اَنّٰی
Appears 28 times in Quran
Derived Words (3)
Words derived from the stem "اَنّٰی".
Occurrences in Quran
Found 28 verses containing "اَنّٰی".
نِسَآؤُکُمۡ حَرۡثٌ لَّکُمۡ فَاۡتُوۡا حَرۡثَکُمۡ اَنّٰی شِئۡتُمۡ ۖ وَقَدِّمُوۡا لِاَنۡفُسِکُمۡ ۚ وَاتَّقُوا اللّٰہَ وَاعۡلَمُوۡۤا اَنَّکُمۡ مُّلٰقُوۡہُ ۗ وَبَشِّرِ الۡمُؤۡمِنِیۡنَ
قرآن کریم میں دو لفظ ہیں لِاَ نْفُسِکُمْ یعنی اَنْفُس اور کُمْ مترجم بالعموم اَ نْفُس کا ترجمہ ’’جان‘‘ کر دیتے ہیں۔ لیکن اردو میں جان کا استعمال اس موقعہ پر نہیں کیا جاتا۔ یہ تو کہتے ہیں کہ اپنے جان پر ظلم نہ کرو‘ اپنی جان کو کچھ آرام دو۔ لیکن یہ نہیں کہتے کہ اپنی جان کو بھی کچھ دو۔ اسی طرح یہ بھی نہیں کہتے کہ اپنی جانوں کے لئے کچھ آگے بھیجو۔ ہاں یہ کہیں گے کہ اپنے مسقبل کا بھی کچھ فکر کرو۔ اپنی آئندہ زندگی کے لئے بھی کچھ انتظام کرو۔ لیکن یہ محاورہ چونکہ مفہوم کو تو ادا کرتا ہے مگر لفظوں سے دور چلا جاتا ہے۔ میں نے درمیانی راہ اختیار کرکے ’’اپنے لئ
See {244}.
Anna means, (1) how; (2) when; and (3) where. (Aqrab).
This verse constitutes an eloquent testimony to the inimitably pure and dignified language of the Qur’an. An extremely delicate subject has been dealt with in a most decent and discreet manner and the whole philosophy of marriage and conjugal relations has been given in one brief sentence, i.e. Your wives are a sort of tilth for you. A woman is indeed like a tilth in which the seed of progeny is sown. A wise husbandman selects the best soil, prepares the best tilth, secures the best seed, and chooses the best time and manner of sowing it. So should a believer do, for on the harvest which he is to reap in the form of children depends not only his own but also his community’s entire future. It is to this supreme fact that the words so pointedly refer. Thus the likening of woman to tilth throws a flood of light on the morality of eugenics and sex.
Important Words:
حرث (tilth). See 2: 206.
انی (how and when) means: (1) how; (2) when; and (3) where (Aqrab).
قدموا (send ahead) is derived from قدم meaning, he came or stepped forward. قدم (qaddama) means, be sent forward or sent ahead; he put forward; he offered. قدم لنفسه means, he did good or evil that will in future bear good or bad fruit for himself. قدمه علی غیره means, he preferred him to others. قدم له الثمن means, he paid him the price in advance (Aqrab). The Quran uses this expression to point out that whatever good or evil deed a man does, serves like a seed to bear a future crop. No action is ever lost.
مؤمنین (those who obey) is derived from آمن meaning: (1) he believed; (2) he obeyed (Aqrab). Here it gives the latter meaning. For a fuller discussion of this word see 2:4.
Commentary:
This verse constitutes an eloquent testimony to the inimitably pure and dignified language of the Quran. An extremely delicate subject has been dealt with in a most decent and discreet manner, and the whole philosophy of marriage and conjugal relations has been given in one brief sentence, i.e. Your wives are a tilth for you. A woman is indeed like a tilth in which the seed of progeny is sown. The expression has a twofold significance depending on the meaning of the words اتوا حرثکم (approach your tilth). If approaching the tilth means coition, then the expression approach your tilth how you like would signify that: (1) you should go in unto your wife in a manner suited to her capacity as a tilth and in no other manner; and (2) that both of you should try to keep your hearts pure at the time of coition so that the issue of the process may also share that purity. Says the Holy Prophet, "When the husband goes in unto his wife, they should both pray to God saying, 'Our Lord, keep both of us away from Satan; and if Thou grant us an issue, keep that also away from him' " (Muslim Kitabun-Nikah).
