cut off or if some of its parts are dismembered, it may be used .... Imam al Haramayn al- Juwayani is of the opinion that one may use a curtain or pillow with an image on it. No image may, however, be hung on a wall or ceiling, for this amounts to showing respect to it. However, if it is on a curtain or a pillow, it does not evoke respect... Ibn Abi Shaybah holds this opinion on the authority of ‘Ikrimah that the ‘ulama’ in the age of the Successors were of the opinion that an image on [the sheet of] a floor or on a pillow, will be an object of disrespect [and hence will not be forbidden]. They were of the opinion that if an image was placed on an elevated spot it is forbidden, but is permissible if it is trampled by feet.
This position is also ascribed to Ibn Sirin, Salim ibn ‘Abd Allah Ikrimah ibn Khalid and Sa‘id ibn Jubayr. (Fath al-Bari, Kitab al- Libas, Bab ma Wuti‘a min al-Tasawir.)
All this makes it clear that the prohibition of images in Islam is far from being an issue admitting doubt or disagreement. Rather, in view of the Prophet's explicit commands, the Companions’ practice, and the unanimous ruling of Muslim jurists down the ages, the prohibition of images is an accepted rule. It cannot be altered. simply in deference to the strained, hair-splitting interpretations of those who have evident] been swayed by alien, un-Islamic cultures.”
Let us now also take note of the following relevant points so that there remains no basis for any misunderstanding about the matter.
Some people try to make a distinction between a photograph and an image that is drawn by hand. It is, however, noteworthy that the Shariah prohibits images as such rather than a particular way of making them. An image is an image, irrespective of whether it is made by a camera or by a human hand. The Shari'ah makes no distinction in its ruling in consideration of the mode or mechanism involved in the making of the image.
Some people argue that the Islamic prohibition against images was only a transient measure, aimed at extirpating polytheism and idolatry.
Now, since pictures no longer pose that danger, this prohibition need not be maintained. This line of argument, however, is quite fallacious First, at no point do the relevant ahadith specify the above to be the underlying reason of the Islamic prohibition of images. Moreover, there is no substance in the claim that polytheism and idolatry have by now been altogether abandoned. In the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent itself there are millions of polytheists who are still given to idolatry.
Likewise, a range of polytheistic practices is in vogue in many other parts of the world. Even Christians, who are the People of the Book, worship statues of the Prophet Jesus (peace be on him) and Mary and a number of Christian saints. Even a large number of Muslims have been unable to resist succumbing in one way or another to the worship of God’s creatures.
There are others who contend that only images with a polytheistic drift should be prohibited. In other words, such people would only like the images or statues of people who are already objects of worship to be prohibited while they see no reason why the pictures and statues of others should be considered forbidden. Those who articulate such views are evidently not content with deducing legal rulings from God’s commands and directives. They go further and arrogate to themselves the authority to prescribe the Shari'ah on God’s behalf. Such people hardly appreciate that images, apart from promoting polytheism and idolatry, are also a source of many other evils. They are, for example, — a means for promoting and reinforcing personality cults. They are especially a potent means to create a false halo around dictators, monarchs and political leaders. They have also been extensively used to arouse lust and lasciviousness which has reached its zenith in our time. Moreover, images are manipulated in our time on a wide scale to serve propaganda purposes, to sow hatred and hostility between nations, to arouse discord and dissension and to mislead the common man. It is wrong, therefore, to say that the Islamic prohibition against making images is based solely on the premise that there is a necessary nexus between them and idolatry. The Shari‘ah forbids making images of living beings, and we have no authority to abrogate or amend that rule. If we do not claim to be the promulgators of the Islamic Shari‘ah, and consider ourselves simply to be its followers, then we must totally give up the practice of dealing in images. It does not behoove us to first ‘assume something to be the reason underlying an Islamic injunction and then follow up this arbitrary assumption and end up legitimizing some kinds of images and prohibiting others.
