Appearance
Verses 15–25
These are arguments with which God furnishes His Prophet to respond to what the disbelievers say about the Qurʾan or about their own gods or the impertinent demands they make for a sign to be sent down.
وَإِذَا تُتْلَىٰ عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتُنَا بَيِّنَاتٍ ۙ قَالَ الَّذِينَ لَا يَرْجُونَ لِقَاءَنَا ائْتِ بِقُرْآنٍ غَيْرِ هَٰذَا أَوْ بَدِّلْهُ ۚ قُلْ مَا يَكُونُ لِي أَنْ أُبَدِّلَهُ مِنْ تِلْقَاءِ نَفْسِي ۖ إِنْ أَتَّبِعُ إِلَّا مَا يُوحَىٰ إِلَيَّ ۖ إِنِّي أَخَافُ إِنْ عَصَيْتُ رَبِّي عَذَابَ يَوْمٍ عَظِيمٍ ١٥
(10:15) When Our manifest signs are recited to them, those who do not expect to encounter Us say, ‘Bring a Qurʾan other than this, or alter it.’ Say, ‘I may not alter it of my own accord. I follow only what is revealed to me. Indeed should I disobey my Lord, I fear the punishment of a tremendous day.’
The people mentioned in this verse were idolaters who revered and worshipped idols. Their customs included engaging in oppression, committing sins, and partaking in misdeeds. The Qurʾan prohibits all such actions and invites people instead to embrace the oneness of God Almighty, to renounce polytheism, and to worship God alone while purifying oneself from injustice, corruption, and the pursuit of base desires.
It is obvious that, when the verses of a book containing such teachings are recited to a group of people possessing these characteristics, these will not align with their desires and selfish whims. This is because the message of the Qurʾan contradicts their personal inclinations. So, when they respond to the recitation of the Qurʾan by saying, ‘Bring a Qurʾan other than this,’ this shows they want a Qurʾan that does not contain the teachings of this Qurʾan: They desire a Qurʾan that does not condemn polytheism or bid them to be wary of indecencies and wrongdoing. And when they say, ‘or alter it’, it means they want the verses that conflict with their beliefs and opinions to be changed so that they become acceptable to them. This is very much akin to the audience of a poet or storyteller who, disliking their poem or story, ask for a different poem or story to be recited instead, or at least for the reciter to express it in a manner that is more pleasing to their own tastes or in better agreement with their sentiments. Thus, in the present verse, the people making these statements are treating the Qurʾan as equal to the lowest and most trivial sort of discourse: As though it were speech meant solely for entertainment, so that, if the listeners are displeased with the content, they can demand that it be changed or replaced with something else altogether.
Through this, it becomes clear that when they say, Bring a Qurʾan other than this, they mean they want a Qurʾan that doesn’t contain the teachings found in the actual Qurʾan, which tells them to desist from one thing and to do another instead. And, when they say, or alter it, they want the teachings that are not to their liking to have their meanings changed in accordance with their whims while still keeping its original form. This is the difference between the demands ‘to bring another’ and ‘to alter.’
Now, some commentators have said that the difference between the two demands is that to bring another Qurʾan means to bring something new along with the existing Qurʾan, while the second means to remove the existing one. However, this is incorrect, because the idolaters certainly did not want the Prophet to bring them this Qurʾan and another one at the same time.
Also incorrect is the view of some commentators that when they said, ‘Bring a Qurʾan other than this, or alter it’, their intention was to test the Prophet by tempting him to comply. They believed that if he responded to their request, it would contradict his claim that the Qurʾan was the word of God. This is because when they heard the verses of the Qurʾan recited by the Prophet and his challenge to produce something similar, they were unable to do so. They harbored doubts about whether the Qurʾan was indeed the word of God, or if it was the product of the Prophet himself, who they did not consider to be superior in eloquence, rhetoric, or knowledge. In fact, they viewed him as inferior to their most distinguished orators and skilled speakers.
They wanted to test the Prophet with this request, thinking that if he provided what they asked for, it would undermine the foundation of his claim that the Qurʾan was the word of God. At most, they believed that the Prophet had an exceptional ability to express himself in this unique form of communication, owing to a hidden psychological strength that they could not comprehend, similar to the mysterious causes of magic, and not due to divine inspiration.
Moreover, in addition to the contradiction between the beginning and the end of their argument, there is another issue: the Prophet’s response was driven by what God Almighty had taught him as proof. Responding seriously and with solid evidence to a question posed solely for the purpose of testing and examination, without any genuine basis, is seemingly unnecessary and redundant.
Note that in the verse, When Our manifest signs are recited to them…, there is a shift in address from speaking directly to the audience (‘you’) to speaking about them in the third person (‘them’). It appears that the point of this is to serve as a prelude to commanding the Prophet to say, ‘I may not alter it of my own accord…’ for this requires God to turn aside from addressing them and to address the Prophet instead.
Say, ‘I may not alter it of my own accord. I follow only what is revealed to me. Indeed should I disobey my Lord, I fear the punishment of a tremendous day’: In response to their demand when they said, ‘Bring a Qurʾan other than this, or alter it,’ God Almighty, during His discourse, used the term ‘clear proofs’ (āyāt bayyināt). When the verses are clear proofs that are self-evidently from God Almighty, they unequivocally reveal what God wills, including the rejection of idols and avoidance of everything displeasing to Him, as revealed in the teaching of the religion sent down to His Messenger. Their question is thrown back to them, as the Prophet is inspired to present the argument by saying, beginning with, ‘I may not alter it…’, until the end of the three verses.
