2. Surah Al-Baqara

At first, Muslims used to pray with their faces turned towards the Baytul-Maqdis بیت المقدس at Jerusalem; later on, Allah commanded them to turn towards the Ka'bah کعبہ . Similarly, certain other injunctions were abrogated altogether, or replaced by others. This provided the Jews and some of the associators too with an occasion to taunt the Muslims, and to say that such changes were made by the Holy Prophet ﷺ himself and not by Allah. Their purpose was to sow the seed of doubt in the mind of the Muslims with regard to the Holy Qur'an being a book revealed by Allah. They used to argue that if everything that Allah revealed was good, as the Muslims affirmed, why should one injunction be re-placed by another? For, it would only mean that one of the two injunctions must be good, and the other evil, but no divine revelation can possibly be evil. Putting these two premises together, the Jews tried to draw the conclusion that the Holy Qur'an could not be a revealed book. The present verse refutes this line of argument, and, in effect, points out that abrogation does not mean replacing good with evil, or vice versa, which should imply the possibility of the presence of evil in divine revelation, but that everything that Allah reveals to His prophets is good, and that what has been abrogated is good as much as what abrogated it. The verse declares that if Allah chooses to abrogate an injunction contained in a certain verse, while retaining the verse itself as a part of the Holy Qur'an, or chooses to remove a verse from the memories of men altogether, there is nothing objectionable in it, for Allah alone knows the wisdom that lies in His choice, and He makes these changes for the good of men. In fact, He always sends another verse or injunction better than, or at least equal to, what He has abrogated. Allah being omnipotent and omniscient, He possesses the authority to change His commandments as He likes, and He also knows what is good for men at a particular time, and makes these changes according to this knowledge. Men have no friend or helper except Allah. As friend, Allah keeps their good in view while laying down injunctions. As helper, He protects those who obey His commandments against the hostility of their foes - but if the obedient are to receive blessings in the other world greater than the harm they have to suffer in this world, the apparent domination of their foes does not really matter. What is Naskh? (Abrogation) Verse 106 speaks of Allah abrogating certain verses, or making men forget certain others. The first phrase of the verse, thus covers all the possible forms in which a verse of the Qur'an can be abrogated. The Arabic word in the text is Naskh نسخ ،. which has two lexical meanings - - (1) to write, and (2) to abolish, to repeal. According to the consensus of all the commentators, the word has been employed in this verse in the second sense -- that is, the repeal or abrogation of an injunction. So, in the terminology of the Holy Qur'an and the Hadith, Naskh (نسخ) signifies the promulgation of an injunction in place of another --whether the later injunction merely consists in the repeal of the earlier or, substitutes a new regulation in its place. The other form of Naskh نسخ mentioned in this verse is that sometimes Allah made the Holy Prophet and the blessed Companions forget a certain verse altogether. The commentators have cited several instances of this kind of Naskh نسخ ، and the purpose in such cases has usually been to repeal a certain regulation. The kinds of abrogation Making laws and repealing them to promulgate new ones in their stead is a regular and well-known practice in human governments and institutions. But in the case of man-made laws abrogation takes place sometimes because the law-makers do not understand the situation properly while making a certain law, and have to change it when they realize their mistakes, and sometimes because when a law is promulgated, it is in accord with the prevailing situation, but when quite unforeseen changes alter the situation, the law too has to be changed. But these two forms of abrogation are out of the question in the case of divine injunctions. There is, however, a third form too. The lawmaker makes a law, knowing fully well that the circumstances are going to change in such a way that the law will no longer be suitable for the new situation; so, when the situation changes as he already knew, he changes the law too, and promulgates a new one which he had thought of at the very start. For example, a physician prescribes a medicine for a patient in view of his present conditions, but he knows that when the patient has been using it for two days, his condition will change and require a new medicine -- with this realization, he prescribes a medicine suitable for that day, but two days later, when circumstances have changed, he prescribes a new one. The physician can easily give the patient written instructions for the whole course of the treatment, with all