‘Others’ in the Qur’ān: Exegesis of ‘A Word Common’

Dr. Ubaid VPC

Assistant Professor
Department of English
Farook College (Autonomous)
Calicut, Kerala
9747318061
ubaidwafy@gmail.com

Social identities are relational; groups typically define themselves in relation to others.
This is because identity has little meaning without the “other”. So, by defining itself a group
defines others. Identity is rarely claimed or assigned for its own sake. These definitions of self
and others have purposes and consequences. They are tied to rewards and punishment, which
may be material or symbolic. There is usually an expectation of gain or loss as a consequence of
identity claims. This is why identities are contested. Power is implicated here, and because
groups do not have equal powers to define both self and the other, the consequences reflect these
power differentials. Often notions of superiority and inferiority are embedded in particular
identities (Andrew Okolie) 1 . This narrates how the western oriented theories attempt to
problematize and theorize the relation between self and others. It deals with the subject matter in
term of its hierarchical relationships and power structure within which it works. But, one thing is
clear that, as it is relational, the process of defining self and other will subject to change based on
the position one takes and it never becomes fixed even though it works within a power structure.

Considering the ‘other’ to create hatred, to divide people and to formulate ideology was
seriously taken into account in the theoretical tradition of western thought. Ideas of similarity
and difference are central to the way in which we achieve a sense of identity and social
belonging. Identities have some element of exclusivity. Just as when we formally join a club or
an organization, social membership depends upon fulfilling a set of criteria. It just so happens
that such criteria are socially-constructed (that is, created by societies and social groups). As
such ‘we’ cannot belong to any group unless ‘they’ (other people) do not belong to ‘our’ group.
Sociologists set out to study how societies manage collective ideas about who gets to belong to
‘our group’ and which types of people are seen as different – the outsiders of society. 2 The base
such argument lies on the notion of individual identity and its implications in its material
perspective. It proposes the notion that identity can be defined or understood only with binaries.
 The Qur’ān uses most frequently terms: mu’min, muslim, Ahlu Kitab, Hadu/Yahudi,
Nasara, Kafir and Munafiq to refer to various types of religious people. Farid Esack makes
observations about the Qur’ānic use of these terms:

1) The terms usually used in translation are often, at best, approximations of their Arabic
meanings. The Qur’ān, for example, does not use the equivalent of the of the words
‘non-Muslim’ or ‘unbeliever’; yet these are the most common English renderings of
Kafirun/kuffar both in the process of translation and internal usage within the Arabic
language.
2) Some of these terms, such as mu’minun (literally, ‘the convinced ones’) and
muslimun (literally, ‘submitters’) or ‘People of the Book’ and ‘Christians’ or ‘Jews’
are frequently used interchangeably in the Qur’ān. It is essential to maintain the
Qur’ānic distinction in their various uses in order to avoid a generalized and unjust
condemnation of the Other.
3) In addition to these nouns, the Qur’ān also employs descriptive phrases such as
alladhina amanu (literally, ‘those who are convinced’) instead of muminun and
alladhina kafaru (literally, ‘those who deny/reject/are ungrateful’) instead of kafirun
(literally, deniers/ rejecters/ ingrates).
4) References to these groups are occasionally to a specific community within a
historical setting and, at other times, to a community in a wider sense, transcending
one specific situation.
5) Besides the terms of opprobrium such as kafir, munafiq (hypocrite), and mushrik, the
other terms are rarely used in a negative or positive manner without exceptions.
While praise or reproach is usually inherent in some of these terms, this is not without
exceptions. Indeed, the Qur’ān at times, describes the reprehensible acts committed
by some of those from among the Muslim or believing community as kufr/shirk.
6) These terms are often, but not always, used in the sense of a historical religio-social
group. The hypocrites and righteous were invariably referred to as individuals and the
term muslim and its various forms, for example, is also frequently invoked to refer to
the characteristics of submission in an individual, group or even an inanimate object. 3
 Joseph Lumbard views that, in presenting itself as the final revelation of the Judeo-
Christian-Islamic tradition, the Qur’ān recounts the stories of prophets from Adam to
Muhammad, encapsulating much of the sacred history that precedes it. According to the Qur’ān,
prophets have been sent at different times to all human collectivities with revelations in different
tongues, but their message was one: lā ilāha illa’Llāh— there is no god but Allah. From this
perspective, the history of humanity is a history of forgetting and being reminded again and
again of this eternal truth.4

While considering the religious others, the Qur’ān accounts the past communities of the
long history of human civilization and a ‘history of forgetting and being reminded again and
again of this eternal truth’. While reflecting on the Qur’ānic uses of others, it is important to
identify the historical role of ‘others’ played, as each individual and as a community, in the
‘cycle of historical events’.