On the contrary, if "approaching the tilth" means selecting and dealing with the wife, the expression approach your tilth how you like would mean: (1) That you should select a wife who is best suited as a tilth, i.e. (a) she should be ولودviz. capable of producing children and not barren; (b) she should be healthy, capable of producing healthy children; (c) she should be well qualified to give good training to the children; and (d) she should be ودود i.e. of loving nature so that there may reign an atmosphere of love and harmony in the house and the children may benefit by it. (2) That you should look after and treat your wife well so that her life may be happy and contented and she may become best disposed to bring up the children well. (3) That you should keep yourselves also in a state of good physical and moral health so that your seed for your tilth may also be healthy in every respect.
A wise husbandman selects the best soil, prepares the best tilth, secures the best seed, and chooses the best time and manner of sowing it. So should you, for on the harvest which you are to reap in the form of children depends not only your own but also your community’s entire future. It is to this supreme fact that the clause, and send ahead some good for yourselves, so pointedly refers. In short, the likening of woman to tilth throws a flood of light on the morality of eugenics and sex. But the real basis of all happiness and progress is the fear of God and in the words, fear Allah and know that you shall meet Him, the Quran warns the Faithful never to lose sight of the real object of marriage even in the heat of carnal passions for even the seat of these passions is the source of the procreation of children and the continuation of a good race on the earth. Finally, the clause, and bear glad tidings to those who obey, contains a mighty بشارة (good news) for those who may obey this injunction, for it would not only make their own lives supremely happy but would also secure for them the best progeny for all time.
4
قرآن کریم میں دو لفظ ہیں لِاَ نْفُسِکُمْ یعنی اَنْفُس اور کُمْ مترجم بالعموم اَ نْفُس کا ترجمہ ’’جان‘‘ کر دیتے ہیں۔ لیکن اردو میں جان کا استعمال اس موقعہ پر نہیں کیا جاتا۔ یہ تو کہتے ہیں کہ اپنے جان پر ظلم نہ کرو‘ اپنی جان کو کچھ آرام دو۔ لیکن یہ نہیں کہتے کہ اپنی جان کو بھی کچھ دو۔ اسی طرح یہ بھی نہیں کہتے کہ اپنی جانوں کے لئے کچھ آگے بھیجو۔ ہاں یہ کہیں گے کہ اپنے مسقبل کا بھی کچھ فکر کرو۔ اپنی آئندہ زندگی کے لئے بھی کچھ انتظام کرو۔ لیکن یہ محاورہ چونکہ مفہوم کو تو ادا کرتا ہے مگر لفظوں سے دور چلا جاتا ہے۔ میں نے درمیانی راہ اختیار کرکے ’’اپنے لئ
230
Important Words:
حرث (tilth). See 2: 206.
انی (how and when) means: (1) how; (2) when; and (3) where (Aqrab).
قدموا (send ahead) is derived from قدم meaning, he came or stepped forward. قدم (qaddama) means, be sent forward or sent ahead; he put forward; he offered. قدم لنفسه means, he did good or evil that will in future bear good or bad fruit for himself. قدمه علی غیره means, he preferred him to others. قدم له الثمن means, he paid him the price in advance (Aqrab). The Quran uses this expression to point out that whatever good or evil deed a man does, serves like a seed to bear a future crop. No action is ever lost.
مؤمنین (those who obey) is derived from آمن meaning: (1) he believed; (2) he obeyed (Aqrab). Here it gives the latter meaning. For a fuller discussion of this word see 2:4.