The statement Say, ‘I may not alter it of my own accord ...’, is the response to their demand, ‘or alter it.’ It means: ‘Say, “I have no authority – and it is not my right – to change it on my own accord because it is not my speech, but rather divine revelation. My Lord has commanded me to follow it and not to follow anything else. I do not disobey my Lord’s command because I fear that, if I disobey Him, I will face the punishment of a tremendous Day”’, which is the Day of the Encounter with Him.’
The statement, Say, ‘I may not alter it of my own accord ...’ negates the Prophet’s right to change it and denies that he has any choice in the matter. The statement, ‘I follow only what is revealed to me,’ provides a rationale as to why, ‘I may not alter it.’ The statement, ‘Indeed should I disobey my Lord, I fear …’, provides a rationale as to why, ‘I follow only …,’ implying that divine command is connected to it.
The statement, ‘Indeed should I disobey my Lord, I fear the punishment of a tremendous day’, there is an allusion to what was mentioned at the beginning of this passage, namely, , those who do not expect to encounter Us say, ‘Bring a Qurʾan other than this, or alter it.’ The cause for them to utter these words is their denial of the afterlife and fact that they do not expect to meet God. In response, the Prophet, following the command of his Lord, says, ‘Indeed should I disobey my Lord, I fear the punishment of a tremendous day.’ Through this statement, the meaning shifts to the fact that they ask their question because they do not expect to meet God. However, the Prophet has no doubt in this, and he cannot accede to their demands because he—unlike them—fears the punishment of the Day of the Encounter with God, which is a tremendous Day.
By substituting the Day of the Encounter mentioned at the beginning of the verse with the tremendous Day mentioned here at its end, God sends an additional warning to the disbelievers, as the idea of punishment does not accord with that of encountering God (liqāʾ) but it does accord with that of a tremendous day.
قُلْ لَوْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ مَا تَلَوْتُهُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَلَا أَدْرَاكُمْ بِهِ ۖ فَقَدْ لَبِثْتُ فِيكُمْ عُمُرًا مِنْ قَبْلِهِ ۚ أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ ١٦
(10:16) Say, ‘Had Allah wished, I would not have recited it to you, nor would He have appraised you of it (wa lā adrā-kum bihi), for I have dwelled among you for a lifetime (ʿumur) before it. Do you not apply reason?’
Adrā-kum bihi (‘appraised you of it’) means ‘made it known to you.’
ʿUmur means one’s life, and can be written as ʿumur or ʿamr, but when it is used in an oath, such as ‘by my life’ or ‘by your life’ (li-ʿamrī or li-ʿamrik), it is always written as ʿamr.
This verse addresses the first part of their question, which is their statement, ‘Bring a Qurʾan other than this.’ The meaning, as supported by the context, is that the matter is subject to God’s will, not my own, for I am only a messenger. If God had willed to reveal a different Qurʾan and not this one, I would not have recited it to you nor acquainted you with it. I lived among you for a lifetime before the Qurʾan was revealed, interacted with you, and you interacted with me. You found that I had no knowledge of the Qurʾanic revelation. If it were up to me and within my power, I would have initiated it earlier, and its signs and indications would have appeared. I have no control over this matter; it is subject to God’s will, and His will is attached to this Qurʾan and not another. Do you not understand this?
فَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَىٰ عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا أَوْ كَذَّبَ بِآيَاتِهِ ۚ إِنَّهُ لَا يُفْلِحُ الْمُجْرِمُونَ ١٧
(10:17) So who is a greater wrongdoer than him who fabricates a lie against Allah, or denies His signs? Indeed the guilty will not be felicitous.
This is a rhetorical question intended as a rebuke. In other words, there is no greater wrongdoer or sinner than these two types of people: The one who invents a lie about God and the one who denies His signs. This is because the severity of the wrongdoing depends on the importance of the one who has been wronged. Therefore, if the wrong is done to God, this is the greatest wrong of all.
The context of the argument in the two verses suggests that this verse is a continuation of the previous one, and the meaning is: I will not grant your demand to bring a Qurʾan other than this or to change it, as I have no authority or right over this matter. If I were to answer your proposal, I would be the most unjust and sinful of people, and the wrongdoers will not succeed. If I were to change the Qurʾan and alter some parts that you do not accept, I would be fabricating lies about God, and there is no greater injustice than that. If I were to abandon this Qurʾan and bring you another that you would accept, I would be denying God’s verses, and there is also no greater injustice than that.
It is also possible that the rhetorical question in both parts is directed towards the polytheists, meaning that you are the most unjust of people by associating partners with God, which is fabricating lies about Him, and by denying my prophethood and the verses revealed to me, which is denying God’s verses, and the wrongdoers will not succeed.
Some have argued that the first part of the rhetorical question is addressed to the Prophet, assuming he agrees to their demands, and the second part is addressed to the polytheists. In other words, no one is more unjust in the sight of God than these two groups: those who fabricate lies about God and those who deny His verses. I am warning you against the latter, so how can I accept the former for myself when it is even worse than the latter? What benefit would there be for me from this great crime when I seek to reform?