In 1377 the Islamic scholar Ibn Khaldun, in his Muqaddima (or Prolegomena), wrote that
when nomadic tribes become united by asabiyya—Arabic for "group feeling", "social solidarity",
or "clannism"—their superior cohesion and military prowess puts urban dwellers at their mercy.
Inspired often by religion, they conquer the towns and create new regimes. But within a few
generations, writes Ibn Khaldun, the victorious tribesmen lose their asabiyya and become
corrupted by luxury, extravagance, and leisure. The ruler, who can no longer rely on fierce
warriors for his defense, will have to raise extortionate taxes to pay for other sorts of soldiers,
and this in turn may lead to further problems that result in the eventual downfall of his dynasty or
state5.

So, the concept of other gets more attentions even in the current philosophical and
literary discourses. It is worthy to look at how Abdul Majid Daryabadi, a learned scholar in
comparative religion, interprets and translates the Qur’ānic ‘Others’ in his Tafsirul Qur’ān
(Translation and Commentary of the Holy Qur’ān). Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi states that: a
distinguishing feature of Daryabadi’s exegesis is that it provides a conclusive answer to those
Jewish and Christian critics of Islam who claim that the Holy Qur’ān draws its material from the
scriptures and apocryphal writings of Judaism and Christianity. In fact these critics are unable to
appreciate the fact that the Holy Qur’ān has been revealed to confirm the scriptures of old and to
re-state and uphold the spirit of their true teachings, which, by itself, involves refutation of such
accretions, alterations and additions as have found a place into the scriptures of Judaism and
Christianity6.

Nadwi restates that the learned author (Daryabadi) has taken pains to make a most
thorough study by making a comparative analysis of the Biblical and Qur’ānic teachings and
narratives of events common to both, in order to show how the Holy Qur’ān upholds only the
correct and original teachings of the Old and New Testaments. He also provides food for thought
to those Orientalists and the students of comparative religions who prefer not to talk about the
systematic refusal of the Holy Qur’ān to confirm numerous accretions to the existing Bible. The
exegesis pin-points all such differences to show that the Biblical version of many an incident is
nothing but a product of human imagination. 7 Nadwi gives a clear picture regarding the method
through which Daryabadi analyses the Qur’ānic Others and other scriptures.

The Qur’ān, a repository of divine message revealed in the earlier scriptures, is an article
of faith for the Muslims, but it was necessary to bring out the teachings of the Torah and the
Gospels which were confirmed by the Holy Qur’ān in order to distinguish them from the
spurious matter inserted into these scriptures by their scribes, translators and commentators. For
whatever in these Books finds a confirmation by the Holy Qur’ān is undoubtedly correct;
everything else is a later addition mixed up with the divine relation. The paper discusses the
verses 2:62 8 (Jews, Christians and Sabaeans), 2: 163 9 (mankind was one community), 3:19 10
(true faith is Islam), 3:8411 (other prophets and Books) and 3:6412 (A Word common).

Daryabadi translates the verse 2:62:

Surely those who believe and those who are Judaised and Christians and the Sabaeans
whoso believes in Allah and the Last day and works righteously – their wage is with their
Lord; and no fear shall come on them nor hall they grieve. (2:62) 13
Who have become Jews or Judaised

The question of defining Qur’ānic others in its textual and socio cultural context opens
rooms for different interpretations. There are scholars who claim that Jews, Christian and
Sabaeans, in the light of the Qur’ān, will attain salvation as per the message of 2:62. Some
scholars state that this verse is abrogated by 3:8514, ‘whosoever desires a din other than Islam
shall not have it accepted from him’. Daryabadi defines each mentioned category and makes it
clear that the frequently used definitions of these terms are problematic.