the changes in the medicines duly indicated. But this would be putting too much burden on the already feeble patient, and there would also be the danger of some harm through a possible error or misunderstanding. This is the only form of abrogation which can occur, and has been occurring iri divine injunctions and in divine books. Every new Shari'ah and every new revealed Book has been abrogating many injunctions of the earlier Shari'ah and of the earlier Book. Similarly, within the same Shari'ah, too, it has always happened that a certain law was in force for a time, but Divine Wisdom chose to abrogate it and to promulgate another in its place. Ahadith reported by Muslim says: لم تکن نبوۃ قط الا تناسخت : "There has never been a prophethood which did not abrogate some injunctions." This is a principle which it should not be difficult to understand. It was only some malicious and ignorant Jews who confused the divine abrogation of injunctions with the two forms of the repeal of man-made laws, and began, in their impudence, to taunt the Holy Prophet ﷺ - in reply to which, as we have said, these two verses were revealed. (Ibn Jar~r, Ibn Kathir etc.) As for the Muslims, it was probably in their desire to avoid giving occasion to the enemies of Islam for such taunts that some from among the Mu` tazilah tried to explain away the whole question of Naskh نسخ . Logically speaking, there is a possibility -- so ran their argument -- of abrogation in the case of divine injunctions, and the possibility cannot be denied on any rational ground, but abrogation has not actually occurred in the Holy Qur'an, and there is no verse in the Holy Book which abrogates another (Nasikh ناسخ ) and no verse which has been abrogated (Mansukh منسوخ ). This view is attributed to Abu Muslim al-Isfahani, but the ` Ulama' in general have always rejected this opinion, and refuted the argument. Thus, we read in "Ruh al-Ma` ani": واتفقت اھل الشرایٔع علی جواز النسخ و وقوعہ وخالفت الییھود غیر العیسویّہ فی جو ازہ وقالوا : یمتنع عقلاً وابو مسلم الاصفہانی فی وقوعہ فقال :إنہ و إن جاز عقلاً لکنہ لم یقع The people belonging to all the Shari'ahs are unanimous in accepting the validity of abrogation and its actual occurrence both. Only the Jews -- with the exception of their ` Isawiyyah عیسویّہ sect have denied the possibility of abrogation, and Abu Muslim al-Isfahani (رح) has denied its occurrence, for he says that it is rationally possible, but has not actually taken place." Imam al-Qurtubi (رح) says: معرفتہ ھذا الباب أکیدہ و فایدتہ عظیمۃ لا تستغی عن معرفتہ العلماء ولا ینکرہ الا الجھلہ الاغبیاء "It is essential to understand the question of abrogation, and great benefits flow from such an understanding, which no scholar can dispense with, and no one can deny abrogation except the ignorant and the dull-headed." In this connection, al-Qurtubi has related a very illuminating incident. The fourth Khalifah Sayyidna ` Ali ؓ ، saw a man preaching in the mosque. He asked the people what the man was doing. On being told that he was preaching, the blessed Khalifah said: "He is not doing anything of the sort, but only announcing to the people that he is such and such a man and the son of such and such, and asking them to recognize and remember him." Calling the man to his side, he asked: "Do you know the injunctions which have been abrogated and those which have abrogated the earlier ones?" When he confessed that he did not, the Khalifah turned him out of the mosque, and ordered him never to preach there. It is not feasible to cite here all the sayings of the blessed Companions and their immediate Successors (Tabi` in تابعین) which affirm the actual occurrence of abrogation in the case of injunctions laid down by the Holy Qur'an and the Hadith. Some of these have been quoted, along with the evidence for the authenticity of the reports, in the commentaries of Ibn Jarir and Ibn Kathir etc. and in "Al-Durr al-Manthur". As for the reports less strongly authenticated, they are just innumerable. That is why there has always been a total consensus of the ` Ulama' on the question of Naskh, except for Abu Muslim al-Isfahani and a few others from among the Mu'tazilah who have denied the actual occurrence of abrogation -- but Imam Razi has, in his commentary, exposed in detail the hollowness of their opinion. The terminology of the Naskh It is also essential to keep in mind a certain distinction in the use of the word Naskh as a technical term of the Shari'ah. The technical sense of the word implies changing an injunction, and replacing one injunction by another. Now, this change may consist in repealing an injunction altogether and replacing it by another (for example, fixing the Ka'bah as the Qiblah قبلہ۔