Al-Tafsīr Al-Kabīr (The Grand Exegesis)

The Review of Religions is honoured to present the first full English translation of Sūrah al-Kahf, chapter 18 of the Holy Qur’ān, from Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad’s (ra) magnum opus, Al-Tafsīr
Al-Kabīr for our readers.

In this edition, the relationship between this chapter and the preceding one is discussed, and how some commentators have erred in their understanding of this connection.

© Shutterstock

The Relationship of this Chapter with the Former Chapter al-Isrā’ [Also Known as Banī Isrā’īl]

Commentators establish its connection with the preceding chapter by observing that the Jews had asked [the Holy Prophet (sa)] three questions concerning: 1) the soul, 2) the People of the Cave, and 3) Dhū al-Qarnain [Cyrus the Great] .

Among these three questions, the answer to the first question (i.e., concerning the Holy Spirit) came later on in the chapter and was recorded in Sūrah al-Isrā’. The answers to the other two questions came quickly and together. Therefore, both were presented together in a single chapter, namely al-Kahf.[1] However, this explanation is insufficient because this chapter contains several other narratives as well, for instance, the parable of the two orchards, the journey of Prophet Moses (as), and so forth. So the question arises: why were these narratives included here? The commentators are silent in response to this question. Reverend Wherry writes in his commentary that based on the narratives in this chapter, it should be called Sūrah al-‘Ajā’ib (The Chapter of Wonders).[2]

Discussion of Qur’ānic Commentors on the Connection Between the Chapters 

In my view, neither is the justification offered by commentators correct, nor is Wherry’s objection logical. The commentators’ justification and [Wherry’s] objection arise due to misunderstanding the subject matter and purpose of this chapter. Due to some incomplete or weak narrations, a notion had taken root in the minds of the commentators, that the Jews had asked the Holy Prophet (sa) three strange questions, and that their answers have been given here; therefore, they have not even tried to consider any other aspect. These weak narrations remained entangled in their thoughts. However, it is entirely impossible to believe that any incident [mentioned] in the Holy Qur’ān was revealed [merely] in response to a question raised by the Jews. 

The Holy Qur’ān is a complete guide; what does it matter to it whether someone asks a question or not? It was bound to convey all knowledge pertaining to morals, worship, spirituality, righteousness, civilisation, economics, politics, and other such matters. Therefore, if these events have any relevance to faith and its practical aspects, they were destined to be mentioned regardless. And if not, then no matter how many thousands of questions the Jews might have asked, the Holy Qur’ān had no need to address them. It is also impossible to accept that these events were narrated together simply because the Jews had asked about them collectively.

A person may ask questions about various subjects in a single sitting, and it might be reasonable to answer them in that order during that gathering. However, in a permanent book that is not confined to any specific nation or era, providing answers to these questions collectively – regardless of whether they have any connection to each other or not – cannot be considered a desirable approach. Therefore, in my view, these ideas have arisen from a lack of deep reflection, or perhaps the time had not yet come for these questions to be resolved. 

In my opinion, it is entirely illogical and against the dignity of the Holy Qur’ān to suggest that the answers to the two questions were received quickly, hence they were placed in Sūrah al-Kahf, while the answer to the third came later, so it was mentioned in Sūrah al-Isrā’. This explanation invites a reasonable objection: why did the answers to the two questions come first? Some commentators have explained this difference by stating that since answers were given to the two questions, and ignorance was expressed regarding the answer to the other, the questions that were answered were mentioned in one chapter, while the question that was left unanswered was included with Sūrah al-Isrā’. 

Firstly, this response itself indicates ignorance on the part of the respondent. The Holy Qur’ān has not expressed any inability or lack of knowledge. Rather, it has provided a complete answer to the question about the soul. 

Furthermore, this answer is also based on the notion that Allah the Almighty was dependent on the questions of the Jews for the subjects of His final and comprehensive book, or that He was compelled to answer only if they asked. The Holy Qur’ān does address all the doubts of the Jews and polytheists, but not in that they asked a question and the Holy Qur’ān provided an answer. Instead, whenever a subject is discussed in the Qur’ān, it addresses all possible doubts and misgivings that could arise regarding it, regardless of whether the disbelievers and polytheists actually raised those doubts or not, and whether they were presented at that time or at any other time. 

In reality, the Holy Qur’ān does not concern itself with these temporary circumstances in the slightest. It focuses solely on its subject matter because it was not revealed merely for the people of that era, but for people of every age. Thus, its responses pertain only to the objections relevant to the subject it is expounding upon.

It is also worth considering that the traditions upon which the commentators have based their ideas appear to be flawed both rationally and textually. These narrations are as follows: 

1. The people of Makkah sent a delegation to the Jews of Madīnah, saying, ‘A claimant has appeared in Makkah. Advise us regarding what we should do about him.’ They replied, ‘Ask him three questions. If he answers them, he is truthful; otherwise, he is false.’ Upon returning, these people posed those three questions to the Holy Prophet (sa): (a) Who were the Companions of the Cave? (b) What are the events of Dhū al-Qarnain? (c) What is the soul?’ The Holy Prophet (sa) said, ‘I will answer tomorrow.’ However, no revelation came for ten to fifteen days. The Holy Prophet (sa) became very anxious, and the disbelievers were overjoyed.

