بِسْمِ اللّٰهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ

تَبَّتۡ یَدَاۤ اَبِیۡ لَہَبٍ وَّ تَبَّ ؕ﴿۱﴾ مَاۤ اَغۡنٰی عَنۡہُ مَالُہٗ وَ مَا کَسَبَ ؕ﴿۲﴾ سَیَصۡلٰی نَارًا ذَاتَ لَہَبٍ ۚ﴿ۖ۳﴾ وَّ امۡرَاَتُہٗ ؕ حَمَّالَۃَ الۡحَطَبِ ۚ﴿۴﴾ فِیۡ جِیۡدِہَا حَبۡلٌ مِّنۡ مَّسَدٍ ٪﴿۵﴾

اللہ کے نام سے جو رحمان و رحیم ہے۔

ٹوٹ گئے ابو لہب کے ہاتھ اور نامراد ہوگیا وہ۔ اُس کا مال اور جو کچھ اس نے کمایا وہ اُس کے کسی کام نہ آیا۔ ضرور وہ شُعلہ زن آگ میں ڈالا جائے گا اور ﴿اُس کے ساتھ﴾ اُس کی جورُو بھی، لگائی بُجھائی کرنے والی، اُس کی گردن میں مونجھ کی رسّی ہو گی۔  ؏١

In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.