While this reading is not problematic in itself, the issue lies in deriving it from the verse and the deriving this meaning from the wording of the verse. Similarly, the previous explanation is also more appropriate to the context of the verse.
وَيَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ مَا لَا يَضُرُّهُمْ وَلَا يَنْفَعُهُمْ وَيَقُولُونَ هَٰؤُلَاءِ شُفَعَاؤُنَا عِنْدَ اللَّهِ ۚ قُلْ أَتُنَبِّئُونَ اللَّهَ بِمَا لَا يَعْلَمُ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَلَا فِي الْأَرْضِ ۚ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ ١٨
(10:18) They worship besides Allah that which (mā) neither causes them any harm, nor brings them any benefit, and they say, ‘These are our intercessors with Allah.’ Say, ‘Will you inform Allah about something He does not know in the heavens or on the earth?’ Immaculate is He and exalted above any partners that they ascribe!
This discourse is directed towards the idol worshippers from amongst the polytheists, although it may also include others, such as the People of the Book, depending on the how broadly we consider its meaning. This is both due to the use of the pronoun mā and the fact that the chapter is Meccan, from the earliest of the Qurʾanic revelations to the Prophet.
The idol worshippers used to worship idols in order to draw closer to the lords of those idols represented through their worship, and through these lords to their Lord, the Lord of Lords, who is God, the Exalted. They would say, ‘Given our material human impurities and the filth of sins and transgressions, there is no way for us to reach the Lord of Lords because of the utter purity and sanctity of His domain, and there is no connection between us and Him. Therefore, it is necessary for us to draw closer to Him through His most beloved creations, who are the lords of the idols, to whom God has delegated the management of His creation. We draw closer to them through their idols and forms, and we worship the idols so that they can intercede for us with God, bringing us good and warding off evil.’ Thus, the worship of the idols becomes real, and the act of intercession is attributed to the lords of the idols and sometimes to the idols themselves.
Instead of saying that the polytheists worship idols, the verse says, that they worship that which neither causes them any harm, nor brings them any benefit to allude to the key error of their claims. In other words, it shows that their efforts would only have been successful if these idols could actually harm or benefit in any way and if they had the ability to sense the worship and devotion, becoming satisfied with the worship of their devotees so that they or their lords would intercede for them with God, provided that God would accept their intercession. However, these idols are lifeless objects that cannot sense anything, nor can they cause harm or bring benefit.
God commands His Prophet to refute their false claim of intercession—in addition to what is hinted at in the phrase, that which neither causes them any harm, nor brings them any benefit—by saying, ‘Will you inform Allah about something He does not know in the heavens or on the earth?’ The implication is that God, the Exalted, has no knowledge of the existence of these intercessors in any part of the heavens and the earth, so your claim is, in fact, informing Him of something He does not know. This is one of the ugliest and most arrogant fabrications. How can there be anything in existence that God does not know when He knows all that is in the heavens and the earth?
The question, therefore, is rhetorical with the force of a negation. By denying God’s knowledge of the existence of these intercessors, it implies the denial of their existence altogether. Perhaps this expression was chosen because intercession is dependent upon the knowledge of its existence. Intercession can only be realized if the one being interceded with has knowledge of the existence of the intercessor and their intercession. Therefore, if it is assumed that God does not know about the intercessors, how can their intercession be effective when He has no knowledge of it?
Immaculate is He and exalted above any partners that they ascribe!: This is a phrase of exaltation. The statement is from God’s speech and not part of what He has commanded His Prophet to say. The evidence for this is that the phrase speaks about the idolaters in the third person rather than addressing them directly, as if this speech was part of the speech of the Prophet, it would read instead: ‘…above any partners that you ascribe!’
وَمَا كَانَ النَّاسُ إِلَّا أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً فَاخْتَلَفُوا ۚ وَلَوْلَا كَلِمَةٌ سَبَقَتْ مِنْ رَبِّكَ لَقُضِيَ بَيْنَهُمْ فِيمَا فِيهِ يَخْتَلِفُونَ ١٩
(10:19) Mankind were but a single community; then they differed. And were it not for a prior word of your Lord, decision would have been made between them concerning that about which they differ.
We have already discussed in this in our commentary on the verse, Mankind were a single community; then Allah sent the prophets as bearers of good news and as warners, and He sent down with them the Book with the truth, that it may judge between the people concerning that about which they differed, and none differed in it except those who had been given it, after the manifest proofs had come to them, out of envy among themselves (). There, we saw that there were two kinds of difference between humankind.
The first variety is difference in terms of worldly affairs, which is related to claims and divides people into claimants, defendants, oppressors, oppressed, aggressors, and victims. This is the kind of difference that God has removed by establishing the religion, sending prophets, and revealing the Book with them to judge between people in their disputes, teach them the tenets of religion, and direct warnings and glad tidings towards them.
The second variety is difference within the religion itself and what the divine book contains of true knowledge in terms of the roots and branches of faith. The Qurʾan explicitly states in various verses that this type of difference ultimately leads to scholars of the Book to dispute among themselves out of envy. This is not a matter dictated by human nature like the first variety of difference. Consequently, the path splits into two forks: the path of guidance and the path of misguidance. God has guided those who believe to the truth of that about which they differ. In various instances of His speech, after mentioning this type of difference, God has stated that if it were not for a prior decree from God, He would have judged between them concerning that upon which they disagreed, but He grants them leave until an appointed time. He says, They did not divide except after the knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves; and were it not for a prior decree of your Lord until a specified time, decision would have been made between them ().