- the direction towards which Muslims turn in their prayers -- instead of the Baytul-Maqdis بیت المقدس ); the change may equally consist in retaining an injunction but adding certain condition and provisions to it. The ` Ulama' of the early period of Islam have used the word Naskh in this general and comprehensive sense which includes the total repeal of an injunction as well as a partial change in an injunction with the addition of certain conditions, provisions or exceptions. That is why the ` Ulama' of the earlier period have indicated some five hundred verses of the Holy Qur'an which, according to them, have been abrogated. But, according to the ` Ulama' of a later period, only that change is to be called a Naskh which cannot in any way be brought into consonance with an earlier injunction. Obviously, this approach greatly reduces the number of abrogated verses. For example, there are, according to al-Suyuti السیوتی ، only twenty such verses. Later on, Shah Waliyyullah ولیُ اللہ ، seeking to bring the abrogated injunctions in consonance with the earlier injunctions, reduced the number of abrogated verses to only five -- these being the cases where later injunctions could not be made to correspond with the earlier ones without far-fetched interpretations. This effort is highly commendable, because the basic postulate behind an injunction is its permanence, while abrogation goes against this postulate, and hence it is not proper to posit abrogation in a verse laying down an injunction which can, in some justifiable manner, be shown to be still valid. But this effort to reduce the number of abrogated verses does not, and cannot in the least imply28 that the presence of abrogation is in any way -- may Allah forgive us for reproducing a blasphemy -- a shortcoming or defect in the Holy Qur'an or Islam, that the ` Ulama' have for the last fourteen hundred years been trying to remove it, that the ultimate inspiration came to Shah Waliyyullah whose extraordinary achievement lies in having reduced the number of abrogated verses to five, and that now one may wait for a few geniuses who would bring the number down to zero. 28-As the 'modernists' have been all too impatient to believe. To adopt such an approach towards the question of "Naskh" is no service to Islam or to the Holy Qur'an, 29 nor can it obliterate the profound investigations into truth of the matter made by the blessed Companions, their Successors, and the ` Ulama' of the generations that followed them during the last fourteen hundred years, nor can it stop the recriminations of the enemies of Islam. In fact, all it would do is to furnish a weapon to the present-day traducers of Islam and those who wish to rebel against Islam, who would now be saying that what the ` Ulama' of the Islamic Ummah have been maintaining on the subject for the last fourteen hundred years has finally proved to be wrong. May Allah forbid such a thing! If this door is opened, it would let in all kinds of disorders, and all the injunctions of the Shari'ah would come under suspicion. Then, is there any guarantee that the results of this "modernistic" research would not turn out to be wrong tomorrow! 29-To which pretends the whole tribe of self-styled scholars, researchers, "experts in Islamic studies" and "revivificateurs of Islam." We have come across certain recent writings in which an attempt has been made to revive the argument of Abu Muslim al-Isfahani. Such writers begin with the assumption that the Arabic word Ma in verse 106 is not a relative or adverbial pronoun signifying "whenever", or "whichever" but a conjunction implying "ifـ” that introduces a conditional clause; so, they translate the first phrase of the verse not as "whichever verse We abrogate", but as "if We abrogate a verse", and say that the statement pertains to a supposition or to an imaginary situation as do the phrases beginning with the Arabic word Law (لَو : if) -- for example: لَوْ كَانَ فِيهِمَا آلِهَة : "If there were in the sky and the earth another god beside Allah" (21:22) or إِن كَانَ لِلرَّ‌حْمَـٰنِ وَلَدٌ "If the All-Merciful had a son" (43:81). On this basis, they argue that abrogation is possible, but has never actually occurred. Such writers, we are afraid, do not show an intimate knowledge of Arabic grammar, for there is a great deal of difference between a condition suggested by the word Ma ما and the imaginary situation introduced by the conjunction Law. Moreover, it is on the basis of this verse itself that the blessed Companions have affirmed the occurrence of abrogation, and have even cited many instances. So have their Successors and all authentic Commentators. In view of such unanimity, the new-fangled interpretation cannot be acceptable. Even Shah Waliyyullah, in reducing the number of abrogated verses, has never thought of denying the fact of abrogation. In short, all the authentic and authoritative ` Ulama', from the days of the blessed Companions down . to our own day, have always affirmed not only the possibility, but also the actual occurrence of abrogation. This has been the position of all the ` Ulama' of Deoband دیوبند too, without any exception. The injunctions with regard to abrogation are too many and too intricate to be discussed here -- they properly belong to the books on the Principles of Jurisprudence.