Daryabadi affirms that correct rendering of Alladina Hadu can only be ‘those who are
Judaised or those who have become Jews.’ ‘It is for the first time that the Qur’ān speaks of the
‘Jews’ as distinct from the ‘children of Israel’. The two terms, though frequently used as
synonymous, are not exactly coextensive or interchangeable. 15 The Study Qur’ān16, also confirms
the same: Those who are Jews makes use of the verb hāda/yahūdu, which is very likely derived
from the noun yahūd, or “Jew,” and is literally something like “those who had,” where had is a
verb. Among the etymologies given are that had means “to be repentant,” “to incline” toward
one other, or “to move” (as when one recites the Torah; Th) 17.

Daryabadi, the learned author, differentiates between the terms ‘Jew’ and ‘Children of
Israel’: Israelites are a race, a nation, a people, a huge family, the sons of a particular progenitor,
conscious and proud of their high lineage. Jews are also a religious community, a church
believers in particular tenets, members of a certain faith. The Holy Qur’ān, regardful of the
niceties of expression, has always observed this distinction. When speaking for the religious
beliefs and practices of the Hebrews and those who had adopted their faith, it uses the term
‘Jews’ when alluding to their history and their national traits it keeps mentioning ‘the children of
Israel’. The Israelites ceased to exist as a nation with destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 and
henceforth they became a purely religious community. Many of the Arabs had, by the advent of
Islam, adopted the Jewish faith and usage. Hence the significance of the Qur’ānic expression
‘those who are Judaised’.18
 He proves his stand by referring to different sources: the ‘Children of Israel’, so
frequently addressed in the Qur’ān, says D.S. Margoliouth, ‘were merely Arab tribes made
Israelite by conversion’. (Torrey, Jewish Foundation of Islam, p.23) Most of the Arab Jews, like
Jews of Abyssinia, seem not to have been genuine children of Israel, native converts to Judaism’.
(HHW. VIII. P.10) ‘Judging by their proper nouns and the Aramean vocabulary used in their
agricultural life, these Jews must have been mostly Judaised clans of Arabian and Aramean stock
though the nucleus may have been Israelites who fled from Palestine at the time of its conquest
by the Romans, in the first century after Christ’. (Hitti, op.cit., p.104)19

Like many passages of the Bible, verses such as these (5:12)20 call for a return to the
covenant that God has made with His “chosen people” and promise that if they keep the
covenant, God will keep the covenant: O Children of Israel! Remember My Blessing which I
bestowed upon you, and fulfill My covenant, and I shall fulfill your covenant (2:40)21. Yet such
verses also serve as a warning of what will befall those who do not observe the covenant, for
there has been no community but that a warner has passed among them (35:24). 22 So, it is very
clear from the interpretations and commentaries of Daryabadi that, Qur’ānic terms; Jews and
Children of Israel are different in tone and their salvation is offered to them, if they fulfill the
covenant of the God.

Nasarenes or Christians

Daryabadi defines Nasara and quotes that: Nasara is, in its proper sense, ‘Nasarenes’, not
Christians. A Nasrani is a Nazarene in its original meaning and a Christian only ‘in its secondary
application’. (LL) ‘Nazarene’, is derived from ‘Nazareth’, the place where Jesus passed his
youth. The Nazarenes or the primitive Christians were the followers of the original pre-Paulin
church, not quite like the present day Christian of the Paulin variety. Nor is the title ‘in itself
disparaging’. (EBi. C. 3356) Rather, it was a primitive designation for Christians’.
(ERE.III.p.374)23

Nasr and Joseph Lumbard also locate the meaning of this term and write that: Christians
renders Naṣārā (sing. naṣrān or naṣrānī), which most plausibly derives from Jesus’ hometown of
Nazareth (al-Nāṣirah), but several other etymologies are also given. Acts 24:5 describes an
accuser who speaks pejoratively of Paul as “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes,” which is
the only time this term appears in the Bible. This pejorative use continued in the early centuries
of Christianity, but later developed, in some quarters, as a way of labeling “Jewish Christians” as
distinct from “Pauline Christians,” and other terms, such as the Middle Persian tarsāg and of
course kristiyān, came into use as labels for the followers of Christ. The precise origin of naṣārā
has, for some, some bearing on whether certain beliefs mentioned in the Qur’ān, such as the
worship of Mary and Jesus (5:116)24 or God’s taking a consort (72:3)25, stem from a local sect of
Christians with beliefs different from mainstream Chalcedonian Christianity 26.