Now, the previous verse, they worship besides Allah that which neither causes them any harm, nor brings them any benefit, is only suitable for the second type of difference mentioned, which is the difference within the religion itself. This is because it mentions people following the path of misguidance by worshipping things that neither harm nor benefit them and taking them up as intercessors with God. The implication is that the intended meaning of people previously being a single nation is that they were following a single religion, the religion of monotheism, and then they differed, dividing into two groups: monotheists and polytheists.
God mentions in the verse that their disagreement would require Him to judge between them by making the truth prevail over falsehood, which includes the destruction of the falsifiers and the salvation of the truthful ones. However, a prior divine word restrained Him from passing judgment between them. This word refers to God’s saying when He sent down humankind to Earth: On the earth shall be your abode and sustenance for a time ().
Commentators on the Qurʾan have given strange readings about this verse, such as: The word ‘people’ in this verse refers to the Arabs, who were following a single, true religion, which was the religion of Abraham until the time of ʿAmr b. Luḥayy, who introduced idolatry to them. Consequently, they became divided into the monotheists who submitted to the one true God and polytheistic idol worshippers. However, it should be evident that there is no linguistic evidence in the verse to support this opinion.
Another opinion is that the intended meaning of ‘people’ is all of humanity, and the intended meaning of them being a single nation is that they were following their innate nature of submission to God (fiṭrat al-Islām), even if there were always differences between them. The word ‘were’ (kāna) in ‘were a single community’ (kāna ummatan wāḥidatan) is not time-bound. Therefore, the verse reflects both the natural state of people, which is monotheism, and their actual state, which is disagreement. People, by their innate nature, are nothing but a single nation of monotheists, but they have disagreed amongst themselves against their own nature.
However, this reading contradicts the apparent meaning of the verse, as well as the verse in Sūrah al-Baqarah, as well as the apparent meaning of other verses, such as His sayings: They did not divide except after the knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves (); … and those who were given the Book did not differ except after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves ();
Furthermore, one cannot argue that human beings are in a perpetual state of disagreement while simultaneously asserting that this is not part of their innate nature.
Others have argued that the intended meaning is that all people were initially following a single path of disbelief (kufr) and polytheism (shirk), and then they disagreed, resulting in Muslims and disbelievers.
This is perhaps the most absurd of all the opinions proposed about the verse. Not only is it a claim without any evidence, it is also rejected by the apparent meaning of the verses. The verses clearly state that the appearance of disagreement is due to people’s jealousy and animosity after they had received knowledge, which led to the subsequent emergence of disbelief and polytheism. Now, this jealousy and animosity would have caused God to judge between them and send down punishment and destruction upon them. However, if all of humankind were initially upon disbelief and polytheism without any prior guidance and faith, then what does it mean for God to base His judgment upon their jealousy and animosity after knowledge had come to them? And what is the point of creating everyone and making the reason for their destruction part of their innate nature—does this not defeat the very purpose for which God created humankind?
This opinion is similar to what Christians have said about the issue of atonement: God created humans to be obedient to Him and to inhabit Paradise forever, but they disobeyed Him, thus nullifying the purpose of creation. To rectify this, God atoned for their sins with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Another explanation of the verse is that the meaning of ‘word’ in were it not for a prior word of your Lord is the verse that comes later in this chapter, Your Lord will indeed judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that about which they used to differ ().
However, the problem with this explanation is that the meaning of ‘prior’ in this verse is prior in terms of revelation, and the verse cited as an explanation of ‘word’ here comes later in this chapter. As we have already discussed, this chapter was revealed all at once and, therefore, the subsequent verse could not have been revealed before this one. Furthermore, the verse cited concerns the Israelites specifically, and the expression ‘between them’ in Your Lord will indeed judge between them refers to them. This is evident when the verse is read as a whole: Certainly We settled the Children of Israel in a worthy settlement and We provided them with all the good things, and they did not differ until knowledge had come to them. Your Lord will indeed judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that about which they used to differ ().
There are verses which do not support such an understanding of ‘prior.’ For example, and were it not for a prior word of your Lord until a specified time, decision would have been made between them (). However, if the intended meaning of ‘prior’ is in terms of divine judgment, then it should follow the first statement made by God Almighty regarding the misguidance of people, their association of partners with Him, and their disobedience. This would be nothing other than what He said when He first sent humans down to earth, which is the verse we have already mentioned above.
وَيَقُولُونَ لَوْلَا أُنْزِلَ عَلَيْهِ آيَةٌ مِنْ رَبِّهِ ۖ فَقُلْ إِنَّمَا الْغَيْبُ لِلَّهِ فَانْتَظِرُوا إِنِّي مَعَكُمْ مِنَ الْمُنْتَظِرِينَ ٢٠
(10:20) They say, ‘Why has not some sign been sent down to him from his Lord?’ So say, ‘The Unseen belongs only to Allah. So wait. I too am waiting along with you.’
This verse, like the one before it, and they worship besides Allah () and the one before that, and When Our manifest signs are recited to them (), enumerates the wrongdoings of the polytheists in their words and deeds. Then, it gives the Prophet arguments to deploy against them, as we saw in the first verses of the section. Therefore, the beginning of this verse, They say, ‘Why has not some sign been sent down…?’ follows on from the verse, When Our manifest signs are recited to them… ().
