1.1 The Holy Qur’An

The original source from which all principles and ordinances of Islam are drawn is the Holy Book called al-Qur’an. The name Qur’an is frequently mentioned in the book itself which also states to whom, how, why, when, and in what language, it was delivered. It was revealed to Muhammad: “And (who) believe in that which has been revealed to Muhammad — and it is the Truth from their Lord” (47:2). It was revealed in the month of Ramadzan on a certain night which thenceforward received the name of the Night of Majesty (Lailat al-Qadr): “The month of Ramadzan is that in which the Qur’an was revealed” (2:185); “We revealed it on a blessed night” (44:3); “Surely We revealed it on the Night of Majesty” (97:1). It was revealed in Arabic language: “So We have made it easy in thy tongue that they may be mindful” (44:58); “Surely We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you may understand” (43:3). It was revealed in portions, every portion being written and committed to memory as soon as it was revealed, and the revelation was spread over twenty-three years of the Holy Prophet’s life, during which time he was occupied solely with the reformation of a benighted world: “And it is a Qur’an which we made distinct, so that thou mayest read it to the people by slow degrees, and We have revealed it in portions” (17:106). It was not the Holy Prophet who spoke under influence of the Holy Spirit; it was a Divine Message brought by the angel Gabriel, and delivered in words to the Holy Prophet who communicated it to mankind: “And surely this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. The Faithful Spirit has brought it on thy heart that thou mayest be a warner, in plain Arabic language” (26:192 - 195); “Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel — for surely he revealed it to thy heart by Allah’s command” (2:97); “The Holy Spirit has revealed it from thy Lord with the truth” (16:102).

Though the Holy Qur’an was revealed piecemeal through Gabriel, yet the entire revelation is one whole, delivered in one and the same manner. Revelation, we are told in the Holy Qur’an, is granted to man in three forms: “And it is not vouchsafed to any mortal that Allah should speak to him, except by revelation (wahy) or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger and revealing by His permission what He pleases” (42:51). The first of these three modes is called wahy, which is generally translated as meaning revelation. Since the different kinds of revelation are spoken of here, the word wahy is obviously used in its literal sense, its primary significance being a hasty suggestion (al-isharat al-sari‘ah) (R.). Hence the inspired word, which enters the hearts of the prophets and of the righteous, is called wahy because it is like a sudden suggestion made directly to the heart of the inspired one (ilqa-’un fi’l-rau‘). It is not a message in words but simply an idea which comes like a flash and clears up a doubt or difficulty, and it is not the result of meditation. The second mode is described as speaking from behind a veil — a scene, carrying a deeper significance, is shown as in a vision (kashf), or in a dream (ru’ya), or words are heard by the person spoken to, as if coming from behind a veil. The third mode is that in which the angel bearing the message is sent to the recipient of the Divine revelation, and the message is delivered in words, and this is the highest form of revelation. As already stated, the angel entrusted with Divine message in words is Gabriel or the Holy Spirit, and this third mode of revelation is limited to the prophets of God only — to men entrusted with important Divine messages to humanity — while the first two lower forms of revelation are common to prophets as well as those who are not prophets. For the delivery of the higher message which relates to the welfare of mankind, a higher form of revelation is chosen, a form in which the message is not simply an idea but is clothed in actual words. The Holy Prophet’s faculty of being spoken to by God is so highly developed that he receives the messages, not only as ideas instilled into the mind or in the form of words uttered or heard under the influence of the Holy Spirit, but actually as Divine messages in words delivered through the latter. In the terminology of Islam this is called “revelation that is recited” (wahy matluww) and the Holy Qur’an was, from beginning to end, delivered in this form to the Holy Prophet, as the quotations earlier given from the Book itself make it abundantly clear. It does not contain any other form of revelation. It is in its entirety wahy matluww or revelation recited to the Holy Prophet distinctly in words, and is thus wholly the highest form of Divine revelation.

As stated above, prophets also received the lower forms of Divine revelation. For example, we are told in reports that before the higher message came to the Holy Prophet Muhammad — i.e., before he received the first Qur’anic revelation — he used to have clear and true visions. “The first of revelations that came to the Messenger of Allah were good visions so that he did not see a vision but it came out true as the dawn of the day” (Bu. 1:1). The Holy Prophet’s hearing of certain voices as mentioned in the Hadith belongs to the same category, while the details of laws as expounded by him, and as met with in his Sunnah, belong to the first form of revelation, an idea instilled into the mind. This is called “inner revelation” (wahy khafiyy). In the lower forms, revelation is still granted to the righteous from among the followers of the Holy Prophet and even to others, for, as will be shown later, in the lowest form revelation is the universal experience of humanity. There is also a difference as to the method in which the different kinds of revelation are received. While the two lower forms of revelation involve but little change in the normal condition of a man, whether awake or asleep, and he is only occasionally transported to a state of trance, the highest form, which is that peculiar to the prophets, brings with it a violent change; it does, in fact, require a real passing from one world to the other, while the recipient is in a state of perfect wakefulness, and the burden of revelation is not only felt by him but is also visible to those who see him.