Who goes forth from one Religion to Another

Another group of people described in the Qur’ān is ‘Sabians’. Referring to various

sources, Daryabadi states that: Sabi is literally ‘one who goes froth from one religion to another’.
(LL) “The Sabians who are first mentioned in the Koran were a semi-Christian sect of
Babylonia, the Ekasaites, closely resembling the Mandaeans or so called ‘Christians of St. John
the Baptist,’ but not identical with them’. (EBr. XIX. P. 790) According to another definition,
they were a sect in ancient Persia and Chadea, who believed in the unity of God but also
worshipped intelligences supposed to reside in the heavenly bodies. ‘The genuine Sabians of
Arabic writers were a Judaeo-Christian sect who also called themselves Nasoraie d’Yahya, the
Nasoreans (i.e., the observant of ST. John), and therefore became erroneously known to the
modern world as the Christians of St. John (the Baptist). (Hitti, op. cit., p. 357). They ‘practiced
the rite of baptism after birth, before marriage and on various other occasions. They inhabited the
lower plains of Babylonia, and a sect they go back to the first century after Christ…. Mentioned
thrice in the Koran, these Babylonian Sabians acquired a dhimma status and were classified by
Moslems as a ‘protected’ sect… The community still survives to the number of five thousand in
the swampy lands near al-Basrah. Living in the neighborhood of rivers is necessitated by the fact
that immersion in flowing water is an essential, and certainly the most characteristic feature of
their religious practice.’ (ib)27

Salvation is not confined to any

 After defining these ‘Others’ in their etymological, textual and socio-cultural contexts,
Daryabadi reaffirms that: Right belief and right conduct are the only sine quanon of salvation
which every individual has thus in his own hands. Howsoever grave his misbelieve or
misconduct in the past, he is not past redemption. If he only accepts God’s truth, and obeys His
laws, however late in life, blessings both of this world and the Next are his. Not even the Jews
with their centuries old record of crime and corruption, depravity and rebellion, are debarred
from Allah’s All-embracing grace and mercy: provided they mend their ways. (Th) Salvation is
not confined to any particular race or nationality28. So, his point is unambiguous, Qur’ān opens
its room of salvation to any, and it is subjected to their belief to God and Prophet Muhammad.

Mankind as One Community

Another verse of the Qur’ān, which should be discussed in this context of defining
‘Others’ and salvation of mankind, is the verse 2: 213 29 . Modern philosophies and thinkers
consider the verse as a proof for the notion of universal religion; that is all religions are one and
same, way or path does not matter and only the end is the matter. Daryabadi translates it:

Mankind was one community thereafter Allah raised prophets as bearers of glad tidings
and warners, and He sent down with the Book with truth so that He may judge between
mankind respecting what they disputed. And none disputed thereof save those to whom it
was given after the evidences had come to them, out of spite among themselves. Then
Allah guided those who believed in the truth of that respecting which they disputed, by
His leave. Allah guides whom he will to a path straight. (2:213) 30

