Arabic Text:
وَالزُّبُرِ ۚ وَأَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الذِّكْرَ لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ وَلَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ ﴿٤٤﴾

English Translation:
”…and the Scriptures and the illuminating Book. And We have sent down to you the Reminder (the Qur’an) so that you may explain to mankind what has been revealed for them, and so that they may reflect.”

Word-by-Word Breakdown:
وَالزُّبُرِ — “and the Scriptures” (the written records/books given to earlier prophets)
وَأَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ — “and We sent down to you” (addressing the Prophet ﷺ)
الذِّكْرَ — “the Reminder / the Qur’an” (the remembrance and admonition)
لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ — “so that you may explain / make clear to the people”
مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ — “what has been sent down to them” (i.e., the Qur’an, meant for all of humanity)
وَلَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ — “and so that they may reflect / ponder”

Key Significance:
This verse establishes two profound purposes for the revelation of the Qur’an to the Prophet ﷺ:
1. تبيين (Tabyin) — Explanation: The Prophet ﷺ was not merely a postman delivering a text. He was appointed to explain, demonstrate, and embody the message — which is the very foundation of the Sunnah and Hadith.
2. تفكر (Tafakkur) — Reflection: The ultimate goal is that humanity engages deeply in thought and contemplation — not blind following, but conscious, reflective acceptance of the truth.
This verse is the direct basis for Footnote 40 discussed earlier, which argues powerfully that rejecting the Hadith is equivalent to negating the entire purpose of prophetic mission itself.

Tafseer

Surah An-Nahl — Footnote No. 40
Translation of Mawdudi’s Tafheem ul-Quran (16:44, Note 40)

Explanatory Note:
“Explanation and clarification” — not merely through words, but also through one’s own actions; and by forming, under one’s guidance, a complete Muslim society; and by running its system in accordance with the intent of the “Dhikr” (the Reminder/Message).
In this way, Allah has set forth the wisdom which demanded that necessarily a human being be sent as a Prophet. The Dhikr could have been sent through angels. It could have been delivered directly, printed and distributed to every individual. But merely sending the Dhikr could not fulfil the purpose for which Allah’s wisdom, mercy, and Lordship required its revelation. For the fulfilment of that purpose, it was essential that the most capable of human beings carry this Dhikr to the people. He would present it to them gradually and in stages. He would explain its meaning to those who did not understand. He would remove the doubts of those who harboured doubts. He would answer the objections of those who raised objections. Against those who refused to accept and who offered opposition and resistance, he would demonstrate — through his own conduct — the behaviour befitting the bearers of this Dhikr. To those who accepted, he would provide guidance concerning every aspect and dimension of life. He would present his own life as a living example before them, and through individual and collective training, he would place before the entire world — as a model — a society whose complete social order would itself be an elaboration of the intent of the Dhikr.

Just as this verse was a decisive refutation of those deniers of prophethood who refused to accept Allah’s Dhikr coming through a human being, so too today it is a decisive refutation of those deniers of Hadith who wish to take only the Dhikr without the Prophet’s explanation and clarification. Whether they hold:
1. That the Prophet had not explained or clarified anything at all and had merely presented the Dhikr, or
2. That only the Dhikr is worthy of acceptance and not the Prophet’s explanation, or
3. That for us today only the Dhikr is sufficient and there is no need for the Prophet’s explanation, or
4. That only the Dhikr has survived in a reliable state, and the Prophet’s explanation has either not survived at all, or if it has, it is not trustworthy —
regardless of whichever of these four positions they hold, their stance in every case collides with this verse of the Qur’an.

If they hold the first position, it means the Prophet nullified the very purpose for which the Dhikr was conveyed through him as an intermediary rather than being sent through angels or delivered directly to people.
If they hold the second or third position, it means that Allah — God forbid — committed a pointless act by sending His Dhikr through a Prophet, because the outcome of the Prophet’s coming would then be no different from what could have been achieved by the Dhikr descending in printed form without any Prophet.
If they hold the fourth position, then this is in reality a declaration of the abrogation of both the Qur’an and the Prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ — after which, if any rational position remains, it is only the position of those who believe in a new prophethood and a new revelation. For in this very verse, Allah Himself is declaring the Prophet’s explanation to be indispensable for fulfilling the purpose of the Qur’an’s revelation, and the necessity of the Prophet is being established precisely on the grounds that he would expound the intent of the Dhikr. Now if the deniers of Hadith are correct in claiming that the Prophet’s explanation and clarification has not survived in the world, then two conclusions necessarily follow:
The first conclusion is that the Prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ has ended in its capacity as a model to be followed, and our relationship with Muhammad ﷺ is reduced to the same kind we have with Hūd, Ṣāliḥ, and Shu’ayb (peace be upon them) — that we affirm them and believe in them, but we possess no Uswa (exemplary conduct) of theirs that we may follow. This very situation automatically proves the necessity of a new prophethood — and only a fool could, after this, insist upon the finality of prophethood.
The second conclusion is that the Qur’an alone — without the Prophet’s explanation and clarification — is, by the testimony of its own Sender, insufficient for guidance. Therefore, no matter how loudly its adherents cry themselves hoarse declaring it self-sufficient, the testimony of eager witnesses in support of a negligent claimant can never prevail, and the need for a new Book of revelation automatically stands proven — even on the basis of the Qur’an itself.
Qātalahum Allāh — May Allah destroy them — for in this manner these people are, through their rejection of Hadith, in reality digging up the very roots of the religion.

