(Revealed before Hijrah)

Place of Revelation

According to Ibn ‘Abbas, Ibn Zubair, Hasan, Mujahid, ‘Ikrimah, ‘Ata and Jabir bin Zaid, this Surah belongs to the Meccan period with the exception of vv. 165-172. It has 207 verses including Bismillah. Qatadah says that v. 165 was revealed at Medina. The Rev. E.M. Wherry also considers this Surah to be of Meccan origin with the exception of the above-mentioned eight verses, i.e. vv. 165-172 and also vv. 159-161. It is strange that the reverend gentleman has assigned the revelation of vv.159-161 to Medina without valid reason or reliable historical evidence. No traditionist nor even any orientalist supports him in his contention, which seems to be based on the verses which contain a reference to the Jews and to some of the prophecies of the Bible which were fulfilled in the person of the Holy Prophet. He seems to have apprehended lest a perusal of these prophecies might convince the reader of the truth of the Quran and the Holy Prophet. In order to obviate this possibility, he took it upon himself, against all historical evidence and against the considered opinion of the orientalists, to assign these verses to the Medinite period. He did so in the hope that in this way the Holy Prophet would be considered to have inserted the above-mentioned prophecies in the Quran after having heard them from the Jews. Blind prejudice alone can be held responsible for this baseless inference on his part. Even a person of ordinary intelligence can understand that the fact that a particular prophecy has been mentioned in a certain Book cannot bring about its fulfilment. If a particular prophecy truly applied to the Holy Prophet, how could it be said that he had copied it from some other Book? But if it did not apply to him, how could the mere fact that it has been inserted in the Quran benefit him? On the contrary, its very subject matter, whether it was inserted in the Quran at Mecca or after having been heard from the Jews at Medina, would have sufficed to establish the falsity of his claim. What is stranger still is the fact that Mr. Wherry, in his eagerness to show that the prophecy referred to has not been fulfilled in the person of the Holy Prophet, has consigned to oblivion all the rules and principles devised by himself and the Orientalists to determine whether a particular verse was revealed at Mecca or at Medina. Orientalists hold the view that all Quranic verses which contain the words یآایھاالناس (O ye people) must belong to the Meccan period and that "the people" so addressed are the Meccans. This idea has taken such a strong hold of them that, without pausing to consider any other reason, the mere fact that a certain verse contains the words "O ye people" is a sufficient reason for them to ascribe that verse to the Meccan period. Sale is so obsessed with this view that instead of translating the words یآایھاالناس that occur in 2:22 as "O ye people", which is their correct rendering, he has translated them as "O ye people of Mecca". He has done this obviously to lend support and emphasis to his view that by the word الناس in the Quranic expression یآایھاالناس is always meant the people of Mecca, in spite of the fact that the word مکة is not to be found anywhere in the above expression. Wherry has based his commentary of the Quran on Sale’s translation. Not only has he found no fault with Sale for his taking such liberty with the text of the Quran, but even in his own Introduction to Surah Al-Baqarah he has declared this verse to belong to the Meccan period. It is a pity that bias and prejudice render a person insensible to all dictates of justice and fairness, for these very Orientalists have declared vv. 159-161 of the present Surah as of Medinite period in spite of the fact that the words یآایھاالناس (O ye people) occur in them. This means that whenever there is the least likelihood of Islam being exposed to criticism if a particular verse of the Quran in which the expression یآایھاالناس (O ye people) occurs were proved to belong to the Meccan period, they will confidently declare it to belong to the Meccan period; but when Islam is considered to be open to attack by proving that another verse which comprises the same expression is of Medinite origin, these scholars complacently assign it to the Medinite period. May God open their hearts that they may see the truth, so that they may not make Jesus feel ashamed of them on the Day of Judgement.

Nöldeke, however, has refused to ascribe vv. 165-172 to the Medinite period. This refusal is based only on a mere conjecture, unsubstantiated by any reliable historical evidence, and therefore cannot be accepted. Historical evidence can be rejected only on the basis of established facts of history or irrefutable internal evidence.