The Holy Prophet first experienced the higher revelation while he was alone in the cave of Hira. Before this he had, from time to time, seen visions, but when the angel came with the higher message, he found himself quite exhausted: “He (Gabriel) seized me and squeezed me to such an extent that I was quite exhausted”, and this was repeated thrice (Bu. 1:1). And even after he reached home, the effect of exhaustion was still upon him and he had to lie down covered over before he could relate what had befallen. It was an equally hard experience when the second message came to him after an interval of some months. And even afterwards, the effect of the Spirit upon him was so great that on the coldest of days perspiration would run down his forehead: “I saw”, says ‘A’ishah, his wife, “revelation coming down upon him in the severest cold, and when that condition was over, perspiration ran down his forehead” (Bu. 1:1). A Companion also relates that “he was sitting with his leg under that of the Holy Prophet when revelation came down upon him, and he felt as if his leg would be crushed under the weight” (Bu. 8:12).

The next question is about the nature of the revelation itself. When Harith, son of Hisham, once enquired of the Holy Prophet how revelation came to him, he replied: “It comes to me sometimes as the ringing of a bell and this is hardest on me, then he (the angel) leaves me and I remember from him what he says; and sometimes the angel comes in the shape of a man and he talks to me and I remember what he says” (Bu. 1:1). These are the only two forms in which the Qur’anic revelation came to the Holy Prophet. In both cases, the angel came to him and was seen by him; in both cases a certain message was delivered in words which he at once committed to memory. That is the essence of the whole question. The only difference between the two cases was that in one case the angel appeared in the shape of a human being and uttered the words in a soft tone as a man talks to another; in the other case, it is not stated in what form he came, but we are told that the words were uttered like the ringing of a bell, that is to say, in a harsh, hard tone, which made it a heavier task for the Holy Prophet to receive them. But still it was the angel who brought the message, as is shown by the use of the personal pronoun he in the first part of the report. In both cases the Holy Prophet was transported, as it were, to another world, and this transportation caused him to go through a severe experience which made him perspire even on a cold day, but this experience was harder still when the deliverer of the message did not appear in human shape and there remained no affinity between the deliverer and the recipient. But whether the angel appeared in human shape or not, whether the message was delivered in a hard or soft tone, the one thing certain is that it was a message delivered in words; and the Qur’anic revelation is thus entirely one message delivered in one form. It should be noted that the Holy Prophet often received the message while sitting with his companions, but the latter never saw the angel nor ever heard the words of revelation. It was, therefore, with other than the normal human senses that the Holy Prophet saw the angel and heard his words, and it was really the granting of these other senses that is called transportation to another world.

Though the Holy Qur’an was revealed in portions, yet it is a mistake to suppose that it remained long in that fragmentary condition. As its name implies, it was a book from the first, and though it could not be complete until the last verse was revealed, it was never without some form of arrangement. There is the clearest testimony, internal as well as external, that every single verse or part of a verse and every chapter that was revealed had its own definite place in the Book. The Holy Qur’an is itself clear on this point: “And those who disbelieve say: Why has not the Holy Qur’an been revealed to him all at once? Thus (it is) that We may strengthen thy heart by it, and We have arranged it well in arranging” (25:32). The arrangement of the Holy Qur’an was thus a part of the Divine scheme. Another verse showing that the collection of the Book was a part of the Divine scheme runs thus: “Surely on Us rests the collection of it and the reciting of it” (75:17). It appears from this that just as the Holy Qur’an was recited by Gabriel to the Holy Prophet, in like manner, the collecting of its various parts was effected by the Holy Prophet under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. History also bears testimony to the truth of this statement, for not only are there numerous anecdotes showing that this or that portion of the Holy Qur’an was put to writing under the orders of the Holy Prophet, but we are clearly told by ‘Uthman, the third Caliph, that every portion of the Book was written and given its specified place, at the bidding of the Holy Prophet: “It was customary with the Messenger of Allah (may peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him) that when portions of different chapters were revealed to him, and when any verse was revealed, he called one of those persons who used to write the Holy Qur’an and said to him: Write this verse in the chapter where such and such verses occur” (Ah. 1:57, 69).

In fact, if we bear in mind the use that was made of the Holy Qur’an, we cannot for an instant entertain the idea that the Book existed without any arrangements of its verses and chapters in the lifetime of the Holy Prophet. It was not only recited in prayers but committed to memory and regularly recited to keep it fresh in the mind. Now if an arrangement of verses and chapters had not existed, it would have been impossible either to recite it in public prayers or to commit it to memory. The slightest change in the place of a verse by a person leading the prayers (Imam) would at once call forth a correction from the audience, as it does at the present day. Since no one could take the liberty of changing a word or the place of a word in a verse, no one could change a verse or the place of a verse in a chapter; and so the committing of the Holy Qur’an to memory by so many of the Companions of the Holy Prophet, and their constant recitation of it, would have been impossible unless a known order was followed. The Holy Prophet could not teach the Holy Qur’an to his companions nor the companions to each other, nor could he or anyone else lead the public prayers, in which long portions of the Book were recited, without following a known and accepted order.