There is a repeated emphasis on their denial of the Qurʾan. Their statement, ‘Why has not some sign been sent down to him from his Lord?’, even if it is a demand for a sign in addition to the Qurʾan, it is actually said out of contempt and disregard for the Qurʾan and in order to belittle it, not because they consider it a divine sign. The evidence for this is God’s statement, So say, ‘The Unseen belongs only to Allah…’ He does not merely say ‘Say’ as in the other verses, as if to say: They ask you for another sign, not being satisfied with the Qurʾan nor contented with its teachings. So, if it is not enough of a sign for them, then tell them: ‘Signs are from the Unseen, which is the exclusive domain of God, and are not in my hands, so wait, for I too am waiting with you.’
This is what can be inferred from the verse. It also suggests that the Prophet was expecting a decisive sign that would clearly distinguish between truth and falsehood in addition to the Qurʾan, that would judge between him and his own people. The nature of what has been promised in this verse, which God commands them to await, is expounded in the later verse, Whether We show you a part of what We promise them, or take you away, their return will be to Us. Then Allah will be witness to what they do (), and several other verses after it.
وَإِذَا أَذَقْنَا النَّاسَ رَحْمَةً مِنْ بَعْدِ ضَرَّاءَ مَسَّتْهُمْ إِذَا لَهُمْ مَكْرٌ فِي آيَاتِنَا ۚ قُلِ اللَّهُ أَسْرَعُ مَكْرًا ۚ إِنَّ رُسُلَنَا يَكْتُبُونَ مَا تَمْكُرُونَ ٢١
(10:21) When We let people taste mercy after a distress that has befallen them, behold, they scheme against Our signs! Say, ‘Allah is more swift at devising.’ Indeed Our messengers write down what you scheme.
The content of the verse, although it has general meanings that apply to most people in most situations, indicates that an individual will inevitably experience good fortune after adversity. It is rare that this pattern does not repeat itself in a person’s life. However, from the preceding context of the verse, it seems to be concerned with the subject of the polytheists and their scheming regarding God’s signs. The evidence for this is His statement, Say, ‘Allah is more swift at devising.’ Therefore, the focus here is on the scheming of a specific group, who are addressed by these verses, as they scheme with the divine signs of good fortune and adversity after their appearance.
One of their schemes concerns the Qurʾan, which is both a divine sign and a mercy that God granted them after the adversity of the ignorance that afflicted them, along with the hardships of life, humiliation, division, discord, and hatred that existed amongst them. And yet, in spite of it being a blessing, they scheme with the Qurʾan, sometimes saying, ‘Bring a Qurʾan other than this, or alter it’, and sometimes saying, ‘Why has not some sign been sent down to him from his Lord?’
The verse explains to them that all of this is their scheming with God’s signs and reveals that scheming with God’s signs will only result in them coming to harm without benefiting them in any way. For God is swifter in planning than they are, and His schemes will overtake them before their schemes can overtake His signs. In fact, their scheming against God’s signs is nothing other than God’s scheming against them.
Therefore, in the verse, When We let people taste mercy, God uses the word ‘taste’ to allude to their savoring of God’s mercy and care in small amounts, as tasting is used for a small portion of food. Mercy after a distress that has befallen them—He mentions mercy after distress (darrāʾ) instead of ease (sarrāʾ) to indicate that such ease is a divine mercy and not necessarily something that they are deserving of. It was their duty to acknowledge this mercy and to submit to what the verse summons them to, which is the oneness of their Lord and give thanks for His blessings. However, they respond differently, they scheme against Our signs, by interpreting events in a way that nullifies the significance of God’s signs, such as saying that their forefathers also experienced the alternation of prosperity and adversity, and by making excuses that God does not accept, like saying, ‘Why has not some sign been sent down to him from his Lord?’, or ‘Should we follow the guidance with you, we will be dispossessed of our territory’ ().
Therefore, He commands His Prophet to respond to them by saying, ‘Allah is more swift at devising’ and then explaining the reason for this, Indeed Our messengers write down what you scheme. In other words, We have assigned witnesses over you, watchers whom We have sent to write down your deeds and record them. As soon as you take an action, they record it and preserve it, and its recompense is assigned to them before their plot takes effect, or it does not take effect at all, according to how scholars have interpreted it.
There is something worthy of note here, which is that the apparent meaning of God’s saying, This is Our book, which speaks truly against you. Indeed We used to record what you used to do (), as will be explained in the commentary on the verse, is that the meaning of the angels writing the deeds of the servants is to bring their actions out of the state of potentiality into the realm of external reality, inscribing the very actions themselves upon the page of the cosmos. Hence, the reason that God is the swiftest in devising is because of the swiftness with which these angels record the deeds of God’s servants. Therefore, the real meaning of the verse is: ‘We are the ones who bring out the deeds you plot within yourselves and put them into external reality, so how can you hope to hide your plots from Us? After all, is plotting anything other than diverting others from their intended course through deception and concealment? In fact, what you claim to be plotting against Us is actually Our plotting against you, as We make you believe it is plotting and proceed with it against Us. This belief and proceeding is how We misguide you and lead you astray as a recompense for what your hands have earned.’ A similar meaning appears in the verse, O mankind! Your violations are only to your own detriment ().
