This long passage speaks of legislation and the authority to promulgate laws and regulations. What is surprising about this passage, together with the two preceding it and the comments interspersed within them, is that they are included in a sūrah revealed in Makkah, when the subject matter of all Qur’ānic revelation was faith.

Indeed, portions of the Qur’ān revealed in Makkah do not tackle any Islamic laws, except to establish the ideological basis of such legislation. This was due to the fact that there was no Islamic government to implement Islamic law. Hence, God did not wish that His law become a matter of theoretical discourse or academic study before the establishment of a society that submitted to God alone and which worshipped Him by obeying His law, or before the existence of a sovereign state to implement that law in everyday life. Thus, outlining the legal details was linked to people’s practical ability to implement them. This is just one aspect of the serious and yet practical nature of the Islamic faith.

The fact that this long passage of detailed legislation occurs in a Makkan sūrah is indicative of the nature of this question. It is indeed a question of faith, one which acquires added seriousness in the general outlook of this religion of Islam. It is indeed its principal issue. However, before we comment on this passage and its provisions in detail, we would like to provide a general overview of its contents and a foretaste of its import.

The passage begins with a brief reference to a host of concepts that prevailed in jāhiliyyah days, and the pagan practices of the Arabs concerning their agricultural produce, livestock and children. In other words, these practices related to their economic and social set-up. The following are given by way of example:

1. They divided the provisions of sustenance God gave them, their crops and cattle into two portions, assigning one to God and claiming that they did this in accordance with God’s law. They assigned the other portion to the deities they invented and who they considered as partners with God, having power over their lives, wealth and children: “Out of the produce and the cattle He has created, they assign a portion to God, saying: ‘This is for God’— or so they pretend— and this is for the partners we associate [with Hind.’” (Verse 136)

2. Having done so, they deal unfairly with the portion they assigned to God.

They add a part of it to the portion assigned to their other deities or partners and never do the same with the other portion: “Whatever they assign to their partners never reaches God, but that which is assigned to God does reach their partners.” (Verse 136)

3. They willingly kill their children, having been induced to do so by their partners. The partners in this case are their priests and lawmakers who initiate traditions which acquire a force of their own, relying on social pressure and ancient legends with their religious overtones. Such killing of children claimed the lives of their daughters in the first place for fear of poverty and shame.

Out of the produce and the cattle He has created, they assign a portion to God, saying:

“This is for God”— or so they pretend — “and this is for the partners we associate [with Him]”. Whatever they assign to their partners never reaches God, but that which is assigned to God does reach their partners. How ill they judge!” (Verse 136)

In discussing the concepts and traditions of ignorant Arabian society in relation to agricultural produce and cattle, the sūrah states clearly that it is God who creates crops and cattle. No one other than God provides sustenance for people, whether originating in the earth or emanating from the sky. The sūrah then follows this with a reference to their practices in respect of what God has provided for them. They divided it into parts, assigning a portion to God and another portion for the idols and deities they associated with Him. Needless to say, that portion ended up in the homes of the guards or the custodians attending those deities. Yet they deal unfairly with the portion they assign to God, as the Qur’ānic verse explains.

Ibn `Abbās, the Prophet’s cousin and Companion, reports: “When those people have taken stock of the food they have, they make it in lots, assigning a portion of it to God and another portion to their deities. If the wind blows from the side of the portion they have assigned to their deities so as to carry some of it and place it on top of what they have assigned to God, they take it back and put it where it was.

However, if the wind blows in the other direction, they take no action, leaving what has been carried by the wind from God’s portion to the portion of their deities where it landed. That is why God says about their action: `How ill they judge!” (Verse 136)

Mujāhid reports: “They used to set aside a portion of their crops for God, and another portion for the partners they associated with Him. If the wind took something from the first portion to land it on the portion of their partners, they left it there. On the other hand, if something of the portion of their partners was transferred by wind to God’s portion, they took it back. They justified their action by saying that God was in no need of this.” Qatādah reports: Some ignorant people in the days of jāhiliyyah used to assign a portion of their crops and cattle to God, and a portion to the partners they associated with Him. If a part of what they kept to God was transferred accidentally to the portion they gave to their partners, they left it there. It the reverse happened, they would take back what came by accident to God’s portion. If they suffered a drought or shortage of crops, they would not touch what they assigned to their partners, but they would use up what they assigned to God. Hence God says: `How ill they judge!” (Verse 136)

Al-Suddī reports: They used to give a portion of their property to God and assign to Him a certain area of their agricultural land and a similar one to their deities.