The Holy Qur’an thus existed in a complete and ordered form in the memories of men, but no complete written copy of it existed at the time, nor could such a copy be made while the Holy Prophet was alive, and still receiving revelations. But the whole of the Holy Qur’an in one arrangement was safely preserved in the memories of reciters (qurra’). It happened, however, that many of the reciters fell in the famous battle of Yamama, in the caliphate of Abu Bakr, and it was then that ‘Umar urged upon him the necessity of compiling a standard written copy, so that no portion of the Holy Qur’an should be lost even if all the reciters were to die. And this copy was compiled, not from the hundreds of copies that had been made by individual Companions for their own use but from the manuscripts written under the direction of the Holy Prophet himself, and the arrangement adopted was that of the oral recitation as followed in his time. Thus a standard written copy was prepared, which was entrusted to the care of Hafsah, wife of the Holy Prophet. But still no arrangement had been made for securing the accuracy of the numerous copies that were in circulation. This was done by ‘Uthman who ordered several copies to be made of the copy prepared in the time of the first Caliph, and these were then sent to the different Islamic centres so that all copies made by individuals should be compared with the standard copy at each centre.

Thus Abu Bakr ordered a standard copy to be prepared from the manuscripts written in the presence of the Holy Prophet, following the order of chapters which was followed by the reciters under the directions of the Holy Prophet, and ‘Uthman ordered copies to be made from this standard copy. If there was any variation from that standard copy, it went no further than this that where the Quraish wrote a word in one way and Zaid wrote it in another way, ‘Uthman’s order was to write it in the manner of the Quraish. This was because Zaid was a Madinite while his colleagues were Quraish.

As to what these differences were, some light is thrown on the point by Tirmidhi, one of the collectors of Hadith, making the following addition to this report: “And they differed on that occasion as to tabut and tabuh. The Quraish members said that it was tabut and Zaid said that it was tabuh. The difference was reported to ‘Uthman and he directed them to write it tabut, adding that the Holy Qur’an was revealed in the dialect of the Quraish.” It would be seen from this that these differences of reading or writing were very insignificant, but as the Companions of the Holy Prophet believed every word and letter of the Holy Qur’an to be the revealed word of God, they gave importance even to a slight difference in writing and referred it to the Caliph. It may be added here that Zaid was chiefly called upon by the Holy Prophet at Madinah to write down the Holy Qur’anic revelations, and the word tabut occurs in a Madinah chapter (2:248). Zaid had written it tabuh as the Madinites did, but as the Quraish wrote it tabut, ‘Uthman restored the Quraishite form. This incident further shows that Hafsah’s copy contained the manuscripts written in the presence of the Holy Prophet. These two reports furnish conclusive proof that if there was any difference between ‘Uthman’s standard copy and the collection made by Abu Bakr, it was a difference only as to the mode of writing certain words. In short, there was no change of words, no change of verses and no change in the order of chapters.

A few words may be added as to the so-called differences of readings in the Holy Qur’an. There were slight differences in the spoken language of different tribes, that of the Quraish being the model for the literary language. The Holy Qur’an was revealed in the dialect of the Quraish, the literary language of Arabia. But when, towards the close of the Holy Prophet’s life, people from different Arabian tribes accepted Islam in large numbers, it was found that they could not pronounce certain words in the idiom of the Quraish, being habituated from childhood to their own idiom, and it was then that the Holy Prophet allowed them to pronounce a word according to their own peculiar idiom. This permission was given only to facilitate the recitation of the Holy Qur’an. The written Holy Qur’an was one; it was all in the chaste idiom of the Quraish, but people belonging to other tribes were allowed to pronounce it in their own way.

There may have been certain revelations in which an optional reading was permitted. Readings belonging to this class can only be accepted on the most unimpeachable evidence, and the trustworthiness of the Hadith containing such reading must be established beyond all doubt. But even these readings do not find their way into the written text, which remains permanently one and the same. Their value is only explanatory: they only show what significance is to be attached to the word used in the text; they are never at variance with the text. They are known to very few even of the learned, to say nothing of the general readers of the Holy Book, and are considered to have the value of an authentic Hadith in explaining the meaning of a certain word occurring in the text. Thus, the so-called different readings were either dialectic variations, which were never meant to be permanent, and intended only to facilitate the reading of the Holy Qur’an in individual cases, or explanatory variations meant to throw light on the text. The former ceased to exist with the spread of education in Arabia, and the latter have still the same explanatory value as they originally had.

Random reports that a certain verse or chapter, not to be met with in the Holy Qur’an, was part of the text, have no value at all as against the conclusive and collective testimony which establishes the purity of the text of the Holy Qur’an. These reports were in some cases fabricated by enemies who sought to undermine the authority of the religion of Islam. In other cases, they may have been the mistaken conception of some narrator. However that may be, it is necessary to weigh the evidence as to whether or not a certain verse formed part of the Qur’anic text. It is a fact that every verse of the Holy Qur’an was, when revealed, promulgated and made public; it became a part of the public prayer and was repeated day and night to be listened to by an audience of hundreds. When the written manuscripts of the Holy Qur’an were first collected into one volume in the time of the first caliph, and later on when copies were made from the original in the time of the third caliph, there was the unanimous testimony of all the Companions that every verse that found a place in that collection was part of the Divine revelation. Such testimony of overwhelming numbers cannot be set aside by the evidence of one or two, but, as a matter of fact, all reports quoted as affecting the purity of the text ascribe a certain statement to only one man, and in not a single case is there a second man to support that assertion. Thus when Ibn Mas’ud makes an assertion, to this effect, Ubayy’s evidence, along with that of the whole body of Companions, goes against him; and when Ubayy makes a like assertion, Ibn Mas‘ud’s evidence along with that of the rest of the Companions goes against him. Thus there is not a single assertion impugning the purity of the Qur’anic text for which even one supporting witness can be produced.