There are also some others who claim that there are some innocuous kinds of images that do not pose any danger and are not conducive to any evil. For them, such images as are bereft of political propaganda, the promotion of hatred and discord, the arousal of lasciviousness or other evils of the kind need not be prohibited. However, this is flawed logic. Those who make this point succumb to the error we have _already identified. They first venture to determine, of their own accord, the underlying reason of an Islamic injunction, and then proceed to declare that since this reason is not found in a certain case, that case is thus not covered by that injunction. They also totally ignore an, important characteristic of the Shariah: that it does not draw vague and obscure boundaries between the lawful and the unlawful. For if it did so, this would make it difficult for people to decide up to which point they remain within the limits of the lawful and where after they exceed those limits. On the contrary, the Shari‘ah draws clear lines of distinction between the lawful and the unlawful that are as clearly visible as a sunny day.
As regards images, it is absolutely clear that images of animate objects are prohibited, whereas the images of inanimate objects are permissible. There is no ambiguity about the matter. Anyone who is desirous of following God’s commands will have no difficulty in knowing what is lawful from what is not. Had some animate images been declared permissible and others forbidden, not even the most comprehensive catalogue would have enabled one to distinguish between the permissible and the prohibited. Despite an exhaustive list confusion would nevertheless have remained in distinguishing between one and the other. There is a parallel between the prohibition of pictures and the prohibition of intoxicating drinks. Islam has ordained absolute abstinence from whatever causes intoxication. Had it been ordained that one may consume intoxicants to an amount that falls short of causing intoxication, the lines of demarcation would have been obscure. This would have made it difficult for people to determine what the permissible limit of drinking was. (For further elaboration see this writer’s Rasa’il wa Masa’il, Vol. 1, pp. 152-155.)
21. This indicates that the scale of Solomon’s hospitality was massive, which explains his “basins like water-troughs” and “huge, built-in-cauldrons” respectively to serve and entertain his guests.
22. The Qur’anic directive is that man should act with a sense of gratitude to God. The verbal acknowledgement of God’s bounties by a person who uses them in a manner discordant with His pleasure is an act of futility. The truly grateful servant of God is he who not only verbally acknowledges God’s bounties but also makes use of those.
bounties in accordance with the Benefactor’s pleasure.
23. The words of the verse are tabayyanat al-jinn. lt can be translated as we have done above. Alternatively, it can also be translated as...“when Solomon fell down the truth about the true state of the jinn became evident”. In the case of the first translation, the meaning is that when Solomon fell down, the jinn realized that all their notions about themselves having knowledge of the realm beyond perception were proved wrong. On the other hand, in the case of the second translation, it would mean that it became evident to the common people that the jinn had no access to the realm beyond perception.
24. Some present-day Qur’an-commentators have put forward the following bizarre interpretation of the verse: The Prophet Solomon's - son, Rehoboam, was a good-for-nothing. Being given to a life of ease and luxury, and being surrounded by a host of psycophantish courtiers, he did not prove to be a worthy successor to his distinguished father.
A little after his father’s death, his vast empire collapsed. Furthermore, the frontier tribesmen, (which in the opinion of some people is meant by the word jinn), whom the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) had harnessed to his service by his overpowering might, got out of control and rebelled. (cf. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s views in regard to the jinn in his Tafsir al-Qur’an wa Huwa al-Huda wa al-Furqan, Patna: Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library, 1995, Vol. 3, pp. 57-72, see esp. p. 67 — Ed.) This contrived interpretation, however, is not at all in concordance with the Qur’anic text. For the Qur’an’s narrative is as follows: death overtook the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) at a time when he was either standing or sitting, or reclining against his staff. Supported by the staff, his dead body remained standing where it was and the jinn continued to serve him under the impression that he was alive.
It was only when worms ate away his staff, making it hollow from within, that his dead body fell down. It was then that the jinn realized that Sulomon had died. This simple and straightforward narration is hardly amenable to the far-fetched interpretation to which it has been subjected by these commentators. There is little justification for their labored interpretation that the staff’s being eaten away by worms means that Solomon’s son was worthless, that the staff signifies Solomon’s power and glory, and that Solomon’s death means the utter fragmentation of his vast kingdom. Should God have wanted to say all this, there was no dearth of explicit words in the clear Arabic of the Qur’an to express these ideas. What need was there to have recourse to such a convoluted and obscure diction to narrate such ordinary facts? The Qur’an never resorts to a style full of riddles. In any case, how could the ordinary Arabs of the Prophet’s time, who were the primary recipients of this Message, have solved these riddles? The most bizarre aspect of this interpretation is that it equates the jinn with the frontier tribesmen of the Prophet Solomon’s kingdom.