Whatever crops were yielded in the portion of their deities was spent on those deities, and what was yielded in the portion left to God was given to charity. Should the portion given to their deities be used up or give a small yield, while the one going to God gave abundant yield, they would say: our deities need to be properly served and that requires funds. Therefore, they would take what they had assigned to God and spend it on their deities. On the other hand, if the land assigned to God delivered a poor yield, while the one given to their deities gave in abundance, they would say: had God so willed, He would have made His land yield more. They would not transfer to Him anything of what had been yielded to their deities. God says that had they been honest in their division, they would not have judged ill. How is it that they take from Me but they do not give to Me? That is the meaning of the concluding comment in this verse: “How ill they judge!” (Verse 136) 43

Such blurred, confused concepts and the social traditions they establish to weigh heavily on the masses are not limited to the types known in bygone ignorant or jāhiliyyah societies. We find clearer versions of them in modern societies, in the form of customs and traditions which people feel to be inescapable, even though they are very hard to observe. Take, for example, the case of fashion and other observances which impose themselves on people, costing them at times what they cannot afford, taking a high position on their list of concerns and ultimately corrupting their moral values and whole lives. Nevertheless, people feel that they must comply with all these dictates: a particular fashion for morning, another for afternoon, and a different one for evening. One fashion imposes short dress, another dictates tight clothes, and a third makes people wear that which is ridiculous. In addition, there is an endless variety of cosmetics, and hair styles, etc. Who imposes all this humiliating subjugation and who lends it support and backing? When we look for the facts we find that it is backed by the major fashion houses, manufacturers and dressmakers, as well as the usurious banks and finance companies who lend money to the industry in order that they themselves win a large share of the profits. It is also supported by the Zionists who work hard to weaken all mankind so that they become the masters of the world. They do not give their support in the shape of heavy armour and military prowess. They support it by the concepts and values they initiate and then formulate in the shape of theories and cultural beliefs. Then they help to translate these into a code of social behaviour. They realize that theories are of little effect unless they are seen in practice in the shape of systems of government, a social structure and an unambiguous social code that people accept without question because its roots and branches are irretrievably interlinked.

It is all perpetrated by evil human beings and the jinn. The result is different forms and shapes of jāhiliyyah, but they all have the same roots and origins.

We certainly do not give the Qur’ān its due position if we read and understand it as a reference only to ancient forms of jāhiliyyah. It, indeed, refers to its countless forms in all periods of human life. It confronts every deviant situation, trying to put it back on the straight path defined by God.

Wicked as their schemes against the divine message are, and heavy as the pressures on it are, the Qur’ān makes little of the might of jāhiliyyah. It exposes its reality, something which could easily be overlooked because of its apparent strength.

The fact remains that these evil ones and their patrons and supporters are within God’s grasp and subject to His authority. They have no power of their own to enable them to do what they want. They can only do it because God has enabled them to play their game for a while in order to accomplish His purpose in putting His servants to a test. Had God willed otherwise, they would not have been able to do or achieve anything. Hence, the Prophet and the believers should pay little attention to those evil ones and should pursue their own objectives. As for the evil ones, the believers should leave them to God to punish them for their invented falsehood:

Once again we find here a repeated example of the people of ignorance and their thoughts, some arrogantly boasting that life is matter, with others, unable to deny God altogether, claiming that faith is merely a matter of beliefs and has nothing to do with social, economic or political systems.