Hostility to the Holy Prophet ﷺ had become so habitual to the Jews that they were always making insolent demands. Once they asked him to bring before them whole of the Qur'an all at once just as the Torah had been revealed. In reprimanding them for making such improper demands on the prophets of their time, the verse reminds them how their forefathers too had done the same - for example, they had asked Sayyidna Musa (Moses علیہ السلام) to help them to see Allah openly with their physical eyes. In such cases, the intention of the Jews had never been to seek guidance or to satisfy their doubts or to strengthen their faith, but only to cast aspersions on a prophet, or to question the wisdom of Allah. The verse indicts this behavior as Kufr (infidelity). Such demands are improper, because there is a raison d'etre for everything Allah does, but divine wisdom alone knows what that is, and the creature has no right to determine the precise mode of his Creator's acts -- he should not even ask the why and wherefore of a divine action, but accept it and submit himself to the Divine Will. If one takes this verse as having been addressed to the Muslims, it would mean that they are being warned against making improper demands on the Holy Prophet ﷺ .

Some of the Jews, pretending to be the well-wishers of the Muslims, were always inventing new stratagems to make them turn away from Islam, and, in spite of repeated failure in this effort, did not refrain from it. The verse warns the Muslims against their intentions, which are motivated, not by sincerity and friendship, but by envy --which in its turn arises not from anything the Muslims do, but spontaneously from within themselves even after they have come to understand clearly what the truth is. The verse also asks the Muslims not to give way to their justifiable anger at such misconduct, but to forgive the Jews, and wait till Allah sends a new commandment with regard to such matters. Thus, the verse gives an indication that Allah is soon going to lay down a law for the preservation of peace and order on the earth which would guide the Muslims in dealing with mischief-makers -- the law, of course, being the permission to go to war against the enemies of Islam. The Muslims were actually conscious of their own weakness and the strength of their foe, and could have wondered how they would be able to act upon the new law. So, the verse reminds them that Allah's power extends over everything, small or big, ordinary or extraordinary. The next verse asks the Muslims to continue offering their prayers and paying Zakah and when the new law comes down, they can add the participation in a Jihad to these good deeds which they have already been performing. Nor should the Muslims suppose that until they can take part in a Jihad, mere prayers and fasting will not bring them the spiritual merit they desire; in fact, they shall receive a full reward in the other world for each and every good deed they perform, for Allah knows what people do, and not a particle of one's good deeds shall be lost. This command to show forbearance towards the Jews was proper to the situations of the Muslims at that time. Later on, Allah fulfilled the promise made in verse 109, and sent down the injunction with regard to Jihad. Then, this new law was applied to the Jews as well as to other miscreants - in order to prevent disorder and to make peace and order prevail on the earth, Muslims went to war against them, and the mischief-makers were either killed, or forced into exile, or made to pay Jizyah.30 30. Which is a special levy on non-Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic state and which absolves them from military service.