Commentary:
This verse constitutes an eloquent testimony to the inimitably pure and dignified language of the Quran. An extremely delicate subject has been dealt with in a most decent and discreet manner, and the whole philosophy of marriage and conjugal relations has been given in one brief sentence, i.e. Your wives are a tilth for you. A woman is indeed like a tilth in which the seed of progeny is sown. The expression has a twofold significance depending on the meaning of the words اتوا حرثکم (approach your tilth). If approaching the tilth means coition, then the expression approach your tilth how you like would signify that: (1) you should go in unto your wife in a manner suited to her capacity as a tilth and in no other manner; and (2) that both of you should try to keep your hearts pure at the time of coition so that the issue of the process may also share that purity. Says the Holy Prophet, "When the husband goes in unto his wife, they should both pray to God saying, 'Our Lord, keep both of us away from Satan; and if Thou grant us an issue, keep that also away from him' " (Muslim Kitabun-Nikah).
On the contrary, if "approaching the tilth" means selecting and dealing with the wife, the expression approach your tilth how you like would mean: (1) That you should select a wife who is best suited as a tilth, i.e. (a) she should be ولودviz. capable of producing children and not barren; (b) she should be healthy, capable of producing healthy children; (c) she should be well qualified to give good training to the children; and (d) she should be ودود i.e. of loving nature so that there may reign an atmosphere of love and harmony in the house and the children may benefit by it. (2) That you should look after and treat your wife well so that her life may be happy and contented and she may become best disposed to bring up the children well. (3) That you should keep yourselves also in a state of good physical and moral health so that your seed for your tilth may also be healthy in every respect.
A wise husbandman selects the best soil, prepares the best tilth, secures the best seed, and chooses the best time and manner of sowing it. So should you, for on the harvest which you are to reap in the form of children depends not only your own but also your community’s entire future. It is to this supreme fact that the clause, and send ahead some good for yourselves, so pointedly refers. In short, the likening of woman to tilth throws a flood of light on the morality of eugenics and sex. But the real basis of all happiness and progress is the fear of God and in the words, fear Allah and know that you shall meet Him, the Quran warns the Faithful never to lose sight of the real object of marriage even in the heat of carnal passions for even the seat of these passions is the source of the procreation of children and the continuation of a good race on the earth. Finally, the clause, and bear glad tidings to those who obey, contains a mighty بشارة (good news) for those who may obey this injunction, for it would not only make their own lives supremely happy but would also secure for them the best progeny for all time.
270
See {244}.
271
Anna means, (1) how; (2) when; and (3) where. (Aqrab).
272
This verse constitutes an eloquent testimony to the inimitably pure and dignified language of the Qur’an. An extremely delicate subject has been dealt with in a most decent and discreet manner and the whole philosophy of marriage and conjugal relations has been given in one brief sentence, i.e. Your wives are a sort of tilth for you. A woman is indeed like a tilth in which the seed of progeny is sown. A wise husbandman selects the best soil, prepares the best tilth, secures the best seed, and chooses the best time and manner of sowing it. So should a believer do, for on the harvest which he is to reap in the form of children depends not only his own but also his community’s entire future. It is to this supreme fact that the words so pointedly refer. Thus the likening of woman to tilth throws a flood of light on the morality of eugenics and sex.
وَقَالَ لَہُمۡ نَبِیُّہُمۡ اِنَّ اللّٰہَ قَدۡ بَعَثَ لَکُمۡ طَالُوۡتَ مَلِکًا ۚ قَالُوۡۤا اَنّٰی یَکُوۡنُ لَہُ الۡمُلۡکُ عَلَیۡنَا وَنَحۡنُ اَحَقُّ بِالۡمُلۡکِ مِنۡہُ وَلَمۡ یُؤۡتَ سَعَۃً مِّنَ الۡمَالِ ۚ قَالَ اِنَّ اللّٰہَ اصۡطَفٰٮہُ عَلَیۡکُمۡ وَزَادَہٗ بَسۡطَۃً فِی الۡعِلۡمِ وَالۡجِسۡمِ ۖ وَاللّٰہُ یُؤۡتِیۡ مُلۡکَہٗ مَنۡ یَّشَآءُ ۚ وَاللّٰہُ وٰسِعٌ عَلِیۡمٌ
3:27.