Daryabadi clarifies that: originally there was but one religion in the world- the religion of
31
Monotheism. Referring to the conclusions of other sciences like Archeology and
Anthropology, he reiterates that monotheism is the religion of the world. Daryabadi confirms
that: contrary to the conclusions arrived at by an older generation of scientists and pseudo-
scientist, recent discoveries both in Archeology and Anthropology have proved that monotheism,
not polytheism, was the religion of the oldest races of mankind. ‘The evidence of Anthropology’,
says a leading archeologist of the day, Sir Charles Marston, ‘will be cited in these columns to
prove that the original religion of the early races was actually monotheism or something very
like it’. (The Bible is True, p. 25) ‘The theory of the evolution of Religion is contradicted by the
evidence of both Archeology and Anthropology.’ (p.29) ‘This is the very careful and deliberate
conclusion of Dr. Langdon, Professor of Assyriology at Oxford, probably the greatest living
authority on cuneiform literature…. As a result of his excavations at Kish, Dr. Langdon writes:
“In my opinion, the history of the oldest religion of man is a rapid decline from monotheism to
extreme polytheism and wide spread belief in evil spirits. It is in a very true sense the history of
the fall f man.” (Pp. 58,61) … In fact polytheism was characteristic of the greatest cultures of
antiquity, but it grew out of monotheism, and was only a theological interpretation of primitive
monotheism’. (Dr. Langdon, quoted in Marston’s Bible Comes Alive, p. 26)32

Daryabadi focuses on the point that monotheism was the religious base in the sense that,
monotheism was the foundation and polytheism came into existence out of monotheism.
Otherwise, the notion of ‘recurrent history’ has been proved here. Cyclical process of
monotheism and polytheism repeats throughout history from early civilization to the current. It
also spreads lights on the role of each prophet played in their respective community.

True Faith: What is Islam?

Which is the right path to get salvation? If Islam is the right path, what is the meaning of
Islam? Qur’ān affirms that its teachings are open to all community; the other prophets and other
believers too. If so, whether Islam is confined to an entirely new set of principles preached by
Muhammad, the last prophet or it also includes the revelations of other prophets. Here, it is
needed to analyze the verse 3:19 which states that Islam is the true faith. Daryabadi translates the
verse 3:19:

Surely the true faith with Allah is Islam and those who were given the Book disputed not
among themselves save after the knowledge had come to them, out of spite among
themselves. And he who disbelieves in the revelations of Allah, then surely Allah is Swift
in reckoning (3: 19)33
 In commentary, he refers to other source and affirms that ‘The only true religion in God’s
sight is el-Islam’ (WGAL. II. P. 264)34. He specifies that the name Islam is technical in nature
and in essence it encompasses the messages and teachings of all prophets. He also clarifies that
meaning of Islam is ‘submission’ and in that sense all prophets submitted themselves to Allah
are Muslims.

Daryabdai explains, citing other sources, that: Islam is the technical name of the creed
preached by the holy Prophet. It has been the religion of all prophets in all climes, other religions
(so called) being only so many deviations from it. No religion is acceptable with God save Islam,
which consists in acknowledging the Unity and Soleness of God and embracing the Code which
Muhammad (peace be on him!) brought. Literally, and in practice, it is ‘self – surrender’.
‘Submission, absolute surrender to the divine will was a fit designation of the faith revealed to
Abraham, Ishmael, and the Arabs’. (Torrey. Jewish Foundation of Islam, p. 104). Islam, the
name applied by Muhammed himself to his religion, means the religion of resignation,
submission to the will, the service, the command of God’. (Klein, The Religion of Islam, p. 1)35

Daryabadi also spreads lights to the differences of opinion among the People of Book and
others and says that: some accepted the Qur’ān, others rejected it altogether, and yet others said
that it was meant for the Arabs only36. Taking the case of Israeli people, he writes: It was a
matter of deep envy to the Israelities – or of injured national pride, as early thought- that the
great and highly honored gift of prophet hood should now be transferred from them to the race of
Ismail (on him be peace!)37 As a right path to salvation Islam encompasses other prophets and
their scriptures, but makes it sure that they have never deviated from its original messages and
teachings.