The Jews and the Christians were hostile not only to the Muslims, but also to each other. They had forgotten the essence of religion --that is, adherence to the true and authentic doctrines, and performance of good deeds as laid down by the Shari'ah -- and had identified it with a mere affiliation to a racial or social community. Each of the two groups claimed that it had the exclusive right to go to the Paradise, without having any argument to substantiate the claim. The Jews read the Torah, while the Christians read the Evangel, and they could have easily seen that the two Books confirm each other. Each party used to assert, in its malice, that the religion of the other was baseless. This gave an excuse to the mushrikin (associators) who, in spite of their ignorance, began to say the same of both the religions. The Holy Qur'an dismisses these pretensions as mere fancy and self-delusion. It declares that other people too will go to Paradise who have, in their time, been following the Shari'ah of their own prophet, and who, now that the Holy Qur'an also has abrogated all the earlier Divine Books, follow the Islamic Shari'ah. Verse 112 lays down the general principle in this respect, which is accepted by the followers of all the Divine Books. The essence of religion, whether it be Islam or Christianity or Judaism, lies in two things. (1) One should obey Allah in one's belief as well as in one's actions. (2) This obedience should not arise from expediency, but one should surrender oneself to divine commandments in all sincerity. Moreover, it is not enough to be worthy of Paradise merely to have a sincere intention to obey Allah, and then to invent, according to one's own fancy, the modes and forms of obedience, for it is absolutely essential that the forms of worship and the modes of obedience should be no other than those which Allah Himself has appointed through the agency of His prophets -- it goes without saying that since the revelation of the Holy Qur'an this can only mean accepting and following the Islamic Shari'ah. We may add that in connection with the first of these two principles, the Holy Qur'an employs the Arabic word اَسلمَ : Aslama which signifies total submission to Allah, and in connection with the second word Muhsin محسن ، which signifies "one who performs good deeds" according to the Shari'ah. The differences between the Jews and the Christians In so far as these verses deal with the claims of the Jews and the Christians, the point of the argument is this:- Having laid down the two principles the acceptance of which makes one worthy of Paradise, the Holy Qur'an suggests that they should now try to find out who is really acting upon them. Obviously, one who keeps following an injunction even after it has been abrogated cannot be described as obedient, and hence the Jews and the Christians no longer deserve this title. After the abrogation of an injunction, obedience consists in acting upon the new injunction which has replaced the earlier one. This condition is now being fulfilled only by the Muslims who have accepted the latest and the last Prophet ؓ and his Shari'ah. Hence, they alone shall now be considered worthy of Paradise. The condition of one's being sincere in one's obedience excludes the hypocrites too, for the Sha-ri` ah counts them among the infidels, and thus assigns them to Hell. Verse 112 also announces the reward of those who act upon these principles -- on the Day of Judgment, they shall have nothing to fear, nor shall they grieve, as angels will give them good tidings. As for the debates among the Jews, the Christians and the associators, Verse 113 declares that Allah will Himself decide the question finally on the Day of Judgment. In fact, the question has already been settled on the basis of what Allah has revealed in His Books as well as on the basis of rational argument; the final decision on the Day of Judgment will be of the visible kind -- those who follow the Truth will be sent to Paradise, while those who go after falsehood will be cast down in Hell. These verses provide a warning to the Muslims as well, lest they too should delude themselves like the Jews and the Christians, and suppose that merely because they belong to the social community of Muslims and can, as such, claim to be Muslims, whereby they can dispense with the need to obey Allah and to follow the Shari` ah, and yet receive the rewards Allah has promised to give to true Muslims. Even Muslims have no right to hope for these rewards until and unless they submit themselves totally, in thought and deed both, to the commandments of Allah and His Prophet ﷺ .