That certain verses of the Holy Qur’an are abrogated by others is now an exploded theory. The two passages on which it was supposed to rest, refer, really, to the abrogation, not of the passages of the Holy Qur’an but of the previous revelations whose place the Holy Book had taken. The first verse is contained in the sixteenth chapter (al-Nahl)—a Makkah revelation—and runs thus: “And when We change a message for a message—and Allah knows best what He reveals—they say: Thou art only a forger” (16:101). It is a fact that details of the Islamic law were revealed at Madinah and it is in relation to these details that the theory of abrogation has been broached. Therefore, a Makkah revelation would not speak of abrogation. But the reference in the above verse is to the abrogation, not of the Qur’anic verses but of the previous Divine messages or revelations, consequent upon revelation of the Holy Qur’an. The context shows this clearly to be the case, for the opponents are here made to say that the Holy Prophet was a forger. He was so accused by the opponents not because he announced the abrogation of certain verses of the Holy Qur’an but because he claimed that the Holy Qur’an was a Divine revelation which had taken the place of previous revelations. They argued that it was not a revelation at all: “Only a mortal teaches him” (16:103). According to them the whole of the Holy Qur’an, and not merely a particular verse of it, was a forgery. The theory of abrogation, therefore, cannot be based on this verse which speaks only of one revelation or one law taking the place of another.

The other verse which is supposed to lend support to the theory runs thus: “Whatever message We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or one like it” (2:106). A reference to the context will show that the Jews or the followers of previous revelations are here addressed. Of these it is said: “they say: We believe in that which was revealed to us; and they deny what is besides that” (2:91). So they were told that if a certain revelation was abrogated, it was only to give place to a better one. And there is mention not only of abrogation but also of something that was forgotten. The words “or cause to be forgotten” cannot refer to the Holy Qur’an at all because no portion of it could be said to have been forgotten so as to require a new revelation in its place. There is no point in supposing that God should first make the Holy Prophet forget a verse and then reveal a new one in its place. Why not, if he really had forgotten a verse, remind him of the one forgotten? But even if it is supposed that his memory ever failed in retaining a certain verse (which really never happened), that verse was quite safely preserved in writing, and the mere failure of the memory could not necessitate a new revelation. That the Holy Prophet never forgot what was recited to him by the Holy Spirit is plainly stated in the Holy Qur’an: “We shall make thee recite, so thou shalt not forget” (87:6). History also bears out the fact that he never forgot any portion of the Qur’anic revelation. Sometimes the whole of a very long chapter would be revealed to him in one portion, as in the case of the sixth chapter which extends over twenty sections, but he would cause it to be written down without delay, and make his Companions learn it by heart, and recite it in public prayers, and that without the change of even a letter, notwithstanding the fact that he himself could not read from a written copy, nor did the written copies, as a rule, remain in his possession. It was a miracle indeed that he never forgot any portion of the Holy Qur’an, though other things he might forget, and it is to his forgetfulness in other things that the words except what Allah pleases, in the next verse (87:7), refer. On the other hand, it is a fact that parts of the older revelations had been utterly lost and forgotten, and thus the Holy Qur’an was needed to take the place of that which was abrogated, and that which had been forgotten by the world.

“The hadith speaking of abrogation are all weak”, says Tabrasi. But it is stranger still that the theory of abrogation has been accepted by writer after writer without ever thinking that not a single hadith, however weak, touching on the abrogation of a verse, was traceable to the Holy Prophet. It never occurred to the upholders of this theory that the Qur’anic verses were promulgated by the Holy Prophet, and that it was he whose authority was necessary for the abrogation of any Qur’anic verse; no Companion, not even Abu Bakr or ‘Ali, could say that a verse was abrogated. The Holy Prophet alone was entitled to say so, and there is not a single hadith to the effect that he ever said so; it is always some Companion or a later authority to whom such views are to be traced. In most cases, where a report is traceable to one Companion who held a certain verse to have been abrogated, there is another report traceable to another Companion to the effect that the verse was not abrogated. Even among later writers we find that there is not a single verse on which the verdict of abrogation has been passed by one without being questioned by another; and while there are writers who would lightly pass the verdict of abrogation on hundreds of verses, there are others who consider not more than five to be abrogated, and even in the case of these five the verdict of abrogation has been seriously impugned by earlier writers.