1. May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he.
2. His wealth and all that he earned availed him nothing.
3. He will surely be cast into a blazing fire,
4. And his wife too — the one who carries firewood [the slanderer/scandal-monger],
5. Around her neck will be a rope of twisted palm-fiber.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Surah Al-Lahab
Name:
The word lahab (flame) in the first verse has been taken as the name of this surah.
Period of Revelation:
There is no disagreement among the commentators that it is Makkan, but it is difficult to determine precisely at which point in the Makkan period it was revealed. However, considering Abu Lahab’s conduct against the Messenger (peace be upon him) and his mission of truth, it can be estimated that this surah was revealed at a time when his enmity toward the Prophet (peace be upon him) had crossed all limits and his behavior had become a major obstacle in the path of Islam. It is quite possible that it was revealed during the period when the Quraysh boycotted the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and his family and confined them to the Valley of Abu Talib, and Abu Lahab alone was the one who abandoned his own family to side with the enemies. The basis for this conjecture is that Abu Lahab was the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) uncle, and it would not have been fitting for a nephew’s tongue to openly condemn his uncle until the uncle’s excesses had crossed all bounds and become evident to everyone. Had this surah been revealed at the very outset, people would have considered it morally objectionable for a nephew to condemn his uncle in this manner.
Background:
This is the only place in the Qur’an where an enemy of Islam is named and condemned, even though both in Makkah and later in Madinah after the migration there were many people whose enmity toward Islam and Muhammad (peace be upon him) was in no way less than Abu Lahab’s. The question is: what was distinctive about this particular person that warranted naming and condemning him? To understand this, it is necessary to understand the Arab society of that time and to examine Abu Lahab’s role within it.
In ancient times, since lawlessness, plunder, and tribal anarchy were widespread throughout Arabia, and for centuries the situation was such that no person had any guarantee of protection for life, property, or honor except through the support of his own family and blood relations, the moral values of Arab society placed great importance on silah rahmi (kindness toward relatives), while severing such ties was considered a grave sin. It was under the influence of these very Arab traditions that when the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) rose with the call to Islam, although the other clans of Quraysh and their chiefs bitterly opposed him, the Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib (descendants of Hashim’s brother Muttalib) not only refrained from opposing him but openly supported him, even though most of them had not believed in his prophethood. The other clans of Quraysh themselves regarded this support from the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) blood relatives as entirely consistent with Arab moral tradition, which is why they never taunted the Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib for having deviated from their ancestral religion by supporting one who presented a different faith. They knew and accepted that no one could hand over a member of his own family to his enemies under any circumstance, and that standing by one’s kinsman was, in the eyes of Quraysh and all Arabs alike, simply natural.
This moral principle, which even the Arabs of the Age of Ignorance considered inviolable, was broken by only one person out of enmity toward Islam—Abu Lahab bin Abd al-Muttalib. He was the Messenger of Allah’s (peace be upon him) uncle; he and the Prophet’s noble father were sons of the same father. Among the Arabs, an uncle was regarded as standing in the place of a father, especially when the nephew’s own father had passed away—in which case Arab society expected the uncle to cherish the nephew as his own child. But this man trampled all these Arab traditions underfoot out of his enmity toward Islam and his love for disbelief.
It has been narrated by the scholars of hadith, through multiple chains from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), that when the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was commanded to deliver the public call and the Qur’an instructed him to first warn his nearest kin of Allah’s punishment, he climbed Mount Safa early one morning and called out loudly, “Ya Sabahah!” (Oh, the calamity of the morning!). In Arabia, this cry was raised by one who, at daybreak, spotted an enemy approaching to raid his tribe. On hearing the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) voice, people asked who was calling. They were told it was the voice of Muhammad (peace be upon him). At this, the people of all the Quraysh clans rushed toward him—whoever could come in person came, and whoever could not sent someone on his behalf. When all had gathered, the Prophet (peace be upon him) called out clan by clan: “O Banu Hashim, O Banu Abd al-Muttalib, O Banu Fihr, O Banu so-and-so, O Banu so-and-so—if I told you that an army was waiting behind this mountain to attack you, would you believe me?” The people said, “Yes, we have never known you to lie.” He said, “Then I warn you that a severe punishment lies ahead.” Before anyone else could speak, the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) own uncle, Abu Lahab, said: “Taban laka, a-lihadha jama’tana?” (“Ruin upon you—was it for this that you gathered us?”) One account also mentions that he picked up a stone to throw at the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). (Reference: Musnad Ahmad, Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ibn Jarir)
Ibn Zayd reports that Abu Lahab once asked the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), “If I accept your religion, what will I get?” He replied, “What every other believer will get.” Abu Lahab said, “Is there no special distinction for me?” The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “And what is it you want?” At this Abu Lahab said: “Taban li-hadha’d-din, taban an akuna wa ha’ula’i sawa’an” (“Ruin upon this religion in which I and these others would be equal.”) (Reference: Ibn Jarir)
In Makkah, Abu Lahab was the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) nearest neighbor; their houses shared a common wall. Besides him, Hakam bin al-‘As (father of Marwan), Uqbah bin Abi Mu’ayt, Adi bin Hamra, and Ibn al-Sada’ al-Hudhali were also his neighbors. These people would not let the Prophet (peace be upon him) have peace even at home. Sometimes while he was praying, they would throw a goat’s entrails on him from above. Sometimes when food was being cooked in the courtyard, they would throw filth into the pot. The Prophet (peace be upon him) would come out and say to them, “O Banu Abd Manaf, what kind of neighborliness is this?” Abu Lahab’s wife, Umm Jamil (sister of Abu Sufyan), had made it a regular habit of bringing thorny branches at night and laying them at the door of his house, so that when he or his children stepped out in the early morning, a thorn would prick their feet. (Reference: Bayhaqi, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Asakir, Ibn Hisham)