Injunctions and related considerations Verse 114 lays down, or helps us to infer, some very important injunctions: All the mosques in the world are equally worthy of respect. Just as it is a great sin to desecrate in any way the Baytul-Maqdis, or the mosque attached to the Ka'bah (Al-Masjid al- Haram) or the mosque of the Holy Prophet ﷺ ، the same prohibition holds good with regard to all other mosques. These three mosques, no doubt, enjoy a superior position, and special respect is to be paid to them. The reward for offering prayers once in Al-Masjid al-Haram is equal to that of praying a hundred thousand times elsewhere; the reward for praying in the mosque of the Holy Prophet g and in the Baytul-Maqdis equals that of praying fifty thousand times. To make a long journey for the purpose of praying in any one of these three mosques is a meritorious act which makes one worthy of receiving a special barakah بَرَکہ . On the other hand, the Holy Prophet $ has forbidden it that one should make a long journey in order to offer one's prayers in a mosque other than these three, believing it to be a meritorious act. The sanctity of the Mosque (2) It is forbidden to prevent people, in any form or manner possible, from offering their prayers or "remembering" Allah in a mosque. An obvious form of such interference is not to allow someone to enter a mosque or to offer his prayers or to read the Holy Qur'an there. A less explicit form is to produce some kind of a noise in the mosque itself or play music nearby, and thus to disturb people in their prayers or in their "remembrance" (; ) of Allah. Similarly, if one starts reciting the Holy Qur'an or "remembering" Allah loudly so as to disturb the people who are offering supererogatory prayers (Nawafil نوافل) or themselves reading the Holy Qur'an or silently "remembering" Allah (Dhikr ذکر ), one is being guilty of the same sin. Therefore, the Fuqaha' (masters of Islamic jurisprudence) have forbidden this practice. But, if people are not present in the mosque, one may recite the Holy Qur'an or make "dhikr ذکر " in a loud voice. On the basis of this principle we can also see that it is forbidden to beg or to collect donations even for a religious purpose while people are engaged in their prayers or in "dhikr ذکر ." (3) All the possible forms of laying waste a mosque are forbidden. This includes not only demolishing and destroying a mosque, but also producing conditions which result in a mosque being laid waste or deserted. For, laying waste a mosque implies that few, or only a few people should come there for offering their prayers. A mosque can be said to be flourishing, not on the score of the beauty of its architecture or of its ornamentation, but only when it is full of men who come to pray and to "remember" Allah. Says the Holy Qur'an: إِنَّمَا يَعْمُرُ‌ مَسَاجِدَ اللَّـهِ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّـهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ‌ وَأَقَامَ الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَى الزَّكَاةَ وَلَمْ يَخْشَ إِلَّا اللَّـهَ ۖ فَعَسَىٰ أُولَـٰئِكَ أَن يَكُونُوا مِنَ الْمُهْتَدِينَ ﴿18﴾ Only those do populate the mosques of Allah who believe in Allah and in the Day of Judgment, who are steadfast in Salah and pay the Zakah, and do not fear anyone but Allah" (9:18). So, the Holy Prophet g has foretold that when the Day of Judgment comes close, the mosques of the Muslims would be beautifully designed and decorated and be apparently full of people, but they would in reality be deserted, for a few people would go there for the purpose of offering their prayers. We are also reminded of what the fourth Khalifah and the blessed Companion ` Ali ؓ has said. There are, according to him, six deeds which behove a man --three of them pertain to the state when one is living at home and the other three to the state when one is on a journey. The first three are --to read the Holy Qur'an, to populate the mosques, and to bring together a number of friends who wish to serve Allah and His faith. The other three are -- to spend out of what one has over one's needy companions of the way, to be polite to everyone, and to be cheerful with one's co-travellers so long as one does not go beyond the limits allowed by the Shari'ah. What he means by "populating" the mosques is that one should enter them in a spirit of humility and with the fear of Allah in one's heart, and then engage oneself in prayers or in reciting the Holy Qur'an or in making "dhikr. ذکر ' In opposition to this, the laying waste of mosques would mean that few, or only a few people should offer their prayers in them, or that a set of circumstances is allowed to develop which makes it difficult for those who are present to acquire the proper attitude of humility. If Verse 114 was revealed on the occasion of the Peace of Hudaybiyyah حُدیبیہ when the mushrikin (associators) of Makkah had prevented the Muslims from entering Al-Masjid al-Haram, then it is quite obvious that laying waste a mosque does not merely mean demolishing it, but also that it is not being allowed to be used for the purpose for which it was built -- that is, for Salah and for the Dhikr (remembrance) of Allah. As for Verse 115, we have already pointed out that Allah not being limited to any particular direction or place, the Muslims do not, in turning towards the Ka'bah کعبہ ، at all mean to worship it, but that this particular orientation has been fixed on account of certain other considerations. We have also noted that for sixteen or seventeen months after the Hijrah ھجرہ ، the Holy Prophet ﷺ and the blessed Companions were made to turn towards the Baytul-Maqdis in their prayers under divine commandment. This was, so to say, a practical demonstration of the truth that one can find Allah in every direction, and that Allah's attention encompasses all possible directions and dimensions simultaneously. A further and permanent demonstration of the same truth is provided by the injunction with regard to supererogatory prayers (Nawafil). That is to say, if one wishes to offer such prayers while travelling on a horse or a camel etc., it is not necessary for him even to turn towards the Qiblah, for he is allowed to keep his face towards the direction in which his horse is moving, and to offer his supererogatory prayers through the gestures of his head and arms. In fact, according to certain commentators, Verse 115 lays down just this rule with regard to supererogatory prayers. But one must bear in mind that this injunction applies only to that form of travel which involves animals like a horse or a camel that makes it difficult for one to turn towards the Qiblah. But in other forms of travel (e.g., in a train or a ship or an aeroplane) where it is not difficult to turn towards the Qiblah, one has to adopt the proper orientation even in offering supererogatory prayers. However, should the train or the aeroplane change its direction while one is still praying and there is no room for readjusting one's orientation accordingly, one can go on and finish the prayers in the same state. Similarly, if one does not know the direction of the Qiblah, nor can correctly determine it on account of the darkness of the night or for some other valid reason, nor can find someone to provide correct information, the same rule would apply in this case too. In such a situation, one is allowed to follow one's conjecture, and to turn in the direction which seems to be the most likely. The direction one chooses would serve as the Qiblah. If, having finished one's prayers, one discovers that the choice of this particular direction was wrong, even then one's prayers would remain acceptable, and one would not have to repeat them.