The theory of abrogation has in fact arisen from a misunderstanding of the use of the word naskh (abrogation), by the Companions of the Holy Prophet. When the significance of one verse was limited by another, the former was sometimes spoken of as having been “abrogated” (nusikhat) by the latter. Similarly when the words of a verse gave rise to a misconception, and a later revelation cleared up that misconception, the word “abrogation” was metaphorically used in connection with it, the idea underlying its use being not that the first verse was abrogated but that a certain conception to which it had given rise was abrogated. Earlier authorities admit this use of the word: “Those who accept abrogation (naskh) here (2:109) take it as meaning explanation metaphorically”, and again: “By abrogation is meant, metaphorically, explaining and making clear the significance”. It is an abrogation, but not an abrogation of the words of the Holy Qur’an; rather it is the abrogation of a misconception of their meaning. This is further made clear by the application of abrogation to verses containing statements of facts (akhbar), whereas, properly speaking, abrogation could only take place in the case of verses containing a commandment or a prohibition (amr or nahy). In the ordinary sense of the word there could be no abrogation of a statement made in the Word of God, as that would suggest that God had made a wrong statement first and then recalled it. This use of the word “abrogation” by the earlier authorities regarding statements of facts shows that they were using the word to signify the removal of a wrong conception regarding, or the placing of a limitation upon, the meaning of a certain verse. At the same time, it is true that the use of this word soon became indiscriminate, and when any one found himself unable to reconcile two verses, he would declare one of them to be abrogated by the other.

The principle on which the theory of abrogation is based is unacceptable, being contrary to the clear teachings of the Holy Qur’an. A verse is considered to be abrogated by another when the two cannot be reconciled with each other; in other words, when they appear to contradict each other. But the Holy Qur’an destroys this foundation when it declares that no part of it is at variance with another: “Will they not then meditate on the Qur’an? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy” (4:82). It was due to lack of meditation that one verse was thought to be at variance with another; and hence it is that in almost all cases where abrogation has been upheld by one person, there has been another who, being able to reconcile the two, has repudiated the alleged abrogation.

It is only among the later commentators that we meet with the tendency to augment the number of verses thought to have been abrogated, and by some of these the figure has been placed as high as five hundred. In this connection, Suyuti, one of the well-known commentators, says: “Those who multiply (the number of abrogated verses) have included many kinds—one kind being that in which there is neither abrogation, nor any particularization (of a general statement), nor has it any connection with any one of them, for various reasons. And this is as in the words of God: ‘And spend out of what We have given them’ (2:3); ‘And spend out of what We have given you’ (63:10); and the like. It is said that these are abrogated by the verse dealing with charity (zakat), while it is not so, they being still in force”. Suyuti himself brings the number of verses which he thinks to be abrogated down to twenty-one, in some of which he considers there is abrogation, while in others he finds that it is only the particularization of a general injunction that is effected by a later verse; but he admits that there is a difference of opinion even about these.

A later writer, however, the famous Shah Wali Allah of India, commenting on this in his Fauz al-Kabir, says that abrogation cannot be proved in the case of sixteen out of Sayuti’s twenty-one verses, but in the case of the remaining five he is of the opinion that the verdict of abrogation is final. These five verses are dealt with as follows:

1 — 2:180 “It is prescribed for you, when death approaches one of you, if he leaves behind wealth, for parents and near relations, to make a bequest in a kindly manner.” As a matter of fact, both Baidzawi and Ibn Jarir quote authorities who state that this verse was not abrogated; and it is surprising that it is considered as being abrogated by 4:11, 12, which speak of the shares to be given “after the payment of a bequest he may have bequeathed or a debt,” showing clearly that the bequest spoken of in 2:180 was still in force. This verse in fact speaks of bequest for charitable objects which is even now recognized by Muslims to the extent of one-third of the property.

2 — 2:240: “And those of you who die and leave wives behind, should make a bequest in favour of their wives of maintenance for a year without turning them out.” But we have the word of no less an authority than Mujahid that this verse is not abrogated: “Allah gave her (the widow) the whole of a year, seven months and twenty days being optional, under the bequest; if she desired she could stay according to the bequest (having maintenance and residence for a year), and if she desired she could leave the house (and remarry), as the Holy Qur’an says: ‘Then if they leave of their own accord, there is no blame on you’” (Bu. 65: ii, 41). This verse, therefore, does not contradict v. 2:234. Moreover, there is proof that it was revealed after v. 2:234, and hence it cannot be said to have been abrogated by that verse.

3 — 8:65: “If there are twenty patient ones of you, they shall overcome two hundred”, etc. This is said to have been abrogated by the verse that follows it: “Now Allah has made light your burden and He knows that there is weakness in you. So if there be of you a hundred steadfast, they shall overcome two hundred.” That the question of abrogation does not arise here at all is apparent from the words of the second verse which clearly refers to the early times when the Muslims were weak, having neither munitions of war nor experience of warfare, and when old and young had to go out and fight; while the first verse refers to a later period when the Muslim armies were fully organized and equipped.

4 — 33:52: “It is not allowed to thee to take women after this.” This is said to have been abrogated by a verse which was apparently revealed before it: “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives” (33:50). The whole issue has been misunderstood. As stated before, a verse cannot be abrogated by one revealed before it. Apparently the following happened: When 4:3 was revealed, limiting the number of wives to four, should exceptional circumstances require, the Holy Prophet was told not to divorce the excess number, and this was effected by 33:50; but at the same time he was told not to take any woman in marriage after that, and this was done by 33:52.