In the verse, there is a shift from speaking in the third person to direct address in His saying, Indeed Our messengers write down what you scheme (). This shift is an example of the Qurʾan’s sublime eloquence. Perhaps its eloquence is in how it embodies the verse, Say, ‘Allah is more swift at devising’ () at that very moment. As if, when He bid His Prophet to say, ‘Allah is more swift at devising’, He intended to show them what this meant. So, He suddenly revealed it to them all at once, addressing them directly and explaining why He is swifter in devising than they are—because Our messengers write down what you scheme. Then, He concealed Himself from them once again, and they returned to their state of being absent from him, and this is shown by the speech returning to its prior state of speaking about them in the third person. The remaining address is directed to the Prophet, It is He who carries you … and so on. This is perhaps one of finest and most eloquent shifts of address the Qurʾan contains.
هُوَ الَّذِي يُسَيِّرُكُمْ فِي الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ ۖ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا كُنْتُمْ فِي الْفُلْكِ وَجَرَيْنَ بِهِمْ بِرِيحٍ طَيِّبَةٍ وَفَرِحُوا بِهَا جَاءَتْهَا رِيحٌ عَاصِفٌ وَجَاءَهُمُ الْمَوْجُ مِنْ كُلِّ مَكَانٍ وَظَنُّوا أَنَّهُمْ أُحِيطَ بِهِمْ ۙ دَعَوُا اللَّهَ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ لَئِنْ أَنْجَيْتَنَا مِنْ هَٰذِهِ لَنَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الشَّاكِرِينَ ٢٢
(10:22) It is He who carries you across land and sea. When you are in the ships (fulk), and they sail with them with a favorable wind, rejoicing in it, there comes upon them a tempestuous wind (rīḥ ʿāṣif) and waves assail them from every side, and they think that they are besieged, they invoke Allah putting exclusive faith in Him, ‘If You deliver us from this, we will surely be among the grateful.’
Fulk means ‘ship’ and can be used to signify the singular or the plural. However, the meaning here is plural, as shown by the fact that God uses the plural ‘they sail with them.’ A ‘tempestuous wind’ (rīḥ ʿāṣif) means one that blows strongly. And they think that they are besieged means that they believe that they are about to be swallowed up by the ocean and perish. ‘… from this’ in their supplication, ‘If you deliver us from this …’ refers to the severity of the storm. The meaning of the verse is otherwise clear.
This verse also contains an incredibly eloquent shift in address from direct address to speaking in the third person when God says, When you are in the ships and they sail with them with a favorable wind…’ Perhaps what this shift signifies is that they have returned to their state of absence from God, and God is now speaking to His Prophet and reserving the most marvellous part of the story for him to listen to and be amazed by. At the same time, it hints that God relinquishes His command that the Prophet should address the idolaters directly because they do not comprehend speech.
فَلَمَّا أَنْجَاهُمْ إِذَا هُمْ يَبْغُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ ۗ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّمَا بَغْيُكُمْ عَلَىٰ أَنْفُسِكُمْ ۖ مَتَاعَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ۖ ثُمَّ إِلَيْنَا مَرْجِعُكُمْ فَنُنَبِّئُكُمْ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَعْمَلُونَ ٢٣
(10:23) But when He delivers them, behold, they commit violations (yabghūn) on the earth unduly (bi ghayr ḥaqq)! O mankind! Your violations are only to your own detriment. The wares of the life of this world; then to Us will be your return, whereat We will inform you concerning what you used to do.
The basic meaning of baghī (from whence yabghūn is derived) is ‘to seek’ (synonymous with ṭalab), but it is primarily used in the context of wrongdoing, because baghī means to seek what belongs to another by infringing their rights, which is why it is qualified here with the phrase bi ghayr ḥaqq (‘unduly’). However, this is still not the primary meaning of baghī as, were this the case, the phrase bi ghayr ḥaqq would have been superfluous.
This sentence is a continuous to the previous verse. The entire passage—meaning, It is He who carries you across land and sea … they commit violations on the earth unduly!—these serve as a piece of evidence or an exemplar in relation to the whole of the verse, When We let people taste mercy after a distress that has befallen them … (). Alternatively, it could be read as the same but specifically for the statement, say, ‘Allah is more swift at devising.’ In any case, God’s saying, O mankind! Your violations are only to your own detriment () is what the entire purpose of the discourse in the previous verse hinges upon, even if it is not necessary part of the speech of the Prophet, so ponder on this.
O mankind! Your violations are only to your own detriment. The wares of the life of this world; then to Us will be your return: Note how the verse shifts from speaking in the third person to a form of direct address. Here, with the words, O mankind …, God speaks to of all of humanity directly. This is not part of what God commanded the Prophet to tell people. The evidence for this is the remainder of the verse, beginning with, then to Us will be your return …, as it is not fitting for this to be part of the Prophet’s speech to the people.
The significance of this shift is similar to what we have said regarding the verse, indeed Our messengers write down what you scheme (). It is as though God seeks to surprise them with His awareness of them while the Prophet is speaking to them. They imagine that their Lord is absent from them and not concerned with the intentions and aims that lay behind their actions. Then, he reveals Himself to them, demonstrating His presence with them in all their states and His all-encompassing knowledge of them by telling them: ‘I am nearer to you and to your deeds than you are, so whatever you do in an attempt to transgress against Us and plot against Us, it happens only by Our leave and through Our hands, so how can you hope to transgress against us through it? On the contrary, you only transgress against your own selves, for it distances you from Us, and your sins will be recorded in the pages of your deeds. You only violate your own selves, you will only enjoy the wares of this worldly life for a few days, and then you will return to Us and We will inform you about and clarify for you the reality of your actions.