Now, the question arises: have there ever been any tribesmen who have either claimed or who were considered by polytheists to have knowledge of the realm beyond perception? The wording of the verse under discussion underscores reference to a particular species who claimed to have access to the realm beyond perception; or to put it differently, who were perceived to have such knowledge.
The Qur’anic account thus lays bare the gross ignorance of those who had kept attending the Prophet Solomon (peace be on him) for such a long time after his death, thinking that he was still alive.
This account should suffice to make a well-meaning person revise the opinion that those who are being referred to here are frontier tribesmen. However, some people are so overwhelmed by the rampant materialism of the present world that the very idea of believing in the existence of an invisible species called jinn makes them blush with shame. As a result, they cling to their fanciful interpretations and this despite the fact that the Qur’anic account is quite unambiguous.
It is pertinent to note that at several places the Qur’an plainly states that the polytheists of Arabia regarded the jinn as God’s partners, even His issue, and sought protection from them: And yet, some people have come to associate the jinn with Allah in His Divinity, even though it is He Who has created them (al-An‘am 6:100.) They have established a kinship between Allah and the jinn (al-Saffat 37:158.) Some from among the humans used to seek protection of some among the jinn (al-Jinn 72:6.) Associated with such beliefs was their notion that the jinn had access to the realm beyond perception. Accordingly, they used to approach the jinn to find out about matters belonging to that realm.
God recounts this incident so as to drive home to the Arabian unbelievers that their insistence on holding on to the notions of Jahiliyah was altogether unreasonable; such notions were absolutely’ baseless. (For further details see n. 63 below.)
25. For a better appreciation of its contents, this verse should be read together with the opening verses of the surah (see vv. 1-9). In these verses, we are informed that the Arabian unbelievers found the -very idea of the Hereafter to be totally contrary to reason. They also emphatically dismissed the Prophet (peace be on him) for teaching them the doctrine of the Hereafter, contending that he either lacked sanity or was a downright fabricator. As a rejoinder to this, God drew attention to some rational evidence as we have elaborated in ‘nn. 7, 8 and 12 above. This account is followed in vv. 10 ff. with the stories of the people of Saba’ which supplement the discourse with historical evidence.
The point brought home is that the history of mankind unmistakably points to the fact that the law of requital has been operating through the ages. Were one to cast a reflective glance at mankind’s past, it would become evident that the world is not a mad world where things are happening arbitrarily. Far from that, the world is being governed by the All-Seeing, All-Hearing God, Who distinguishes between those that are thankful to Him and those that are thankless.
Anyone who pays attention to the annals of history can derive a ‘lesson from this. Since we find that a distinction is made even in this world between the good and the iniquitous, the ultimate end of the two cannot be the same. God’s justice certainly requires that a time should come when both good and evil are fully recompensed.
26. In other words, there was enough indication of the fact that whatever they have was not their own creation but was bestowed upon them by God and by none other than Him. This also points to the fact that God alone deserves to be worshipped, thanked and served. For it is He alone, rather than anyone else, Who bestowed on them the bounties that they are enjoying. It is equally important to note that their possessions are not permanent; possibly, what they have today they will cease to have at a later date.
27. This statement does not mean that there were only two gardens in the whole kingdom. Rather, the statement is simply made to indicate the abundance of greenery in the kingdom. Indeed, one could see gardens throughout the length and breadth of the land of Saba’.
28. In other words, rather than obey God and be thankful to Him, they chose the course of disobedience and ingratitude.
29. The words are “sayl al-‘arim”. The word ‘arim is derived from the South Arabian word ‘arman which means ‘dam’. We find this word to have been used frequently in the ancient inscriptions recently excavated from the ruins in Yemen. For example, a tablet dating 592 C.E., or 543 C.E., which the Abyssinian Governor of Yemen, Abrahah, had installed after having the Ma’arib Dam repaired, uses this word over and over again to mean dam. The expression sayl al-‘arim, therefore, means the flood caused by the dam’s breach.