5 — 58:12: “O you who believe! When you consult the Messenger, offer something in charity before your consultation. That is better for you and purer. But if you have not the means then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” This is said to have been abrogated by the verse that follows: “Do you fear that you will not be able to give in charity before your consultation? So when you do it not and Allah has turned to you mercifully, keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate.” It is not easy to see how one of these injunctions is abrogated by the other, since there is not the slightest difference in what they say. The second verse merely gives further explanation to show that the injunction is only in the nature of recommendation, that is to say, a man may give in charity whatever he can easily spare, the legal alms (zakat) being the only obligatory charity.

Thus the theory of abrogation falls to the ground on all consideration.

The rule as to the interpretation of the Holy Qur’an is thus given in the Book itself: “He it is Who has revealed the Book to thee; some of its verses are decisive — they are the basis of the Book — and others are allegorical. Then those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead, and seeking to give it their own interpretation. And none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord. And none do mind except men of understanding” (3:7). In the first place, it is stated here that there are two kinds of verses in the Holy Qur’an, namely, the decisive and the allegorical — the latter being those which are capable of different interpretations. Next we are told that the decisive verses are the basis of the Book, that is, that they contain the fundamental principles of religion. Hence whatever may be the differences of interpretation, the fundamentals of religion are not affected by them, all such differences relating only to secondary matters. The third point is that some people seek to give their own interpretation to allegorical statements and are thus misled. In other words, serious errors arise only when a wrong interpretation is placed on words which are susceptible of two meanings. Lastly, in the concluding words, a clue is given as to the right mode of interpretation in the case of allegorical statements: “It is all from our Lord” — meaning that there is no disagreement between the various portions of the Book. This statement has in fact been made elsewhere also, as already quoted (see 4:82). The important principle to be borne in mind in the interpretation of the Holy Qur’an, therefore, is that the meaning should be sought from within the Holy Qur’an, and never should a passage be interpreted in such a manner that it may be at variance with any other passage, but more especially with the basic principles laid down in the decisive verses. This principle, in the revealed words, is followed by “those well-grounded in knowledge.” The following rules may, therefore, be laid down:

The principles of Islam are enunciated in decisive words in the Holy Qur’an; and, therefore, no attempt should be made to establish a principle on the strength of an allegorical passage, or of words susceptible of different meanings.

The explanation of the Book should in the first place be sought in the Holy Qur’an itself; for, whatever it has stated briefly, or merely hinted at, in one place, will be found expanded and fully explained elsewhere in it.

It is very important to remember that the Holy Qur’an contains allegory and metaphor along with what is plain and decisive, and the only safeguard against being misled by what is allegorical or metaphorical is that the interpretation of such passages must be strictly in consonance with what is laid down in clear and decisive words, and not at variance therewith.

When a law or principle is laid down, any statement carrying a doubtful significance, or a statement apparently opposed to the law so laid down, must be interpreted subject to the principle enunciated. Similarly that which is particular must be read in connection with and subject to more general statements.

In this connection, it may also be added that the Hadith also affords an explanation of the Holy Qur’an, but a Hadith can only be accepted when it is reliable and not opposed to what is clearly stated in the Holy Qur’an. As regards commentaries, a word of warning is necessary against the tendency to regard what is stated in them as being the final word on interpretation, since by so doing the great treasures of knowledge which an exposition of the Holy Qur’an in the new light of modern progress reveals are shut out, and the Holy Qur’an becomes a sealed book to the present generation. The learned men of yore all freely sought its meaning according to their understanding and circumstances, and the same right accrues to the present generation. It must also be added that though the commentaries are valuable stores of learning for a knowledge of the Holy Qur’an, the numerous anecdotes and legends with which many of them are filled can only be accepted with the greatest caution and after the most careful sifting.

The Holy Qur’an is divided into 114 chapters, each of which is called a surah. The chapters are of varying length, the longest comprising one-twelfth of the entire Book. All the chapters, with the exception of the last thirty-five, are divided into sections (ruku‘), each section dealing generally with one subject, and the different sections being interrelated to each other. Each section contains a number of verses (ayah). The total number of verses is 6,240, or including the 113 verses “in the name of Allah” (bismillah) with which the chapters open, 6,353. For the purpose of recitation, the Holy Qur’an is divided into thirty equal parts (juz), each of these being again subdivided into four equal parts. Another division is into seven portions (manzil), which is designed for the completion of its recital in seven days. These divisions for the purpose of recitation have nothing to do with the subject-matter of the Holy Qur’an.