Arabic translation

Here is the Arabic translation of Surah An-Nahl, Footnote 40:

سورة النحل — الحاشية رقم 40
ترجمة تفهيم القرآن للمودودي (16:44، الحاشية 40)

شرح وإيضاح:
“الشرح والتوضيح” — لا بالكلام وحده، بل بالعمل أيضاً، وبتكوين مجتمع مسلم متكامل تحت إشرافه وتوجيهه، وبإدارة نظامه وفق مقتضى “الذِّكر”.
وهكذا بيَّن اللهُ تعالى تلك الحكمةَ التي اقتضت ضرورةً أن يُبعث إنسانٌ نبيًّا. فقد كان بالإمكان إرسال الذِّكر عن طريق الملائكة، أو إيصاله مباشرةً إلى كل إنسان في صورة مطبوعة. غير أن مجرد إرسال الذِّكر لم يكن ليحقق الغرض الذي اقتضته حكمة الله ورحمته وربوبيته من إنزاله. فلتحقيق ذلك الغرض كان لا بد أن يحمل هذا “الذكر” أكفأُ إنسانٍ وأجدرُه؛ يعرضه على الناس شيئاً فشيئاً، ويشرح معناه لمن لم يفهمه، ويزيل الشك عمن ساوره الريب، ويرد على اعتراض من اعترض، ويُري من أبى وعاند وقاوم — بسلوكه وموقفه — النهجَ اللائق بحاملي هذا “الذكر”. ويهدي من آمن في كل شأن من شؤون حياته، ويضع أمام العالم أجمع — من خلال سيرته الشخصية والتربية الفردية والجماعية — مجتمعاً نموذجياً يكون نظامه الاجتماعي بأكمله شرحاً حياً لمقتضى “الذكر”.

وكما كانت هذه الآية حجةً دامغةً على منكري النبوة الذين رفضوا قبول “ذكر” الله جاءهم عن طريق بشر، فهي كذلك اليوم حجةٌ دامغة على منكري الحديث الذين يريدون الأخذ بـ”الذكر” وحده دون شرح النبي وتوضيحه. سواء أكانوا يرون:
1. أن النبي لم يشرح شيئاً البتة وإنما اكتفى بتقديم الذكر، أم
2. أن المقبول هو الذكر وحده لا شرح النبي، أم
3. أن الذكر وحده يكفينا اليوم ولا حاجة بنا إلى شرح النبي، أم
4. أن الذكر وحده هو الذي بقي في حالة موثوقة، أما شرح النبي فلم يبق أو بقي ولا يُوثق به —
فمهما كانت نظرتهم من هذه النظرات الأربع، فإن مسلكهم في كل الأحوال يصطدم بهذه الآية الكريمة.

فإن كانوا يرون الأمر الأول، فمعناه أن النبي أضاع الغرض ذاته الذي من أجله جُعل واسطةً للتبليغ بدلاً من إرسال الذكر بأيدي الملائكة أو إيصاله مباشرةً إلى الناس.
وإن كانوا يرون الأمر الثاني أو الثالث، فمعناه — معاذ الله — أن الله تعالى فعل فعلاً لغواً حين أرسل “ذكره” عن طريق نبي؛ إذ إن حاصل بعثة النبي — والحال هذه — لا يختلف عما كان يمكن أن يتحقق بنزول الذكر وحده في صورة مطبوعة دون نبي.
وإن كانوا يرون الأمر الرابع، فهذا في حقيقته إعلانٌ بنسخ القرآن والنبوة المحمدية معاً، وبعده لا يبقى مسلكٌ معقول إلا مسلك القائلين بنبوة جديدة ووحي جديد. ذلك لأن الله تعالى في هذه الآية يُقرر بنفسه أن شرح النبي أمرٌ لا غنى عنه لتحقيق مقصد القرآن من الإنزال، ويثبت الحاجة إلى النبي بالطريقة ذاتها من حيث إنه يوضح مراد الذكر. فإن كان قول منكري الحديث صحيحاً في أن توضيح النبي وشرحه لم يبق في الدنيا، فإن نتيجتين لا مناص منهما:
الأولى: أن النبوة المحمدية قد انتهت بوصفها قدوةً متبَّعة، وأصبح صلتنا بمحمد ﷺ كصلتنا بهود وصالح وشعيب عليهم السلام — نصدقهم ونؤمن بهم، لكن لا أسوة لنا منهم نتبعها. وهذا من تلقاء نفسه يُثبت الحاجة إلى نبوة جديدة، ولا يصر على الختم بعد ذلك إلا أحمق.
الثانية: أن القرآن وحده — بدون شرح النبي وتبيينه — قاصرٌ عن الهداية بشهادة مُنزِّله نفسه. فمهما صاح أصحابه بأنه كافٍ بذاته، فـ”لا يجدي شاهدٌ نشيطٌ في نصرة مدعٍ خامل”، وتصبح الحاجة إلى نزول كتاب جديد ثابتةً بنص القرآن ذاته.
قاتلهم الله — فهؤلاء في الحقيقة يقتلعون جذور الدين بإنكارهم الحديث.