We should always be aware, however, that ignorant societies like these which establish a system giving sovereignty and the authority to legislate to human beings, rather than to God, claim at the same time that they respect religion and derive their system from it. Theirs is a very sly and wicked approach. International Zionist and Christian forces hostile to Islam have adopted this method in areas that used to be the home of the Islamic faith where God’s law was implemented. These forces have now realized that their experience in Turkey, carried out by the false hero they created, has ended in failure. Nonetheless, their efforts played an important part in destroying the Islamic Caliphate, the last symbol of Islamic unity. But the experience, adopting an open secular stand as it did, failed to provide a model system to be emulated by other countries in the region. By wrenching itself totally from religion, it gave itself an alien colour which was too hard for people still entertaining some religious sentiments to accept. Hence, in their subsequent attempts to achieve the same goal, international Zionist and Christian forces hostile to Islam tried not to repeat the mistake they made with Kemal Ataturk. They began to dress their new experiments around a religious mask. They allowed their new heroes to establish institutions with a superficially religious character. They stressed that in two ways:

by direct, straightforward propaganda or by allowing these institutions to denounce some unimportant details so as to give the impression that the system’s major aspects were religiously sound.

These Christian and Zionist institutions which we see mobilizing their forces, harnessing their alliance and benefiting from their past experience, continue to try to repair the damage which followed the Turkish experience. They claim that Ataturk’s initiative was essentially an Islamic revivalist movement, that it was not secular in nature and, therefore, could not be said to have nothing to do with religion.

Orientalists, who provide intellectual support to Christian and Zionist imperialism, continue to exert strenuous efforts in order to show that Kemal Ataturk’s experience was not an atheist one. But once we expose the Kemalist experience as essentially atheistic we curtail its role, confining it to its destruction of the last vestige of Islamic unity. This is certainly important, but Ataturk’s efforts failed to produce anything further unlike other experiments in the region which aimed at channelling religious concepts and enthusiasm into endorsing un-Islamic systems and situations. These later experiments sought to change the very essence of Islam while at the same time claiming to be Islamic. They wanted to corrupt sound, well-established values in the name of Islam. Indeed, they wanted to impart an Islamic colour to jāhiliyyah itself, so that it could fulfil its task wherever ill-defined religious sentiments provided the necessary driving force. In this way, they offer a false leadership which seeks to drive the Muslim world astray and eventually deliver it to Zionist and Christian forces. Thus they hope to achieve the same goal which past Crusading and Zionist efforts, launched over a period of 1300 years, failed to achieve.

The sūrah then puts them face to face with the eternal truth that they strayed away from. It has already referred to it when speaking of how the Arabs assigned a portion of their agricultural produce and cattle to God and another portion to the false deities which they associated with Him. Now the sūrah states clearly to them that although they dispense of such produce and cattle in ways suggested by evil beings, human and jinn, these have had no say whatsoever in their creation. It is God who created them all so that people could benefit from them and praise God for what He has created and worship Him alone. It must be stated here that God does not need their praise or worship, for He has no need of anything or anyone. He is compassionate and He knows that through praising and worshipping Him alone, people achieve what sets their world on the right course as they adopt the right faith. How is it then that they allow those who have created nothing to rule over the produce and cattle God has created? How is it that they give a portion of these to God and another portion to other beings, and even cheat with the portion they assign to God?

The Creator who gives sustenance is the Lord who owns all. Hence, it is not permissible for anyone to have any authority over the use of what He has created except by His permission stipulated in the law He has laid down. This law is fully explained in the message conveyed by His Messenger, not in what is claimed by those deities trying to usurp God’s authority: “It is He who has brought into being gardens — both of the cultivated type and those growing wild — and the date palm, and fields bearing different produce, and the olive tree, and the pomegranates, all resembling one another and yet so different. Eat of their fruit when they come to fruition, and give (to the poor) what is due to them on harvest day. But do not waste, for He does not love the wasteful.

And of the cattle some are reared for work and others for food. Eat of that which God has provided for you as sustenance and do not follow Satan’s footsteps; he is your open foe.” (Verses 141-2)

All praise is due to God who has created all those gardens, bringing life out of what is dead. Some of these gardens are of the cultivated type which human beings tend and support with trellis, posts and weed killing, and some are of the wild type that requires little or no attention or help from man. God has also made the palm tree and other types of cultivation, giving them different colours, tastes and shapes. It is God who has created the olives and the pomegranates with a wide range of varieties and yet all so similar. Furthermore, God has created the cattle and made some of them stand on high legs so that they can carry large loads and made others of shorter height and supplied them with wool or hair which can be used for making clothes.