30. As a result of this flood the whole territory suffered destruction, including the canals and the irrigation system. The region once known for its natural beauty was thus reduced to desolation, becoming a jungle of wild trees. Nothing edible was left other than the berries.
of lote bushes.
31. The expression, “the towns that We had blessed” refers to the region of Palestine and Syria. The Qur’an generally applies this expression in the context of this region. (See, for example, al-A‘raf 7:137; Bani Isra’il 17:1 and al-Anbiya’ 21:71 and 81.) _ The expression “prominent towns” refers to the centers of habitation located on the highway, in full view of all, rather than those situated in obscure locations. It may also mean contiguous towns, in so far as one town followed another. No sooner had the signs of a town disappeared than those of another town appeared. _ There were milestones on the highway from Yemen to Syria indicating the length of the journey. This seems to be indicated by the saying: "We ... set well-measured stages between them". In other words, the whole journey between Yemen and Syria virtually passed through inhabited territory. While journeying through the desert one halts for rest wherever one feels tired. In contrast, when travelling through inhabited areas, one plans one's journey ahead of time and knows where one will break the journey for rest; in other words, one knows where one will spend the afternoon, and where one will spend the night.
32. This does not necessarily mean that the prayer was made in words. Anyone who fails to give thanks to God's bounties veritably cries out: "I do not deserve these bounties". The same also applies to those nations that misuse God's bounties. Likewise, those who misuse God's bounties virtually call upon God: "O Lord, take away these bounties from us for we are not worthy of them".
They prayed: "Lord, make the stages of our journey longer". This indicates that the people of Saba' had begun to consider their large population to be an encumbrance. Like other senseless nations, they too regarded the rise in population as a dangerous phenomenon and had begun to adopt measures directed at preventing that trend.
33. The people of Saba' were devastated on such a massive scale that their fragmentation became proverbial for the Arabs. Even now if the Arabs speak of a nation's disintegration, they use the expression (they disintegrated like the people of Saba'.) When Saba's well-being began to dwindle, several tribes left their home towns and settled in other parts of Arabia. For example, the Ghassanids moved into Jordan and Syria while the Aws and Khazraj tribes found their way to Yathrib, which later came to be known as Madinah. The Khuza‘ah tribe settled in the region of Tihamah, near Jeddah, whereas the Azd migrated to ‘Uman. The Lakhm, Judham and Kindah tribes were also forced to move away. In sum, the people of Saba’ were so widely scattered that they lost their identity forever.
34. The “steadfast and thankful” in the present context refer to those who do not lose their equipoise because of the bounties bestowed upon them by God. Their heads are not swayed with arrogance when they come upon an abundance of wealth. They also do not forget God, Who had granted them all that they have. Such people can learn a great many lessons from the past nations that met their doom as a result of disobeying God after they had reached heights of progress and glory.
35. One learns from the history of Saba’ that from ancient times there had always been amongst them a group of people who believed in the One True God rather than a multiplicity of deities. The existence of such a group has been corroborated by recent archaeological researches including the inscriptions recovered from the ruins of Yemen. Some inscriptions dating from around 650 B.C. indicate that there were various places of worship in the kingdom of Saba’ where the “Lord of the heavens” was exclusively worshipped; He was referred to as Dhu Samawi or Dhu Samawi soles (that is, Lord of the heavens), or even at places as Malikun Dhu Samawi. This small group flourished for centuries in Yemen. One notes the existence of a similar place of worship in 378 C.E. dedicated to Ilah Dhu Samawi. Another inscription of 465 C.E. reads as follows: (With the help of God Who is the Lord of the heavens and the earth). Another inscription of 458 C.E. employs the expression Birada Rahmanān, (with the help of al-Rahmān) for the same God.
36. Iblīs does not have the power to compel God's devout servants to commit disobedience if they really intend to obey Him. The utmost power that he has is to try to mislead mankind and to prompt those who intend to join his ranks. This power was granted to Iblīs so as to distinguish between those who truly believe in the Hereafter and those who are in doubt about it.