The phrase, the wares of the life of this world; then to Us will be your return, is recited in the accusative case according to Ḥafṣ and ʿĀṣim, which renders the meaning: ‘You will enjoy the wares of this world.’ Others recite it in the nominative case, which renders it the predicate of an implicit subject, with the meaning: ‘Your violations and your deeds are naught but the wares of this world.’
In both recitations, however, the wares of the life of this world; then to Us will be your return, expands upon the meaning of the phrase, your violations are only to your own detriment. Therefore, the wares … provides the explanation of why their violations are only to their own detriment by providing more detail and clarification for the general statement.
إِنَّمَا مَثَلُ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا كَمَاءٍ أَنْزَلْنَاهُ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ فَاخْتَلَطَ بِهِ نَبَاتُ الْأَرْضِ مِمَّا يَأْكُلُ النَّاسُ وَالْأَنْعَامُ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا أَخَذَتِ الْأَرْضُ زُخْرُفَهَا وَازَّيَّنَتْ وَظَنَّ أَهْلُهَا أَنَّهُمْ قَادِرُونَ عَلَيْهَا أَتَاهَا أَمْرُنَا لَيْلًا أَوْ نَهَارًا فَجَعَلْنَاهَا حَصِيدًا كَأَنْ لَمْ تَغْنَ بِالْأَمْسِ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ نُفَصِّلُ الْآيَاتِ لِقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ ٢٤
(10:24) The parable of the life of this world is akin to water which We send down from the sky. It mingles with the earth’s vegetation from which humans and cattle eat. When the earth puts on its lustre (zukhruf) and is adorned, and its inhabitants think they have power over it, Our edict comes to it, by night or day, whereat We turn it into a mown field, as if it did not flourish the day before. Thus do We elaborate the signs for a people who reflect.
Having mentioned the enjoyment of the worldly life in the previous verse, God now provides a parable to convey the reality of the matter to those who contemplate. This is an allegorical representation and not a direct comparison of one thing to another, even if this initially appears to be the case in His saying, akin to water which We send down. Similar examples are common in the Qur’anic parables. Zukhruf refers to adornment and beauty. His saying, it did not flourish refers to a situation where staying in a place for an extended period does not bring any benefit. The remainder of the verse is clear.
وَاللَّهُ يَدْعُو إِلَىٰ دَارِ السَّلَامِ وَيَهْدِي مَنْ يَشَاءُ إِلَىٰ صِرَاطٍ مُسْتَقِيمٍ ٢٥
(10:25) Allah invites (yadʿū) to the abode of peace, and He guides whomever He wishes to a straight path—
‘To invite’ (duʿāʾ and daʿwa, from whence yadʿū is derived) means to call the invited person’s gaze to that which they are being invited towards and to attract their attention. This is broader in meaning than ‘to call’ (nidāʾ), for a call is only by way of words and sounds, while an invitation can be with words, with gestures, or something else. A call must be made aloud, but no such requirement exists for an invitation.
God’s invitation is twofold in nature: Creative and legislative. The creative invitation is when God brings into being whatever He wills, as if He is calling it to what He wills. For example, God says, The day He invites you, you will respond to Him, praising Him (), this means that He will invite you to the life of the Hereafter and you will respond by accepting it. The legislative invitation is when He directs people to do what He wills in the religion through the language of His signs. On the other hand, the duʿāʾ of the servant to His Lord means to seek His mercy and consideration for himself by placing himself in a position of servitude and submission. This is why worship, in reality, is a supplication, as the servant places themselves in a state of servitude and connect through their Master by adopting a stance of subordination and humility. In doing so, the servant seeks His consideration as a Lord and a Master. And this is the essence of duʿāʾ.
It is to this reality that God refers with the verse, Your Lord has said, ‘Call Me, and I will hear you!’ Indeed those who are disdainful of My worship will enter hell in utter humility ().
The issue has been confused by the author of al-Manār, who said in his commentary:
‘The claim made by some interpreters and other scholars that “worship is one of the meanings of duʿāʾ (‘supplication’)” is not valid in the context of legislated worship. For example, fasting cannot be considered supplication in terms of language or religious law. Instead, supplication is the essence of natural worship (al-ʿibāda al-fiṭriyya) and the greatest pillar of legislated worship (arkān al-taklīfiyya) from it, as stated in a tradition. Every religious supplication (duʿāʾ sharʿī) is worship, but not every act of religious worship (ʿibāda sharʿiyya) is a supplication.’
The root of this misunderstanding comes from his belief that the meaning of supplication is to call for something while neglecting the analysis of its meaning we presented earlier.
The original meaning of peace (salām), according to al-Rāghib in the Mufradāt, is to be free from both external and internal sources of harm. And this meaning is found in all of its derivatives. Peace (salām) and security (salāma) are closely related in meaning for this reason. The key difference is that peace refers to safety in and of itself, while security refers to peace in relation to what one is safe from (one is safe ‘from’ something). One might say they are ‘secure’ (fī salām) or ‘safe from such-and-such’ (fī aman min kadhā wa kadhā).