Title of the Surah

The Surah is known as Al-A‘raf and this name is supposed to have been given to it on the basis of this word having occurred in its 47th verse. But the contention that the Surah has been given this name only because the word اعراف (A‘raf) has happened to occur in it is inadmissible unless this word is shown to possess some real connection with the subject matter of the Surah itself. Orientalists and commentators have not succeeded in finding out any such connection between this word and the subject matter of the Surah. This is because they have assigned a wrong meaning to the word اعراف. They think that اعراف (A‘raf) is the name of an intervening spiritual stage between Paradise and Hell, and that the dwellers in this stage will appear distinct from the inmates of Hell but will not as yet have entered Paradise. The Quran, however, rejects this meaning of the word because it mentions only two groups of people, viz. the dwellers of Paradise and the inmates of Hell. There is no mention of any third group or class of people. The Quran thus lends no support to the interpretation of the word اعراف as the place for a people of a middling spiritual status, nor can any internal evidence of the verses in which this word occurs be adduced in support of this interpretation. The Quran depicts the people of اعراف (A‘raf) as at one time addressing the dwellers of Paradise and at another time talking to the inmates of Hell, and their spiritual knowledge has been declared to be so great that they can recognize the dwellers of Paradise by their special marks and also the inmates of Hell by the latter’s particular signs. They rebuke and upbraid the inmates of Hell and pray for the inmates of Paradise (7:47, 49, 50). Can a person who himself is hanging, as it were, in a state of uncertainty between Paradise and Hell, be so presumptuous as to assume an air of superiority as the people of A‘raf have been shown to do. The fact is that the people of اعراف (A‘raf) are the Prophets of God, who will occupy a very high spiritual station on the Day of Judgement and will pray for the dwellers of Paradise and rebuke and reprimand the inmates of Hell. And because the present Surah is the first among the Quranic Surahs in which the life-stories of the Prophets have been dealt with at some length, it has been given the name اعراف in consideration of the very high spiritual station of God’s Messengers.

Moreover, the very construction of the word supports this inference. اعراف is the plural of عرف (‘urf) which means a high and elevated place (Lane). Similarly عرف (‘urf) means that spiritual realization which a man has through his unsullied nature, acquiring it by the help of God-given intellect and the testimony of his inner self. So اعراف means those teachings of which the truth is established by rational arguments and the testimony of human nature; and, as the teachings of Prophets possess all these qualities, they (the Prophets) alone deserve this spiritually high position, and thus be rightly called اصحاب الاعراف i.e. the people of اعراف (elevated places). Their high spiritual station signifies that, apart from the special favours of God, they take their stand on the solid rock of the testimony of human nature and intellect. Such a lofty position is indeed beyond the attainment of ordinary men.

In short, the chapter A‘raf is so called because in it illustrations have been given from the lives of those eminent men of very high spiritual status who in the past have taught mankind eternal truths in accordance with the demands of human nature and human intellect, whom the men of this world resisted and sought to bring low, but whom the jealous God did not allow to be debased but, on the contrary, raised to a very exalted position.

Subject Matter

Spiritually, this Surah serves as a kind of برزخ (intervening link) between the Surahs that precede it and those that follow it, which means that the subject matter of the preceding Surahs has been developed into a new theme in this Surah. In the preceding Surahs the main theme consisted of a refutation of Judaism and Christianity and also a refutation of other Faiths which profess to derive their authority mainly from philosophy and reason. In the present Surah both these themes have been jointly treated and the falsity of the positions of both these sets of religions has been established and the truth of Islam demonstrated to their followers. First of all, it has been stated that since the Quran is the revealed Word of God, there is no possibility of its meeting with destruction or failing to achieve its object. Then in vv. 4-10 the followers of the Holy Prophet are warned that they should not, in a fit of despondency, come to a hasty compromise with the followers of other religions, because the opponents of a true religion have always suffered disgrace and humiliation in the end. Verse 11 states that God has created man for the attainment of a most sublime object but most men forget this noble purpose of their life.