The verse declares that only belief in the Hereafter ensures that man will consistently follow the Straight Way. In the absence of this belief, one is bound to go astray, for in that case one would be devoid of all sense of accountability. Iblīs's most effective strategy, therefore, is to make man oblivious of the Hereafter. However, those who see through his mischief can never bring themselves to sacrifice their everlasting success in the Hereafter in exchange for some paltry, material gain in this transient world. By contrast, those who are overwhelmed by Satan's allurements have no concern with the Hereafter and pay no heed to the voice of their conscience. Such people are bound to suffer owing to their rejection of the Hereafter. By the same token, those who follow the Straight Way do so by dint of their belief in the Hereafter.
37. For a better understanding of the Qur’anic allusions to the history of the people of Saba', it is necessary to bear in mind the information available to us regarding their history from other sources.
According to such historical sources, Saba' was the name for a very large nation in South Arabia that comprised several large tribes. On the Prophet's authority, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Jarīr al-Țabarī, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr and Tirmidhi report that Saba’ was the name of the ancestor of the nation that consisted of the following tribes: Kindah, Himyar, Azd, Asha‘ariyin, Madhhij, Anmar (comprised of two branches - Khath’am and Bajilah), ‘Amilah, Judham, Lakhm and Ghassan. (Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, narrated by ‘Abd Allah ibn Abbas; Tirmidhi, Kitab Tafsir al-Qur’an ‘an Rasul Allah; Tabari, Tafsir, comments on verse 15; Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, comments on verse 15.) Saba’ were a celebrated people of Arabia from ancient times. An: inscription of 2500 B.C. mentions them as Sabum. Their account features quite often in Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions as also in the Bible. (For their reference in the Bible, see Psalms 72:15; Jeremiah 6:20; Ezekiel 27:22 and 38:13, and Job 6:19.) The Greek geographer and historian, Theophrastus (d. 287 B.C.) also recorded information about them. The people of Saba’ were settled in the south-western corner of the Arabian Peninsula, presently known as Yemen. Saba’s rise to prominence commenced from 1100 B.C. By the time of the Prophets David and Solomon (peace be on them) the fame of these people had spread far and wide on account of their fabulous affluence. In the beginning they were sun-worshippers. However, when the Queen of Saba’ embraced the true faith under the influence of the Prophet Solomon (965 B.C.-926 B.C.), presumably most Sabaeans became Muslims (that is, submitters to God’s Revealed Guidance). However, at some later stage idolatry and polytheism made inroads into their lives.
They took to worshipping Almaqah (the moon god), ‘Ashtar (Venus), Dhat Hamim and Dhat Ba‘dan (the sun god), Harmatam or Harimat and idols representing many other gods and goddesses. Almaqah, however, was their chief deity. Their kings claimed to derive authority from it and presented themselves as its representatives. Numerous inscriptions that have been excavated point to an abundance of temples earmarked for worshipping this deity. People offered thanks to these deities, essentially Almaqah, on every important occasion.
Recent archaeological researches have unearthed around three thousand inscriptions which bring into sharp relief the history of the people of Saba’. With the help of Arabic, Greek and Roman sources, one can compile a fairly good amount of their history. According to the information thus made available the following emerge as the important phases of their history.
i. Pre-650 B.C. period. During this period the kings of Saba’ were known as Mukarrib Saba’. This was probably a synonym of muqarrib, which meant that these kings claimed to be intermediaries between human beings and their deities. In other words, they enjoyed the status of priest-kings. At that time, Sirwah was the seat of these kings. To this day its ruins are found to the west of Ma'ārib. This place, which lies at a distance of a day's journey from Ma'ārib, is now known as al- Kharībah. It was during this period that the foundations of the famous Ma'ārib Dam were laid. From time to time, extensions to the dam were later made by a number of kings.
ii. From 650 B.C. to 115 B.C. During this period the kings gave up their title of Mukarrib and were simply known as kings and took Ma'ārib as their capital. In other words, the state assumed a markedly political and secular as distinguished from a religious orientation. This was a period of extraordinary growth and development. Ma'ārib, which was 3,900 feet above sea level, was located 60 miles to the east of Şan'a'. To this day its ruins bear witness that there was a time when it was the center of a highly civilized nation.
iii. Front 115 B.C. to 300 C.E. During this period the Himyar tribe gained ascendancy in the kingdom of Saba'. This was a constituent tribe of the people of Saba' which out numbered other tribes. Raydān, which was the Himyar's center, was made the kingdom's capital. This later came to be known as Zafār.