It is God who has originated life on earth and given it such wide variety so as to satisfy the needs of human beings in their life on earth. In spite of these clear facts of creation, people still refer to beings other than God for rulings over the distribution of crops, cattle and wealth. We often find references in the Qur’ān to the fact that it is God alone who provides the means of sustenance for people. This fact is often given as an argument in support of the principle that people should refer to God alone to determine how they conduct their affairs. The Creator who alone provides sustenance is, without question, the One who alone combines the overall Lordship of human life with total sovereignty, including the full authority to rule and legislate.

The Arabs’ absurdity exposed, they are now made to realize that the false concepts they held before Islam have no foundation whatsoever. They are given an example to reflect upon in that God has brought into existence all their crops and cattle, yet they felt they had the right to determine how these were allocated, either by following their own whims or acting on the inspiration of evil ones. They did so knowing that those who were evil did not create the crops and cattle, but that these were of God’s creation. Hence, it is He who determines what use is to be made of His creation given to His servants as sustenance or property.

In these verses God spells out clearly to them what He has actually forbidden, making His prohibition clear through revelations, not through guesswork and imagination. It goes without saying that God has the authority to legislate, and that what He forbids is totally forbidden and what He makes lawful is absolutely lawful.

No human being can have any say in this, and He has no partners to make a similar decision or to add to or amend His prohibition. Within the same context, we have here an explanation of what God has forbidden the Jews in particular, although He has made it lawful to the Muslims. This prohibition was by way of punishment to the Jews for their wrongdoing and their deviation from God’s law.

Say: ‘In all that has been revealed to me, I do not find anything forbidden to eat, if one wishes to eat thereof unless it be carrion, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine — for all that is unclean — or a sinful offering over which any name other than God’s has been invoked. But if one is driven by necessity, neither intending disobedience nor exceeding his bare need, then know that your Lord is much forgiving, merciful. To those who followed the Jewish faith did We forbid all animals that have claws; and We forbade them the fat of both oxen and sheep, except that which is in their backs and entrails and what is mixed with their bones. Thus did We requite them for their wrongdoing. We are certainly true to Our word. If they accuse you of lying, then say:

“Limitless is your Lord in His grace; but His punishment shall not be warded off from evildoing folk.” (Verses 145-7)

Al-Ţabarī, a leading early commentator on the Qur’ān, says:

God, limitless is He in His glory, gives here clear instructions to His Prophet Muĥammad (peace be upon him). He is to say to those who had assigned a portion of God’s creation of crops and cattle to Him and another portion to the partners they associated with Him, who had made certain types of cattle and crops forbidden so that none may eat of them save those whom they permitted, who made some cattle forbidden to ride, or made what was in the wombs of their cattle forbidden to their women, lawful to their men, who made unlawful what God provided for them as sustenance, falsely attributing such prohibitions to God; he should ask them all: “Has a messenger sent by God come to you with such prohibitions? If so, then tell us about that. Or is it that you yourselves have been present, witnessing the issuing of God’s commandments of prohibition? Or could it be that you heard Him as He made the prohibition and you acted on that? If so, then you are liars inventing falsehood against God. Should you make any such claim, people will know that you are liars.

At this point in the passage, their last argument with which they tried to justify their erroneous beliefs and misguided practices comes under close scrutiny. They claim that they did not adopt those ill- founded beliefs by choice; rather, they were compelled to do so. Had God wished that they did not believe in these other gods and deities, He would have prevented them from doing so, since He is certainly able to accomplish whatever purpose He has in mind: “Those who associate partners with God will say: ‘Had God so willed, neither we nor our fathers would have associated any partners with Him; nor would we have declared anything as forbidden.’ In like manner did those who have lived before them deny the truth, until they came to taste Our punishment.

Say: Have you any certain knowledge which you can put before us? You follow nothing but conjecture, and you do nothing but guess. Say: With God alone rests the final evidence. Had He so willed, He would have guided you all aright.” (Verses 148-9)

The question of free-will, free choice or compulsion has been the subject of lengthy and intense argument in the history of Islamic thought. Different schools of thought and intellectual groups and sects were always ready to defend their points of view.