An important division of the Holy Qur’an relates to the Makkah and Madinah chapters. After the Call, the Holy Prophet passed 13 years at Makkah, and was then forced to migrate with his Companions to Madinah where he spent the last ten years of his life. Out of the total of 114 chapters of the Book, 92 were revealed during the Makkah period and 22 during the Madinah period, but the Madinah chapters, being generally longer, contain about one-third of the Holy Book. In arrangement, the Makkah revelation is intermingled with that of Madinah; the number of Makkah and Madinah chapters following each other alternately, being 1, 4, 2, 2, 14, 1, 8, 1, 13, 3, 7, 10, 48. On referring to the subject-matter of the Makkah and Madinah revelations, we find the following three broad features distinguishing the two groups of chapters. Firstly, the Makkah revelation deals chiefly with faith in God and is particularly devoted to grounding the Muslims in that faith, while the Madinah revelation is mainly intended to translate that faith into action. It is true that exhortations to good and noble deeds are met with in the Makkah revelation, and in the Madinah revelation faith is still shown to be the foundation on which the structure of deeds should be built, but, in the main, stress is laid in the former on faith in an Omnipotent and Omnipresent God Who requites every good and every evil deed, and the latter deals chiefly with what is good and what is evil, in other words, with the details of the law. The second feature distinguishing the two revelations is that while that of Makkah is generally prophetical, that of Madinah deals with the fulfilment of prophecy. Thirdly, while the former shows how true happiness of mind may be sought in communion with God, the latter points out how man’s dealing with man may also be a source of bliss and comfort to him. Hence a scientific arrangement of the Holy Qur’an must of necessity rest on the intermingling of the two revelations, blending of faith with deeds, of prophecy with fulfilment of prophecy, of Divine communion with man’s relation to and treatment of man.

It may be added here that the idea that the proper arrangement of the Holy Qur’an should be in chronological order is a mistaken one. Most of the chapters were revealed piecemeal, and hence a chronological order of revelation would destroy the chapter arrangement altogether. Take, for example, the very first chapter chronologically, the 96th in the present order. While its first five verses are undoubtedly the first revelation that came to the Holy Prophet, the rest of the chapter was not revealed before the fourth year of his ministry. Similarly with the second chapter in the present arrangement; while the major portion of it was revealed in the first and the second years of the Hijrah, some verses were revealed as late as the closing days of the Holy Prophet’s life. Chronological order is, therefore, an impossibility.

That the Holy Qur’an occupies a place of eminence in Arabic literature which has not fallen to the lot of any other book goes without saying; but we may say more and assert with confidence that the place so occupied has not been attained at any time by any book anywhere. For what book is there in the whole history of the human race that, through thirteen long centuries, has not only remained admittedly the standard of the language in which it is written but has also originated a world-wide literature? The feat accomplished by the Holy Qur’an is unique in the whole history of the written word. It transformed a dialect, spoken in a very limited area of a forgotten corner of the world, into a world-wide language which became the mother-tongue of vast countries and mighty empires, and produced a literature which is the basis of the culture of powerful nations from one end of the world to the other. There was no literature, properly speaking, in Arabic before the Holy Qur’an; the few pieces of poetry that did exist never soared beyond the praise of wine or woman, or horse or sword. It was with the Holy Qur’an that Arabic literature originated, and through it that Arabic became a powerful language spoken in many countries and casting its influence on the literary histories of many others. Without the Holy Qur’an, the Arabic language would have been nowhere in the world. As Dr. Steingass says:

“But we may well ask ourselves, what would in all probability have become of this language without Muhammad and his Holy Qur’an? This is not at all an idle and desultory speculation. It is true the Arabic language had already produced numerous fine specimens of genuine and high-flown poetry, but such poetry was chiefly, if not exclusively, preserved in the memory of the people … Moreover, poetry is not tantamount to literature … Divided among themselves into numerous tribes, who were engaged in a perpetual warfare against each other, the Arabs, and with them their various dialects, would more and more have drifted asunder, poetry would have followed in the wake, and the population of Arabia would have broken up into a multitude of clans, with their particular bards, whose love-and-war songs enterprising travellers of our day might now collect … It seems, then, that it is only a work of the nature of the Holy Qur’an which could develop ancient Arabic into a literary language … But not only by raising a dialect, through its generalization, to the power of a language, and by rendering the adoption of writing indispensable, has the Holy Qur’an initiated the development of an Arabic literature; its composition itself has contributed two factors absolutely needful to this development: it has added to the existing poetry the origins of rhetoric and prose … But Muhammad made a still greater and more decisive step towards creating a literature for his people. In those surahs, in which he regulated the private and public life of the Muslim, he originated a prose, which has remained the standard of classical purity ever since”.

There are other considerations which entitle the Holy Qur’an to a place of eminence to which no other book can aspire. It throws light on all the fundamentals of religion, the existence and unity of God, the reward of good and evil, the life after death, paradise and hell, revelation, etc. In addition to expounding to us the mysteries of the unseen, it offers a solution of the most difficult problems of this life, such as the distribution of wealth, the sex-problem, and all other questions on which depends in any degree the happiness and advancement of man. And the value of this copiousness of ideas is further enhanced when it is seen that it does not confront man with dogmas but gives reasons for every assertion made, whether relating to the spiritual or the physical life. There are hundreds of topics on which it has enriched the literature of the world, and whether it discusses questions relating to spiritual existence or to physical life here on earth, it adopts a rational approach and convinces by argument and not by dogma.