Today, its ruins are found at a circular hill near the present town of Yarīm. Near Yarim there lives a small tribe known as Himyar.
When one observes them today it seems hard to imagine that they are the same people who had once scaled great heights of power and glory. During this period the words Yamnat and Yamnāt began to be used for the first time to describe a part of the kingdom. Gradually, the whole region, extending from the south-western coast of Arabia to Aden and from Hadramawt to Bäb al-Mandab came to be known as Yaman (Yemen). This was the period during which Saba's decline set in.
iv. 300 C.E. till the rise of Islam. This was the period of the Sabaeans' ruin. The period was marked by constant civil wars, the destruction of the Sabaeans' trade and commerce, and the collapse of their agriculture. This process culminated in the loss of Saba's independent identity. First, the Abyssinians ruled over Yemen from 340 C.E. to 378 C.E. by taking advantage of the feuds between the Himyar and other tribes. At a later date, the people of Saba' regained their independence. However, their prized Ma'ārib Dam developed cracks and by 450 C.E.
it had collapsed, resulting in a wide-ranging deluge, which is referred to in the Qur’anic verse above (see verse 16). Until the time of Abrahah, the dam was periodically repaired. However, by then the people of Saba' who had become scattered far and wide could not reassemble in their homeland. Nor could their remarkable agricultural and irrigation systems ever be restored. In 523 C.E. the Jewish king of Yemen, Dhu Nuwas, ruthlessly persecuted the Christians of Najran. This event is mentioned in the Qur’an, as the incident of Ashab al-Akhdud. (See al-Buruj 85:5-8.) For avenging this wrong, the Christian state of Abyssinia invaded Yemen and conquered the entire country. At a later date, Abrahah, the Abyssinian viceroy in Yemen, mounted his infamous invasion of the Ka’bah aimed at demolishing its prestige and central position in Arabia. In so doing his intention was to bring the whole of western Arabia.
under Abyssinian control. Abrahah’s invasion took place in 571 C.E. shortly before the Prophet Muhammad’s birth. The Qur’an graphically recounts. in Sarah al-Fil (Surah 105) the rout Abrahah and his army had to face. Finally, in 575 C.E. the Persians established control over Yemen which ended in 628 C.E. when the Persian governor, Badhan, embraced Islam.
The rise of the people of Saba’ rested on two pillars: their accomplishments in agriculture and trade. Agriculture had developed owing to their excellent irrigation network. Except for Babylon this was unrivalled in ancient times. Surprisingly enough, there were no natural rivers. However, torrents of water during the rainy season would flow from the mountains forming lakes. The people ingeniously converted these torrents of rainwater into a network of canals. As a result, the whole country had become, to borrow the Qur’anic description, as though it were a garden, (see verse 15, n. 27 above).
Their main water resource was a huge reservoir near Ma’arib in the midst of a valley in the hills called Balaq, a reservoir created by the construction of a dam. However, when God decided to deny them His favors, the Ma’arib Dam collapsed in the middle of the fifth century and the water overflowing from it deluged everything, particularly the irrigation network, which: could never be restored.
God had granted the people of Saba’ the best geographical location for trade and commerce and they derived maximum benefit from it.
For more than a thousand years they remained intermediaries in the trade between the east and the west. Merchandise such as silk from China, spices from Indonesia and Malabar, fabrics and swords from India, slaves, monkeys, ostrich feathers and ivory from East Africa regularly reached their ports. The Sabaeans used to supply these items to markets in Egypt and Syria, wherefrom these items were exported to Rome and Greece. Furthermore, they themselves produced in huge quantities frankincense, myrrh, amber, and other aromatic objects which were in much demand in Egypt, Syria, Rome and Greece.