In order to understand these two verses, one should keep in mind three different incidents connected with the three groups hostile to Islam, all of which were, in one way or another, guilty of preventing people from worshipping Allah in mosques and of laying them waste. (1) When Allah changed the Qiblah قبلہ that is to say, commanded the Muslims to turn towards the Ka'bah کعبہ in their Salah, and not towards the Baytul-Maqdis بیت المقدس --, the Jews raised all kinds of objections to it, and tried to produce in the minds of the Muslims doubts and misgiving which, had they taken root, would have led to the denial of the Holy Prophet g and to the giving up of prescribed Salah, thus laying waste the mosque of the Holy Prophet ﷺ . (2) The Romans had once invaded Jerusalem, and the ignorant among them had polluted the Baytul-Maqdis, which naturally prevented people from performing Salah in this mosque. The Christians in a way looked upon the Romans as their ancestors; moreover, the humiliation of the Jews was in itself pleasing to them. Thus, in refusing to condemn this misdeed of the Romans, the Christians too were being indirectly responsible for laying waste the mosque. (3) At the time of the peace of Hudaybiyyah حدیبیہ ، the mushrikin (associators) did not allow the Holy Prophet ﷺ to enter Makkah and to perform the Hajj. So, this group too was guilty of the same sin. According to the blessed Companion ` Abdullah ibn ` Abbas ؓ ، Verse 114 refers to the second of these three incidents -- the commentator Ibn Jarir too accepts this view. But the commentator Ibn Kathir (رح) follows Ibn Zayd ؓ in preferring the third as being the occasion on which this verse was revealed. The Holy Qur'an, however, speaks in general terms of the mosques of Allah" so as to lay down a regular and permanent law, for all the peoples, covering all the possible cases of desecrating mosques and of hindering the "remembrance" (ذکر) of Allah in any way and thus laying them waste -- it denounces those who are capable of such a misdeed as being "unjust" or "cruel", and threatens them with humiliation in this world and dire punishment in the other, for the dignity of a mosque requires that one should enter it in a spirit of lowliness and respect, and with the fear of Allah in one's heart. The prediction of the Holy Qur'an came true. The groups which had been trying to lay waste the mosques were soon humiliated, and came under the Muslim rule. They are, of course, to meet a dire punishment in the other world for being disbelievers, but the punishment will be all the more severe on account of this additional sin. The earlier verses have told us how each of these groups claimed to be on the right path. The present verse, in referring to their desecration of mosques, refutes this claim as being a shameless pretension on the part of those whose behaviour itself gives them the lie. As for Verse 115, let us recall that the idolaters compelled the Holy Prophet ﷺ to migrate from Makkah to Madinah, and thus separated him from the Ka'bah کعبہ (the incident is, of course, known as the Hijrah ھجرہ ). For some sixteen or seventeen months after that, the Muslims had to, under the commandment of Allah, turn towards the Baytul-Maqdis بیت المقدس (at Jerusalem) while offering Salah. But the Holy Prophet ﷺ felt a deep longing for turning towards the Ka'bah, and from time to time he would look upwards, waiting for the Archangel Jibra'il (علیہ السلام) to come with a new commandment in this respect. Finally, such a commandment did come, and Allah changed the orientation (Qiblah). Speaking of this modification, the Holy Qur'an says: قَدْ نَرَ‌ىٰ تَقَلُّبَ وَجْهِكَ فِي السَّمَاءِ ۖ فَلَنُوَلِّيَنَّكَ قِبْلَةً تَرْ‌ضَاهَا ۚ فَوَلِّ وَجْهَكَ شَطْرَ‌ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَ‌امِ ۚ وَحَيْثُ مَا كُنتُمْ فَوَلُّوا وُجُوهَكُمْ شَطْرَ‌هُ ۗ We do see how you raise your face again and again towards the sky. So, We are going to give you the orientation which you desire. Therefore, turn