Other Prophets: No Discrimination

The Qur’ān never discriminates among the Prophets, and, instead, it seriously approaches
the chain of Prophets from Adam to Muhammed. Daryabadi translates 3:84 and 3:85:
 Say thou, we believe in Allah and in what has been seen sent down to us, and what was
sent down to Ibrahim and Ismail, and Ishaq and Yaqub and the tribes and what was given
to Musa and Isa and other prophets from their Lord: we discriminate against none of
them, and to Him we are submissive. (3:84)38

And whoso seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted of him and in the
Hereafter he shall be of the lost. (3:85)39

Daryabadi asserts that: ‘The essence of Mohamedanism, says a Christian student of the
Qur’ān and Islam, ‘is its assertion of unity of God, as opposed to polytheism- and nothing new; it
was, as Mohammad said of it, the ancient faith of Abraham, and it was upon that faith that the
greatness of the Jewish nation and founded: nay, it was the truth which Christ himself made
more fully known and understood’. (Palmer, The Qur’ān. Intro. P.L)40

Daryabadi confirms that; the verse opposes the doctrine of all religions are equally good.
He writes: this repudiates the comfortable doctrine that all religions are equally good, and that
different ‘paths’ adopted by different nations and different grades of society coverage to the
same Divinity. There is only one straight line possible between any two points. Even so there is
only one true, perfect and sound religion. All other religions are but so many deviations. 41

He again argues that: both the doctrine of all religions are equally good and every
Unitarian religion is equally good are against the ‘a one common word philosophy of the
Qur’ān’. He extends his thought that: this verse (3:84) contradicts the idea, prevalent in our day
among some Muslims, that the choice of religion is a matter of individual preference, and that
every Unitarian religion is equally good… the Qur’ān says:…. The path of Islam is the only right
path….Salvation according to the tenets of Islam, can be obtained only by him who recognizes
the Oneness of God and Prophet hood of Muhammad (which implies the recognition of the
former prophets) and does good works’. (ASB. P.51) 42

A Word Common
 The verse 3:64 can be considered as a final word to the discussion of Unity of All
Religions, Unity of Unitarian Religions, Salvation and Mankind as One Community. It is clear
that the verse takes us from these ‘discursive practices’ of the modern world to the crystallized
philosophy of the Qur’ān. Daryabadi translates:

Say thou, ‘O people of the Book I come to a word common to us and you, that we shall
worship none save Allah, and that we shall not join aught with Him, and that none of us
shall take others as Lords beside Allah, then if they turn away, say thou, ‘bear witness
that we are Muslims’(3:64)43

Daryabadi points up that: ‘there is no variance between various apostles’ 44. And ‘one
shall worship neither ‘Logos’ nor ‘Incarnations’ nor yet any ‘saints’ 45. He quotes that ‘thou shalt
46
worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve’ . Daryabid’s translation
philosophically takes the position of ‘A Word Common’ regarding ‘Others’ of the Qur’ān and
never considers the ‘Others’ of the Qur’ān as binary oppositions of modern discourses like
‘muslims / non muslims’ and ‘believers and unbelievers’ . In a comparative religious perspective
this principle of ‘A Word Common’ needs more attention and currency.

Conclusion:

The discussion, based on the interpretations and commentaries provided by Daryabadi,

could be summarized:

1) Process of ‘Othering’ is a political process.

2) The Qur’ānic ‘Others’ have to be dealt with in the philosophy of the Qur’ān.
3) The Qur’ān does not use binaries like ‘muslim’ / non-muslim and ‘believer’ /
‘unbeliever’, yet these are the common renderings in English.
4) Monotheism was the religion of the word.
5) History repeats itself and there lies the relevance of each Prophet and their Books.
6) The Qur’ān, never discriminates among the other prophets and the Books revealed.
 7) Salvation is not confined to any group.
8) Islam is a technical term and in essence, it encompasses the prophets from Adam to
Muhammad.
9) Instead of the doctrine of all religions are equally good or all Unitarian religions are
equally good, the Qur’ān proposes ‘A Word Common’; i.e,. that we shall worship none
save Allah.