So skilled were the merchants of Saba’ that they enjoyed control over both sea and land routes. As for the sea route, the people of Saba’ maintained a monopoly over maritime trade for a thousand years. This because they alone knew the secrets of the Red Sea’s seasonal winds, underwater reefs, and appropriate locations for anchorage. No other nation had the know-how to risk navigating in these dangerous waters.
The people of Saba’ used to carry their merchandise to the ports of Jordan and Egypt through the sea route. From there were routes which, passing through Aden and Hadramawt, converged at Ma’arib. At this time juncture, a highway leading from al-‘Ula’, Tabuk, and Aylah went as far as Petra. Thereafter, the highway forked in two directions — one going to Egypt and the other to Syria. A number of Sabaean colonies dotted the highway from Yemen to the borders of Syria and caravans passed through both by day and night as mentioned in the Qur’an, (see verse 18). The traces of these colonies are still found along this route, and many Sabaean and Himyarite inscriptions have been unearthed from them.
Around 100 C.E., however, the Sabaeans’ trade began to decline.
With the growing ascendancy of the Greeks and Romans in the region, much hue and cry was raised against the Sabaeans’ control over the region's trade. While the Greeks did not succeed in the undertaking to dislodge the Sabaeans, the Romans were able to vanquish them. In his efforts to displace the Sabaeans, the Egyptian Pharaoh, Ptolemy II (282 B.C.-246 B.C.), who was of Greek stock, reopened the Nile-Red Sea Canal that had originally been dug by Pharaoh Sesostris some seventeen hundred years earlier. The Egyptian naval fleet used this canal to gain control over the Red Sea, but could not achieve a decisive victory over the Sabaeans.
At a later date, however, when Rome established its ascendancy over Egypt, the more resourceful Roman naval and merchant fleet controlled the Red Sea. By then, the people of Saba’ had become too weak to resist their onslaught. Subsequently, the Romans set up their trade colonies throughout the region, especially at seaports. Later on when the Romans had established their domination over Egypt, they brought an even more powerful trade fleet to the sea. This was followed by the induction of a naval force to provide protection to Roman maritime trade. In these colonies arrangements had been made to meet the requirements of Roman ships. Moreover, wherever possible, they also served as military bases. Eventually, the Romans established their total control over Aden. The Romans and Abyssinians joined hands against the Sabaeans. As a result, the latter lost even their independence. Having lost control over the sea route, they were left with only the land route to carry out their trade. Many factors, however, affected them adversely even in this regard the Nabateans expelled the Sabaeans from their colonies covering the entire area from Petra and al-’Ula to upper Hijaz and Jordan. In 106 C.E. the Romans destroyed the Nabatean kingdom and established their own ascendancy up to the borders of Hijaz, including Syria and Jordan.
Both the Abyssinians and Romans tried to displace the Sabaeans.
The former invaded Yemen several times and eventually managed to conquer the whole country. Thus, God’s wrath seized the once prosperous Sabaeans and they have never been able to clamber out of the pit of curse in which they were cast.
There was a time when the Sabaeans enjoyed fabulous wealth and both the Greeks and Romans were envious of them. According to Strabo (d. 23 C.E.), they used vessels of gold and silver and their roofs, walls and doors were also overlaid with ivory, gold, silver and precious stones. According to Pliny (d. 79 C.E.), the wealth of Rome and Persia flowed to them and they happened to be the most affluent people in the world. Their kingdom was known for its green and fertile land full of agricultural fields, orchards and cattle. Another chronicler, Artemidorus (fl. 100 B.C.) mentions that they immersed themselves in worldly pleasures. Instead of using ordinary wood for fuel, they used cinnamon, sandalwood and other fragrant objects.
Likewise, other Greek historians have noted their unusual fondness for fragrance, relating that. when merchant vessels passed by their seacoasts, currents of fragrant wind reached them.
The Sabaeans were the first people in history to construct a skyscraper on the top of a hill in San‘a’, which was known for centuries in the region as Ghumdan Palace. According to Arab historians, this structure had 20 floors and each floor was 36 feet high. However, the Sabaeans enjoyed this splendor and glory only as long as God blessed them with His favors. When they transgressed all limits and became ungrateful to God, He deprived them of His favors. As a result, they are today no more than an obscure relic of history.