your face towards the Holy Mosque at Makkah, and all of you too, wheresoever you may be, turn towards it." (2:144) This new commandment naturally made the Muslims very happy, but the Jews, in their habitual malice, made it an occasion for taunting them and accusing them of going against the way of the earlier prophets. Thus, there are two facets to Verse 115. On the one hand, it is an answer to the objection raised by the Jews; on the other hand, it brings comfort to the Holy Prophet and to the blessed Companions. The verse points out that had Allah been limited to any one direction, a fixed and permanent orientation would have been necessary for worshipping Him, but that, being infinite and beyond all possible limitations and qualifications, He is the Lord of the East and the West and of all conceivable directions -- He is everywhere, and surrounds everything. Wheresoever a man turns, he shall find Allah "facing" him -- that is to say, ready to accept his prayers and to shower His bounties on him. Consequently, neither does the Baitui-Maqdis بیت المقدس nor the Ka'bah enjoy an inherent or inalienable superiority; either of them can acquire a position of privilege only through divine ordination. All that matters is to obey the commandment of Allah, which alone can make one worthy of receiving His grace. In order to win His pleasure, one has to orient oneself according to what He Himself has determined. If, in spite of being infinite and free from all limitations, Allah has yet fixed a particular orientation, it is because He is Omniscient, and knows what is the best in a certain situation and for a certain people. Although it is not possible for man to comprehend fully the wisdom which is inherently present in each and every divine commandment, yet the fixing of a definite orientation for Salah has a very obvious raison d'etre. Whichever way one turns, one would, no doubt, find Allah "facing" him; but if one has to choose a direction every time one starts to pray, it would only mean a dispersion of one's attention. And when several men are offering their prayers jointly it would really be odd if each one of them adopts a different orientation. So, a fixed orientation for all helps the individual and the groups both in acquiring the necessary concentration of mind and the sense of a joint purpose. This explanation satisfactorily dispels the objection often raised by certain antagonists who accuse the Muslims of being the worshippers of the Ka'bah." If, by way of self-justification, they should still assert that they too keep the idols in front of them while meditating or worshipping for the same purpose of attaining a state of concentration, the claim does in no way reinforce their accusation against the Muslims. Moreover, an impartial investigation into the respective attitudes and frames of minds would easily show how genuine the Muslims are in their claim to be worshipping no one but Allah, and how dubious the position of the others is in this respect. Even if we accept the claim that idols or icons are no more than a means to an end, one would, in employing idols as a "support", still he required to produce a relevant injunction from a Shari'ah which has not been abrogated as yet. Today, the Muslims alone possess such a Shari'ah. Before we proceed, we must sound a note of caution. Verse 115 says that whichever way one turns, one would find "the face of Allah", and that Allah being "All-Embracing" surrounds everything. Wisdom lies in not trying to investigate unnecessarily into the meanings of these or similar statements. For, just as it is not at all possible for a creature to comprehend fully the "Being" (Dhat ذات ) of Allah, it is equally impossible to comprehend the essential reality of the "Attributes" (Sifat صفات). All that man is required to do is to have a general faith in the Realities of the Divine Order - there is no obligation for him to look into the particularities of this sphere which is totally beyond human reach.