Greek philosophy and logic and Christian schools of divinity provided further ammunition in this fierce argument, complicating it still more and making it totally alien to the Islamic standpoint. Had those people on all sides of the argument adopted the simple, uncomplicated, serious and direct method of the Qur’ān, their arguments would not have taken this complicated course. Instead, they would have been spared much of their futile effort.

For our part, we examine the unbelievers’ argument and the Qur’ānic reply only to find that the whole question is clear, simple and precise: “Those who associate partners with God will say: ‘Had God so willed, neither we nor our fathers would have associated any partners with Him; nor would we have declared anything as forbidden’.” (Verse 148) In other words, they argue that their idolatrous beliefs, their unsanctioned prohibitions as well as their false assertions are all part of divine law, and they blame it all on God’s will and what He has determined for them. Had He willed otherwise, they would not have associated any partners with Him and would not have made anything unlawful.

What is the Qur’ānic reply to this claim? The Qur’ān declares that they lie the same way as those who had gone before them lied and denied the truth. Those earlier people who persisted with their denial of the truth were made to suffer God’s punishment and experience His might. The same fate awaits the new liars who follow in their footsteps: “In like manner did those who have lived before them deny the truth, until they came to taste Our punishment.” (Verse 148) This statement should shake and awaken people so that they reflect on the lessons that can be learned from the experience of earlier peoples.

The second point in the Qur’ānic reply aims at correcting the human method of reflection and deliberation. God has given people certain orders to fulfil and forbidden them certain things. They can have absolutely certain knowledge of all this. As for God’s will, it belongs to the realm that lies beyond the reach of human thought or human perception. They have no way of knowing it for certain. If this is the case and they cannot know the dictates of God’s will for certain, how is it, then, that they use this argument? “Say: ‘Have you any certain knowledge which you can put before us? You follow nothing but conjecture, and you do nothing but guess.’” (Verse 148)

Finally, God instructs His Messenger (peace be upon him) to confront the idolaters asking them to bring witnesses who can support them over the question of legislation, in the same way as He challenged them at the beginning of the sūrah to produce witnesses over the question of Godhead. Early in the sūrah, God says to His Messenger: “Say: ‘What is weightiest in testimony?’ Say: ‘God is witness between me and you. This Qur’ān has been revealed to me that I may thereby warn you and all whom it may reach. Will you in truth bear witness that there are other deities beside God?’ Say: ‘I bear no such witness’. Say: ‘He is but one God. I disown all that you associate with Him.’” (Verse 19) At this particular point, God gives him this instruction: “Say: Bring forward your witnesses who will testify that God has forbidden this. If they so testify, do not you testify with them; and do not follow the wishes of those who deny Our revelations, and those who do not believe in the life to come and who consider others as equal to their Lord.” (Verse 150)

This is a tremendous and decisive challenge, giving a clear idea of the nature of this religion of Islam which treats all forms of associating partners with God on the same level. Thus, the open and manifest form of claiming that certain beings are deities is equal to the implicit one represented by usurping the authority to legislate and enacting laws that are not sanctioned by God. Their claim that their legislation is God’s law is totally discounted. The Qur’ān also denounces as liars those who make such an attempt to usurp God’s sovereignty and His authority to legislate, who deny God’s revelations, who do not believe in the life to come, and who consider others as equal to Him. The expression used here is the same as that used in the opening verse of this sūrah to describe the unbelievers: “All praise is due to God, who has created the heavens and the earth, and brought into being darkness and light; yet those who disbelieve regard other beings as equal to their Lord.” (Verse 1)

This, then, is God’s verdict concerning those who usurp His sovereignty and exercise His authority to legislate. The verdict is made without any consideration of those people’s claims that their laws are part of God’s law. When God has given His verdict, no one can voice any different opinion.

If we want to understand why God makes such a verdict, and why He considers them as liars denying His revelations, and as unbelievers denying the life to come, the door is open to us to deliberate on this. Indeed, such deliberation is required of Muslims.