In vv. 12-27 the paradisiacal life of Adam and his expulsion from it have been cited as an illustration of this subject and it is stated how, from the very beginning of the world, God created man and provided the means necessary for his attainment of a high spiritual status; but he gave no heed to God’s plans for him and obeyed and followed Satan. In vv. 28-30 we are told that Satan had made Adam spiritually naked, and now God has sent the Holy Prophet of Islam to clothe him with the raiment of righteousness, and he is the Prophet who has come to deliver man from the punishment of his sins and to make him regain that heavenly life of which he had become deprived. So the Faithful should beware lest their deeds keep them deprived of that heavenly life. In vv. 31-35 it has been hinted that, unlike former Faiths which aimed at individual development, Islam seeks to bring about a reformation among whole communities. Whereas former Prophets sought to make individuals enter Paradise, Islam aims that whole communities and nations should attain bliss. But, as every effort at reformation has to encounter many obstacles and vicissitudes before it reaches its consummation, vv. 36-38 tell us that when the Muslim community deviates from Islamic principles and teachings, God will raise for their reformation divinely-inspired Reformers from among the followers of the Holy Prophet so that men may not lose this newly-gained Paradise by deviating from the path of national progress and development. In vv. 39-48 rules and principles have been laid down for the recognition of these promised Reformers and light has also been shed on the ultimate doom of their opponents. In vv. 49-52 we are told that it is the Prophets of God who alone can arouse into action the latent powers and qualities of human nature and can lead men to progress and prosperity. In the next two verses the Meccans are exhorted to accept and benefit by the light of prophethood of which they have had an ample share and not to make themselves the object of Divine punishment by rejecting it.

In vv. 55-59 it is said that all divine plans work gradually. As in the material world, so in the realm of the spirit, all progress is subject to the law of evolution and it is by a process of progressive evolution that the spiritual development of man has taken place from the time of Adam to that of the Holy Prophet of Islam, and the new mission that has come into force through the Holy Prophet, in which greater attention has been given to the betterment and organization of the community than to that of the individual, will also find its consummation after going through a process of evolution. Muslims should, therefore, conform to the Divine will and purpose and should strive to fulfil this great mission. They should always keep in mind that from small seeds grow big trees and that even great objects seem very insignificant in the beginning and remain hidden from the eyes of the people. So it behoves them to keep their eyes open and not let this grand object remain hidden from their sight because, if once it were allowed to become hidden, it would remain hidden forever.

With v. 60 begins a brief account of the life history of some Prophets of antiquity whose mission it was to take man as an individual back to the blissful heavenly existence from which he was expelled. This account extends to v. 172. In vv. 173-178 it is stated that good is ingrained in human nature and constitutes an integral part of it while evil comes later and is the result of external influences. In vv. 179-184 we are told that, in spite of the instinctive goodness of man, he cannot attain perfection without the help of Divine revelation. By rejecting Divine guidance he becomes deprived of his instinctive goodness and is ruined.

In vv. 185-187 reference has again been made to the mission of the Holy Prophet, and his opponents are admonished not to ignore the patent fact that his intellect is sound and motives pure and that his teachings are in perfect harmony with human nature and natural law and that the testimony of the time also is in his favour. In vv. 188-199 some misgivings and doubts of disbelievers have been removed, and it is stated that disbelievers will put up a very strong opposition to the Holy Prophet but God will protect him from all harm. The idols of idolaters will not be able to help them. In vv. 200-203, however, Muslims are admonished not only to endure patiently the opposition of disbelievers, (because all this opposition is the result of lack of true knowledge), but also to pray for them. Then in v. 204 the Holy Prophet is told that, like the opponents of former Prophets, his opponents also will continue to demand Signs, but he should tell them that the showing of signs lies entirely in God’s own hand. He will show them when in His infallible wisdom He thinks it opportune. But does not the Quran itself (the Prophet is enjoined to say to disbelievers) which fulfils the real object and purpose of prophethood, constitute a sufficient sign? Towards the end of the Surah Muslims are exhorted to give to the miracle of the Quran that great measure of true appreciation which it richly deserves, because the more heavenly light is vouchsafed to man, the truer should be his appreciation of it.