Finally, Gabriel brought the revelation, and the Holy Prophet (sa) complained to him about the delay. Gabriel replied, ‘Because you did not say Inshā’Allāh (God willing), Allah the Almighty has given you a lesson.’ He then provided answers to all three questions, two of which are mentioned in Sūrah al-Kahf and one in Sūrah al-Isrā’. This narration is attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās (ra).[3]

Another narration, also ascribed to Haḍrat Ibn ‘Abbās (ra), states that the disbelievers sent a delegation to the Jews of Madīnah to seek advice about the Holy Prophet (sa). The Jews advised them to ask him three questions about: the Companions of the Cave, Dhū al-Qarnain, and the nature of the soul. He is truthful if he answers the first two questions but expresses inability as to the third. However, if he fails to answer all three or provides an answer about the soul, then he is false. They also mentioned that they had posed the same question to Musailimah the Liar, but he could not provide any answer. 

The rest of the narration is similar to the first one, except that the Holy Prophet (sa) answered the questions about the Companions of the Cave and Dhū al-Qarnain. However, regarding the soul, he said,

قُلِ الرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّي

‘Say, “The soul is by the command of my Lord,”’[4] thus expressing his inability to answer.[5]

Firstly, these narrations are attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās (ra), who was born three or four years after this incident. If this event had not been significant, we might say that the other companions did not feel the need to mention it, or had it been a domestic matter, we could understand that a family member might have better knowledge of it. However, it was considered so momentous that the people of Makkah sent a delegation three hundred miles to Madīnah. Then these people came and posed questions to the Holy Prophet (sa). Subsequently, for several days, no response is received, pleasing the people of Makkah and causing distress to the Holy Prophet (sa). Yet, not a single companion from that era narrates this incident. And the person who does narrate it is someone who was not even born at that time.

The second objection to these narrations is that both are attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās (ra), yet they contradict each other. One narration states that if he [claimant of prophethood] fails to answer these three questions, he is a liar. The other asserts that if he answers two of the three questions, he is truthful, but if he answers all three, he is a liar. 

Now, which narration should we accept? The one that says answering all three questions proves his trurthfulness, or the one that claims answering all three questions proves he is lying? If we accept the narration that states answering all three questions proves he is truthful, then what should those who claim that the third question remained unanswered do? Should they declare this ḥadīth false or (God forbid) the Holy Prophet (sa)? And if we consider true the ḥadīth which states that if the Holy Prophet Muḥammad (sa) answers the question about the soul, then he is false, then tell me: should the person who considers the Qur’ānic answer: 

[6] قُلِ الرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّي

as a complete and satisfactory response declare this ḥadīth false or, God forbid, the Holy Prophet (sa)? 

In my view, since the claim presented in both aḥādīth contradicts reason, both are false. The Holy Prophet (sa) is undoubtedly truthful. These narrations contradict reason in the following manner: regarding the questions mentioned therein, we must ask whether the Jews knew their answers or not. If they did know, would there be a more foolish way to test a prophet than by asking him about matters known to hundreds of thousands of people? Suppose even a liar had learned these things by hearing of them from the Jews, would answering these questions make him a true prophet?

If the answer to the aforementioned question is that the Jews did not know the answers to these questions, then again, what could be a more foolish method of testing a claimant? When they did not know the answers themselves, how could they determine whether the answers given were correct or incorrect? And could the mere act of providing answers prove the truthfulness of the claimant? These same objections arise, at the very least, regarding the two questions mentioned in the second narration. Since no rational answer can be given to these objections, it is evident that these narrations are fabrications of some imposters. 

A third objection to the second narration is that it states, ‘We also asked Musailimah the Liar, and he too could not answer.’ This portion of the narration is sufficient to prove it false. Although Musailimah was a man held in high regard among the Banū Ḥanīfah [tribe], history proves that before embracing Islām, the Banū Ḥanīfah were Christians. They accepted Islām at the hands of the Holy Prophet (sa) after the Treaty of Ḥudaibiyah. It was after becoming Muslim that Musailimah apostatised and claimed prophethood. He himself came to Madīnah and accepted Islām. The Holy Prophet (sa) instructed this tribe to return home, convert their church into a mosque, and remain steadfast in offering prayers.[7]

Now, it is evident that if a person claimed prophethood in the final years of the Holy Prophet’s (sa) life in Madīnah, how could the Jews of Madīnah have posed these questions at that time, when the Holy Prophet (sa) was still in Makkah and this person had not yet claimed prophethood? 

In summary, these narrations are entirely false and invalid. Under no circumstances can the foundation of any commentary be based upon them. Now that these narrations have been proven false, we should examine from the Holy Qur’ān itself what reasons can be discerned for the arrangement of this chapter’s subject matter, and we should not pay any attention to such narrations.

Commentary of Sūrah al-Kahf will continue in the next edition.

Translated by Murtaza Ahmed.

ENDNOTES

1. Al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ. 

2. Commentary of Reverend Wherry, Volume 3, page 76.

3. Al-Durr al-Manthūr fī Tafsīr bi al-Ma’thūr, citing Ibn Isḥāq, Ibn Jarīr, and others.

4. The Holy Qur’ān, 17:86.

5. Al-Durr-al-Manthūr fī Tafsīr bi al-Ma’thūr, citing Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah by Abū Nu‘aim.

6. ‘Say, “The soul is by the command of my Lord.”’ – The Holy Qur’ān, 17:86.

7. Zurqānī, al-Wafad al-Khāmis, and Life of Muḥammad by Sir William Muir, Chapter 30, page 473.