Perhaps it should be explained first that the Arabic term used in this verse to mean God’s `revelations’ is often used to refer to `the signs’ God has placed in the universe pointing to Him, or to refer to His `revelations’ vouchsafed to His Messenger. If we take the first meaning, and consider that God describes them as liars denying His signs in the universe, then the description is true, because all these signs give the same message and the same testimony that God alone is the Creator who has no partners and who gives sustenance to all His creation. Hence, He is the owner of the universe, which means that He alone has the power to conduct all the affairs of the universe as He wishes. Therefore, anyone who does not acknowledge that sovereignty belongs solely to God is an unbeliever in all these signs in the universe.

Having challenged the unbelievers to produce their witnesses and rejected their claims concerning what they considered as forbidden, the sūrah gives a detailed outline of what God has truly forbidden. Side by side with the list of prohibitions, we find some positive commandments that must be observed. Failure to act on these is also forbidden. The list begins with the most important prohibition of all, namely, associating partners with God. Indeed, the first article of faith which establishes the principle of God’s oneness provides the foundation for all prohibitions.

Say: Come, let me tell you what your Lord has forbidden to you: Do not associate partners with Him; [do not offend against but, rather,] be kind to your parents; do not kill your children because of your poverty — We provide for you and for them; do not commit any shameful deed, whether open or secret; do not take any human being’s life — which God has made sacred, except in the course of justice. This He has enjoined upon you so that you may use your reason. Do not touch the property of an orphan before he comes of age, except to improve it. Give just weight and full measure. We do not charge a soul with more than it can bear. When you speak, be just, even though it be against one of your close relatives. Be true to your covenant with God. This He has enjoined upon you so that you may bear it in mind. Know that this is the way leading to Me, a straight path. Follow it, then, and do not follow other ways, for they cause you to deviate from His way. All this He has enjoined upon you so that you may remain God-fearing. (Verses 151-3)

When we reflect on these commandments, we find that they provide an outline of our religion as a whole. They form the most essential element in the life of the human conscience as they establish the principle of God’s oneness. They are also most essential for the life of the human family and human community since they ensure mutual security within society and make cleanliness an important quality of all social transactions. They are indeed pivotal for human life, since they guarantee the rights of every individual, linking them to the need to fulfil the covenant that exists between God and His servants. This keeps these commandments on the right course outlined by the starting principle of believing in God’s oneness.

When we look at the comment made at the end of these commandments, we find that God, limitless is He in His glory, states that they constitute the right path leading to Him. All other routes and tracks are deviant, leading away from Him.

It is an especially important issue that these three verses tackle. They follow immediately after the discussion on what may appear to be only a side issue regarding the practices of jaīhiliyyah society. But this issue relates, in fact, to the most fundamental question of faith. Hence why it is linked to this most important list of commandments.

“Say: ‘Come, let me tell you what your Lord has forbidden to you.’” (Verse 151) The Prophet is here instructed to speak to people and tell them what their Lord has forbidden to them, not what they allege to have been forbidden. It is their Lord who has made the following items forbidden, because His alone is the position of Lordship which includes the aspects of fostering and directing, as well as issuing legislation. Hence, He is only exercising His authority, because He is the Lord. God alone is the one who enjoys all rights of Lordship.

“Do not commit any shameful deed, whether open or secret.” (Verse 151) Since God has urged His servants to take good care of their families, He has also impressed upon them the need to maintain the family foundation, which is also the basis of society.

This equates with purity, decency and chastity. Hence, they are forbidden to commit all types of indecency, whether openly or secretly. This prohibition is then closely related to the commandment immediately preceding it and to the first commandment. No family can survive and no community can prosper if they sink into shameful indecency, whether open or secret. Purity, cleanliness and chastity are the basic essentials for the healthy living of both the family and the community.

Those who like to see indecency spread throughout the community are the ones who try to weaken the structure of the family and to bring about society’s collapse.