In his Introduction to this Surah, Mr. Wherry has made, as is his wont, a fantastic charge against the Holy Prophet. He says that the accounts of the life-histories of former Prophets which this Surah contains are only a reflection of the Holy Prophet’s own experiences in life. Here are his actual words:

"Even the most careless reader can hardly fail to see that all these Prophets are facsimiles of Muhammad himself. Their character and authority, their message and accompanying claims to inspiration, the incredulity and hardness of heart shown by the tribes to whom they were sent, the consequent rejection of the Prophets, and threatening of the sudden and dreadful judgements of God upon unbelievers, all these correspond to the experience of Muhammad, and the inference suggested by each story is that the rejection of the Prophet of Mecca would bring with it judgements on the Quraish similar to and dreadful as those which befell those tribes who rejected the former Prophets."

Mr. Wherry means to suggest that no incidents mentioned in this Surah as having happened to the Prophets ever took place; the Holy Prophet has only ascribed his own experiences to them. But can the reverend gentleman have the courage to deny that the incidents, attributed in the Quran to former Prophets, are also mentioned in the Bible as having happened to them? Did there ever live a Prophet of whose life the Bible contains some account who did not claim to have received revelation from God? We find that every Prophet mentioned in the Bible definitely laid claim to Divine revelation; and how can any intelligent man possibly conceive that any person could lay claim to prophethood without claiming at the same time that he received revelation from God. Moreover, there is no cause or occasion for surprise at the fact that the opposition and cruel treatment, which, the Quran says, former Prophets met at the hands of their opponents, resembled the treatment and opposition which the Holy Prophet received from his opponents. What is there in the mutual resemblance of the conditions and circumstances of the Holy Prophet and those of former Prophets which can cause surprise! Every Prophet of God brings a new message which contradicts and demolishes the accepted views of his people. They naturally oppose him. This was the experience of every Prophet. They all resemble each other in this respect. If this resemblance seems strange to Mr Wherry, he alone must have known Prophets who did not receive cruel treatment from their people. If such is the case, then what would he say about him who said: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killeth the Prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her!" (Matt. 23:37). And, "That the blood of all the Prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation" (Luke 11:50). Would Mr Wherry and those who subscribe to his view tell us that the man, who uttered the above words, was also ascribing his own experiences to former Prophets and that in reality they received no such treatment? Did he (Jesus) tell a lie or is it a fact that the Prophets from the beginning of the world were really rejected and opposed? If Mr Wherry has the hardihood to accuse even Jesus of falsehood, then we have no complaint against him. But if what Jesus said was true, and it was certainly true, then there is no denying the fact that the Prophets of God have always received opposition and maltreatment from their opponents. Enmity and blind prejudice alone have impelled Mr Wherry to make this most unjust charge against the Holy Prophet.

Similarly, if the objection of Mr Wherry is true that the claim of the Quran that the former Prophets had warned their opponents of Divine punishment was a reflection of the Holy Prophet’s own mind and nothing of the kind ever happened, then what would he say about the Bible, which is full of prophecies containing warnings for the Prophets’ opponents. Did not Noah and Moses and Jeremiah and Hezekiah and Daniel warn their opponents of Divine punishment? Did not Jesus himself threaten his opponents with impending doom? If such is the case, then is it not merely blind prejudice to take exception to the Quranic statement that all the Prophets warned their opponents of their ultimate destruction and that destruction actually befell them? Let Mr Wherry and those of his way of thinking remember that all Prophets of God bear a close resemblance to one another just as their opponents resemble each other. This is why perhaps the objections of Mr Wherry bear a striking resemblance to the objections of the Scribes and the Pharisees; and the answers of the Holy Prophet resemble those given by Moses and Jesus to their opponents.