References:

1
Andrew C. Okolie The Appropriation of Difference: State and the Construction of Ethnic Identities in
Nigeria, Identity, 3:1, 67-92, 2003.
2
Bauman, Zygmunt. What is Otherness? www.https://othersociologist.com/otherness-resources/
3
Esack, Farid. Qur’ān: Liberation and Pluralism. One World Oxford. Pp.148-149 2006.
4
Lumbard, Joseph. The Qur’ānic View of a Sacred History and Other Religions, ‘The Study Qur’ān’ by
Seyyed Hossein Nasr, New York, Harper Collins Publishers, 2015. p:3832.
5
Malise Ruthven, "The Otherworldliness of Ibn Khaldun" (review of Robert Irwin, Ibn Khaldun: An
Intellectual Biography, Princeton University Press, 2018), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXVI, no.
2 (February 7, 2019), p. 23.
6
Nadwi, Abul Hasan Ali. Introduction, Tafsirul Qur’ān by Darayabdi. Lucknow, Academy of Islamic
research and Publications, 2007 P: viii
7
Nadwi, Abul Hasan Ali. Introduction, Tafsirul Qur’ān by Darayabdi. Lucknow, Academy of Islamic
research and Publications, 2007 P: xiv
8
The Qur’ān 2:62
9
The Qur’ān 2:163
10
The Qur’ān 3:19
11
The Qur’ān 3:84
12
The Qur’ān 3:64
13
The Qur’ān 2:62
14
The Qur’ān 3:85
15
Daryabadi, Abdul Majid. Tafsir-ul-Qur’ān- Translation and Commentary of the Holy Qur’ān. Vol.1.
Lucknow, Academy of Islamic research and Publications, 2007. P.45
16
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. The Study Qur’ān- A New translation with Notes and Commentary, New York,
Harper Collins Publishers, 2015.
17
Ibid., p. 147
18
Daryabadi, Abdul Majid. Tafsir-ul-Qur’ān- Translation and Commentary of the Holy Qur’ān. Vol.1.
Lucknow, Academy of Islamic research and Publications, 2007. Vol.1. P.45
19
Ibid,. Vol.1, p.45
20
The Qur’ān 5:12
21
The Qur’ān 2:40
22
Lumbard, Joseph. The Qur’ānic View of a Sacred History and Other Religions, ‘The Study Qur’ān’ by
Seyyed Hossein Nasr, New York, Harper Collins Publishers, 2015. p:3843.
23
Daryabadi, Abdul Majid. Tafsir-ul-Qur’ān- Translation and Commentary of the Holy Qur’ān. Vol.1.
Lucknow, Academy of Islamic research and Publications, 2007. Vol.1. P.45
24
The Qur’ān 5:116
25
The Qur’ān 72:3
26
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. The Study Qur’ān- A New translation with Notes and Commentary, New York,
Harper Collins Publishers, 2015. P. 148
27
Daryabadi, Abdul Majid. Tafsir-ul-Qur’ān- Translation and Commentary of the Holy Qur’ān. Vol.1.
Lucknow, Academy of Islamic research and Publications, 2007. Vol.1. P.45
28
Ibid,. Vol.1, p.46
29
The Qur’ān 2:213
30
Daryabadi, Abdul Majid. Tafsir-ul-Qur’ān- Translation and Commentary of the Holy Qur’ān. Vol.1.
Lucknow, Academy of Islamic research and Publications, 2007. Vol.1. P.136
31
Ibid,. Vol.1, p.136
32
Ibid,. Vol.1, p.136
33
The Qur’ān 3:19
34
Daryabadi, Abdul Majid. Tafsir-ul-Qur’ān- Translation and Commentary of the Holy Qur’ān. Vol.1.
Lucknow, Academy of Islamic research and Publications, 2007. Vol.1. P.211
35
Ibid,. Vol.1, p.211
36
Ibid,. Vol.1, p.211
37
Ibid,. Vol.1, p.211
38
The Qur’ān 3:84
39
The Qur’ān 3:85
40
Daryabadi, Abdul Majid. Tafsir-ul-Qur’ān- Translation and Commentary of the Holy Qur’ān. Vol.1.
Lucknow, Academy of Islamic research and Publications, 2007. Vol.1. P.245
41
Ibid,. Vol.1, p.246
42
Ibid,. Vol.1, p.246
43
The Qur’ān 3:64
44
Daryabadi, Abdul Majid. Tafsir-ul-Qur’ān- Translation and Commentary of the Holy Qur’ān. Vol.1.
Lucknow, Academy of Islamic research and Publications, 2007. Vol.1. P.246
45
Ibid,. Vol.1, p.236
46
Ibid,. Vol.1, p.236