Now, al-Salām is one of the names of God because His exalted essence is pure good, with no evil in it, while paradise is known as the Abode of Peace (Dār al-Salām) because it contains no evil and no harm will ever come to its inhabitants. Some have said that it is called the Abode of Peace because it is the abode of God, and God is al-Salām. In reality, these explanations lead to the same conclusion, because God is only called al-Salām because He is free from any evil. Furthermore, the context of the verse suggests that the attributive meaning of Peace is what is meant here.
God uses the term salām here without qualification, and there is nothing in His revelation that restricts it to specific conditions or modalities. Therefore, Paradise here is the abode of absolute peace, and such peace can only exist in Paradise. Whatever peace we find in this world is relative rather than absolute, for there is nothing in this world save that it is impeded or prevented from attaining what it desires, and there is no condition that is without its contraries and opposites.
If we take the meaning of peace here as absolute rather than relative, then we will grasp the meaning of the description of paradise as the Abode of Peace, and it will become clear that describing it with this attribute is no different to the description given in the verse, there they will have whatever they wish, for when a person is safe from all that they dislike and do not love, this entails that they have the power to obtain whatever they wish and whatever they like.
The fact that the Abode of Peace is described as being with their Lord shows that nearness (qurb) denotes their presence (ḥuḍūr) with Him and that they are never heedless of Him there. We have already explained the meanings of guidance and the straight path previously, in our commentary on Sūrah al-Fātiḥa and elsewhere.
Examining Narrations
- In Tafsīr al-Qummī, about the verse, those who do not expect to encounter Us say, ‘Bring a Qurʾan other than this…’ (), we read: ‘The Quraysh said, “O Messenger of God, bring us a Qurʾan other than this, for this is something you have learnt from the Jews and the Christians.” God told the Prophet to say, “If God had willed, I would not have recited it to you, nor would I have informed you of it. I have lived among you for forty years before the revelation came to me, and I never spoke of any of its content until it was revealed to me.”’
Author’s comment: There is some uncertainty about the applicability of this explanation to the verse, in that the idolaters address the Prophet as ‘Messenger of God.’
- In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, it is narrated from Manṣūr b. Ḥāzim, from Imām al-Ṣādiq: ‘The Messenger of God used to say, “I fear, if I disobey my Lord, the punishment of a tremendous day ()”, until Sūrah al-Fatḥ was revealed, and then he never again repeated these words.
Author’s comment: This narration is not without issues.
- In al-Durr al-manthūr, al-Suyūṭī cites al-Bayhaqī who, in his Dalāʾil, narrates from ʿUrwa: ‘On the Day of Conquest, ʿIkrama b. Abī Jahl fled and boarded a ship. The wind took it, and he called upon al-Lāt and al-ʿUzza. The crew of the ship said, “No one is allowed to call upon anyone besides God alone with proper dedication.” ʿIkrama said, “By God, if He is the only one on sea, then He is the only one on land as well.” So, he converted to Islam.’
Author’s comment: This report is transmitted via numerous distinct chains of narration.
- In Tafsīr al-ʿAyyāshī, it is narrated from Manṣūr b. Yūnus from Imām al-Ṣādiq: ‘Three things will turn back upon their owner, the breaking of oaths (nakth), violating the rights of others (baghī), and scheming (makr). God says, O mankind! Your violations are only to your own detriment ().’
Author’s comment: A similar tradition is also narrated from Anas from the Prophet: ‘Three will turn back upon their owner: The breaking of oaths, violating the rights of others, and scheming.’ Then the Prophet recited the verse: O mankind! Your violations are only to your own detriment; and evil schemes beset only their authors (); so whosoever breaks his oath, breaks it only to his own detriment (). This is narrated in al-Durr al-manthūr.
- In al-Durr al-manthūr, al-Suyūṭī narrates from Abū Naʿīm, who narrates in Ḥilya from Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, he said: ‘There is no act of worship better than entreating God for your needs, nothing repels the decree save for supplication (duʿāʾ). The swiftest good deed to bring reward is charity, the swiftest evil deed to suffer consequences is violating the rights of others. It is enough of a flaw for a man to perceive in others what he is blind to in himself, to command others to do what they cannot abstain from, or to trouble their sitting companion with something that does not concern them.’
- al-Suyūṭī narrates from Ibn Mardawayh, from Ibn ʿAbbās, that the Messenger of God said: ‘If one mountain transgressed against the rights of another, the mountain that transgressed would crumble to dust.’ (ibid.)
- In Tafsīr al-burhān, it is narrated from Ibn Bābawayh, via his chain from al-ʿAlāʾ b. ʿAbd al-Karīm: ‘I heard Abū Jaʿfar (al-Bāqir) say about the verse, Allah invites to the abode of peace (): “The Peace is God Almighty. The abode He created for His allies is Paradise.”’
- It is narrated from Ibn Shahrāshūb, from ʿAlī b. ʿAbd Allāh b. ʿAbbās, from his father and Zayd b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn: ‘The verse, Allah invites to the abode of peace, refers to Paradise; and He guides whomever He wishes to a straight path refers to allegiance (wilāyah) to ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib.’ (ibid.)
Author’s comment: While this narration has an incomplete chain of narrators, it is either an example of extending the meaning of the verse to a new context (jarī) or of the esoteric meaning (bāṭin) of the Qurʾan. There are many other narrations with the same meaning.