The Arabic term translated here as ‘shameful indecency’ refers, from the linguistic point of view, to everything that goes beyond its proper limits. The term is also frequently used to denote a particular type of indecency, namely adultery and fornication. It is most probably in this sense that the term is used here. The present context is one of enumerating certain forbidden beliefs and practices. Adultery is the one particularly meant here. If we were to take the general meaning of the word, we should remember that, murder and the squandering of an orphan’s property are both indecencies, but associating partners with God is the greatest indecency of all. Hence, giving the term ‘indecency’ the narrower sense of adultery in this context is perhaps more fitting to the general drift of the sūrah. It also explains why the plural form is used here. The crime of adultery is normally preceded by actions and circumstances that are also indecent. Clothing which is too revealing, wanton behaviour, uninhibited flirtation with the opposite sex, shameless behaviour, speech and laughter, deliberate temptation and inviting adornments are all indecencies, leading to the ultimate one of adultery. All these may be brought into the open or kept secret.

Some may be entertained within oneself, while others are expressed in words and actions. They all work together to destroy the structure of the family and to weaken the community from within. In addition, they leave their stains on people’s consciences and limit their concerns to what is petty and abject. Hence, this prohibition follows immediately upon the commandments concerned with the relationship between parents and children.

Because all these indecencies have their own attraction and temptation, the sūrah tells us not to go near them. Staying away from them is the best way to avoid the preliminaries and attractions which could weaken one’s resolve. Hence, to cast a second, penetrative look at a woman, after the first casual one, is forbidden, while mixing between men and women is kept within the limits of what is necessary.

Wearing too many adornments, even using perfumes when going out are forbidden for women. Tempting movements and loud laughter are also disallowed in a pure Islamic social life. Islam does not like people to expose themselves to attraction as it only makes resistance harder. Islam believes in taking protective measures before there is any need to inflict punishments. It protects consciences, feelings and senses.

“Do not touch the property of an orphan before he comes of age, except to improve it.” (Verse 152) Every orphan feels weak within the community because he has lost his father who is supposed to bring him up well and protect him. His weakness, then, imposes a duty on the Muslim community, on the basis of the principle of mutual social solidarity which is central to the Islamic social system. An orphan used to find himself in total loss in pre-Islamic Arabian society. The frequent and varied Qur’ānic directives concerning the care that should be taken of orphans, and the stern warning occasionally added to these directives give us an impression of how orphans used to be badly treated in society. This continued to be the case until God selected an honoured orphan from that community to entrust him with the most noble task of all. He made that orphan, Muĥammad (peace be upon him), the bearer of His final message to mankind. He also made taking proper care of orphans one of the practices encouraged by Islam which gives its followers this kind of directive: “Do not touch the property of an orphan before he comes of age, except to improve it.” (Verse 152)

Therefore, anyone who is looking after an orphan must not touch that orphan’s property except in a way which is certain to bring a good return to the orphan. He must protect that property and try to improve it until the orphan comes of age and becomes physically and mentally able to receive his property and make good use of it. Thus, the community adds to its ranks a useful member who obtains his full rights.

Scholars have different views concerning the stage when a person comes of age.

According to `Abd al-Raĥmān ibn Zayd and Imām Mālik, it signifies the attaining of puberty. According to Imām Abū Ĥanīfah, a person comes of age when he is twenty- five, while al-Suddī raises that higher to the age of thirty. Scholars of Madinah set two criteria for that stage: attaining puberty and showing maturity. No particular age is specified.

“Give just weight and full measure. We do not charge a soul with more than it can bear.” (Verse 152) This clearly applies to commercial transactions and requires people to do their best to ensure that everyone gets what is due to them. The sūrah provides a direct link between these transactions and faith, because this is the Islamic attitude. It is God who gives this directive and who urges people to give just weight and full measure.

Commercial transactions thus have a very real link with the question of Godhead and servitude. They are mentioned here in a context which clarifies that faith has a direct relationship with all aspects of life. Jāhiliyyah societies, past and present, separate faith and worship on the one side and laws and human dealings and transactions on the other. An example of this separation is related in the Qur’ān as it tells us about the Prophet Shu`ayb’s people who said to him: “shu`ayb, does your praying require you to demand of us that we give up all that our forefathers used to worship, or that we refrain from doing whatever we please with our property?” () Hence, the Qur’ān makes this link between the rules governing financial and commercial transactions on the one hand and faith on the other, in order to make it clear that Islam makes both faith and human dealings integral parts of it, firmly established within its constitution.