Before his prophethood, two of the Messenger of Allah’s (peace be upon him) daughters were married to Abu Lahab’s sons, Utbah and Utaybah. When the Prophet (peace be upon him) began calling people to Islam, this man told his two sons that it would be forbidden for him to ever see them again unless they divorced Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) daughters. So both of them divorced their wives. Utaybah went so far in his ignorance that one day, coming before the Prophet, he said, “I disbelieve in ‘By the star when it sets’ and ‘He who drew near and came down.’” Having said this, he spat in the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) direction, though it did not land on him. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “O Allah, set one of Your dogs upon him.” After this, Utaybah set out with his father on a journey to Syria. During the journey, the caravan camped at a place where local people warned that wild beasts came at night. Abu Lahab asked his fellow travelers from Quraysh to arrange some protection for his son, saying he feared Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) curse. The people of the caravan made their camels sit in a circle all around Utaybah and lay down to sleep. At night a lion came, passed through the ring of camels, and tore Utaybah apart. (Reference: Al-Isti’ab by Ibn Abd al-Barr, Al-Isabah by Ibn Hajar, Dala’il al-Nubuwwah by Abu Nu’aym al-Isfahani, Rawd al-Anf by al-Suhayli)
There is some difference among the narrations: some narrators place the divorce after the public announcement of prophethood, while others say it occurred after the revelation of Tabbat yada Abi Lahab. There is also disagreement as to whether the son in question was Utbah or Utaybah, but it is established that after the conquest of Makkah, Utbah accepted Islam and gave his pledge of allegiance at the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) blessed hand. Therefore, the correct view is that the son [who met this fate] was Utaybah.
Such was the depth of his malice that when, after the death of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) son Qasim, his second son Abdullah also passed away, instead of sharing in his nephew’s grief, Abu Lahab ran joyfully to the chiefs of Quraysh and announced to them, “Today Muhammad (peace be upon him) has become nameless and without descendants.” (See Surah al-Kawthar.)
Wherever the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) went to call people to Islam, Abu Lahab would follow behind him, stopping people from listening to him. Rabi’ah bin ’Ibad al-Dili (may Allah be pleased with him) relates: “I was a young boy when I went with my father to the market of Dhul-Majaz. There I saw the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) saying, ‘O people, say there is no god but Allah, and you will attain salvation,’ while a man followed behind him saying, ‘He is a liar, he has turned away from the religion of his forefathers.’ I asked who this man was. People said, ‘That is his uncle, Abu Lahab.’” (Reference: Musnad Ahmad, Bayhaqi)
Another report from the same Rabi’ah states: “I saw the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) going to the encampment of each tribe, saying, ‘O Banu so-and-so, I am Allah’s Messenger to you. I instruct you to worship Allah alone and associate no partner with Him. Believe me and support me so that I may accomplish the task for which Allah has sent me.’ Behind him followed another man who said, ’O Banu so-and-so, this man wants to turn you away from Lat and ‘Uzza toward the innovation and misguidance he has brought. Never accept what he says nor follow him.’ I asked my father who this was. He said, ‘That is his uncle, Abu Lahab.’” (Reference: Musnad Ahmad, Tabarani)
A similar report comes from Tariq bin Abdullah al-Muharibi (may Allah be pleased with him), who says: “I saw in the market of Dhul-Majaz the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) telling people, ‘O people, say there is no god but Allah, and you will attain salvation,’ while behind him a man was throwing stones at him, to the point that his heels were wet with blood, while he kept saying, ‘He is a liar, do not believe him.’ I asked the people who this was. They said, ‘That is his uncle, Abu Lahab.’” (Reference: Tirmidhi)
In the seventh year of prophethood, when all the clans of Quraysh imposed a social and economic boycott on the Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib, and these two clans, remaining firm in their support of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), were confined to the Valley of Abu Talib, Abu Lahab alone was the one who sided with the disbelieving Quraysh instead of standing with his own family. This boycott continued for three years, during which the Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib were reduced to starvation. Abu Lahab’s conduct during this time was such that whenever a trade caravan came to Makkah and one of those confined in the Valley of Abu Talib went to buy provisions, he would call out to the merchants to demand such a high price from them that they would be unable to buy, promising to compensate the merchants for any loss themselves. So the merchants would demand exorbitant prices, and the poor buyer, suffering with his starving family, would return empty-handed. Abu Lahab would then buy the very same goods from those merchants at the market rate. (Reference: Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Hisham)
These were the actions of this man on account of which he is named and condemned in this surah. There was a particular need for this because when Arabs from outside Makkah came for pilgrimage, or gathered at the various seasonal markets, and saw the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) own uncle following behind him and opposing him, they considered it, by the well-known standards of Arab tradition, quite contrary to expectation that an uncle would, without cause, publicly revile his own nephew, throw stones at him, and level accusations against him. For this reason, influenced by Abu Lahab’s behavior, they would fall into doubt about the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). But when this surah was revealed and Abu Lahab, enraged, began to rave incoherently, people came to understand that this man’s word against the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) carried no credibility, since he had become consumed with madness in his enmity toward his own nephew. Moreover, once the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) own uncle was named and condemned, people’s expectation that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) might show favoritism or compromise in matters of religion for anyone’s sake was forever extinguished. When the Messenger’s own uncle was openly taken to task, people understood that there was no room here for partiality: an outsider could become one’s own if he believed, and one’s own could become an outsider if he disbelieved. In this matter, no one’s lineage or family counted for anything.