More wonderful still is the effect which the Holy Qur’an has produced. The transformation it brought about is unparalleled in the history of the world. A complete change was wrought in the lives of a whole nation in an incredibly short time — a period of no more than twenty-three years. The Holy Qur’an found the Arabs worshippers of idols, unhewn stones, trees and heaps of sand, yet in less than a quarter of a century the worship of the One God ruled the whole land and idolatry had been wiped out from one end of the country to the other. It swept all superstitions before it and, in their place, gave the most rational religion the world could dream of. The Arab who had been wont to pride himself on his ignorance transformed into the lover of knowledge, drinking deep at every fountain of learning to which he could gain access. And this was directly the effect of the teaching of the Holy Qur’an, which not only appealed to reason, ever and again, but declared man’s thirst for knowledge to be insatiable. And along with superstition went the deepest vices of the Arab, and in their place the Holy Book put a burning desire for the best and noblest deeds in the service of humanity. Yet it was not the transformation of the individual alone that the Holy Qur’an had accomplished; equally was it a transformation of the family, of society, of the very nation itself. From the warring elements of the Arab race, it welded a nation, united and full of life and vigour, before whose onward march the greatest kingdoms of the world crumbled as if they had been but toys before the reality of the new faith. Thus the Holy Qur’an effected a transformation of humanity itself — a transformation material as well as moral, an awakening intellectual as well as spiritual. There is no other book which has brought about a change so miraculous in the lives of men.

To this position of the Holy Qur’an in world literature, testimony is borne by even the most biased European writers:

“The style of the Koran is generally beautiful and fluent … and in many places, especially where the majesty and attributes of God are described, sublime and magnificent … He succeeded so well, and so strangely captivated the minds of his audience, that several of his opponents thought it the effect of withcraft and enchantment”.

“That the best of Arab writers has never succeeded in producing anything equal in merit to the Holy Qur’an itself is not surprising”.

“The earliest Mekka revelations are those which contain what is highest in a great religion and what was purest in a great man.”

“However often we turn to it, at first disgusting us each time afresh, it soon attracts, astounds, and in the end enforces our reverence … Its style, in accordance with its contents and aim, is stern, grand, terrible — ever and anon truly sublime … Thus this book will go on exercising through all ages a most potent influence”.

“We may well say the Holy Qur’an is one of the grandest books ever written … Sublime and chaste, where the supreme truth of God’s unity is to be proclaimed; appealing in high-pitched strains to the imagination of a poetically-gifted people where the eternal consequences of man’s submission to God’s holy will, or of rebellion against it, are pictured; touching in its simple, almost crude, earnestness, when it seeks again and again encouragement or consolation for God’s Messenger, and a solemn warning for those to whom he has been sent, in the histories of the prophets of old: the language of the Holy Qur’an adapts itself to the exigencies of everyday life, when this everyday life, in its private and public bearings, is to be brought in harmony with the fundamental principles of the new dispensation.

“Here therefore its merits as a literary production should, perhaps, not be measured by some preconceived maxims of subjective and aesthetic taste, but by the effects which it produced in Muhammad’s contemporaries and fellow-countrymen. If it spoke so powerfully and convincingly to the hearts of his hearers as to weld hitherto centrifugal and antagonistic elements into one compact and well-organized body animated by ideas far beyond those which had until now ruled the Arabian mind, then its eloquence was perfect, simply because it created a civilized nation out of savage tribes, and shot a fresh woof into the old warp of history.”

“From time beyond memory, Mecca and the whole Peninsula had been steeped in spiritual torpor. The slight and transient influences of Judaism, Christianity, or philosophical inquiry upon the Arab mind had been but as the ruffling here and there of the surface of a quiet lake; all remained still and motionless below. The people were sunk in superstition, cruelty, and vice … Their religion was a gross idolatry; and their faith the dark superstitious dread of unseen beings … Thirteen years before the Hegira, Mecca lay lifeless in this debased state. What a change had those thirteen years now produced … Jewish truth had long sounded in the ears of the men of Medina; but it was not until they heard the spirit-stirring strains of the Arabian Prophet that they too awoke from their slumber, and sprang suddenly into a new and earnest life”.

“A more disunited people it would be hard to find till suddenly the miracle took place! A man arose who, by his personality and by his claim to direct Divine guidance, actually brought about the impossible — namely, the union of all these warring factions”.

“It was the one miracle claimed by Mohammed — his ‘standing miracle’ he called it: and a miracle indeed it is”.

“Never has a people been led more rapidly to civilization, such as it was, than were the Arabs through Islam”.

“The Qur’an is unapproachable as regards convincing power, eloquence, and even composition … And to it was also indirectly due the marvellous development of all branches of science in the Moslim world”.

Certain religious scholars (Ulama) have held that the Holy Qur’an should not be translated into any language, but this position is clearly untenable. The Holy Book is plainly intended for all the nations; it is again and again called “a Reminder for all the nations” (68:52; 81:27; etc.), and the Holy Prophet is spoken of as “a warner for the nations” (25:1). No warning could be conveyed to a nation except in its own language, and the Holy Qur’an could not be spoken of as a reminder for the nations unless its message was meant to be given to them in their own language. Its translation into other languages was, therefore, contemplated by the Holy Book itself.