طالوت سے مراد جدعون ہے اور یہ صفاتی نام ہے جو طَالَ سے نکلا ہے جس کے معنے ہیں لمبا اور مضبوط ہو گیا اور جدعون کے معنے عبرانی زبان میں اپنے مادہ کے اعتبار سے گرانے یا کاٹنے کے ہیں اور جدعون ایسے شخص کو کہتے ہیں جو اپنے مخالف کو کاٹ ڈالتا اور زمین پر گرا دیتا ہے۔ بائبل میں بھی جدعون کو بہادر پہلوان کے نام سے پکارا گیا ہے (دیکھو قاضیوں باب۶ آیت۱۲) پس طالوت اور جدعون دونوں ہم معنی الفاظ ہیں۔
علاوہ اور معنوں کے مُلْـک کے معنے حکومت اور غلبہ کے بھی ہیں (اقرب) اَ نّٰی کے مندرجہ ذیل معنے ہیں۔ (۱) کَیْفَ کس طرح (۲) مِنْ اَیْنَ کہاں سے (۳) اَ یْنَ جہاں اور کہاں۔ اس صورت میں یہ دو فعلوں کو جزم دیتا ہے۔ (۴) حَتّٰی کب (اقرب) پس اس آیت کے معنے یہ ہوئے کہ اسے ہم پر حکومت کس طرح مل سکتی ہے یا یہ کہ اسے ہم پر حکومت کرنے کا حق کب حاصل ہوا؟ یا اُسے ہم پر حکومت کہاں سے حاصل ہوئی۔
مِنَ الْمَالِ‘ سَعَۃً کی صفت ہے۔ اس لئے ’’سَعَۃً مِّنَ الْمَالِ‘‘ کا صحیح ترجمہ مالی فراخی ہے۔
بَسْطَۃً کے معنے وسعت۔ فراخی اور کمال کے ہیں (اقرب)
اپنا ملک کہہ کر اِس طرف اشارہ فرمایا کہ جب حکومت خداتعالیٰ کی ہے تو حق دار وہ ہے جسے خداتعالیٰ مقرر کرے۔
3:27.
Talut is the attributive name of an Israelite king who lived about two hundred years before David and about the same number of years after Moses. Some Commentators of the Qur’an have wrongly identified Talut with Saul. The description of the Qur’an fits in more with Gideon (Judg. chs. 6-8) than with Saul. Gideon lived in about 1250 B.C. and the Bible calls him a "mighty man of valour" (Judg. 6: 12) which is the same as Talut. According to some Christian writers incidents related in this passage refer to two different periods which are separated from each other by the long interval of 200 years, and refer to this passage as an instance, as they say, of historical anachronisms to be found in the Qur’an. The passage does indeed refer to two different periods, but there is no anachronism in it. The Qur’an has here referred to both these periods. Its object in doing so is to show how the unification of the different tribes of Israel began in the time of Gideon, (i.e. Talut), two hundred years before Dav
3:27.
Important Words:
طالوت (Talut) is the attributive name of an Israelite king who lived about two hundred years before David and about the same number of years after Moses. Most commentators regard Talut to be a name of Hebrew origin and consider him to be synonymous with Saul (1. Sam. ch. 9). As Hebrew is only an offshoot of Arabic, the word Talut appears to be derived from the Arabic root طال i.e. he became tall or high___a description coinciding with the one given in the verse under comment viz. one increased abundantly in knowledge and body. It is, however, not right to identify Talut with Saul. The description of the Quran fits more with Gideon (Judg. chs. 6-8) than with Saul. Gideon lived in about 1250 B.C. and the Bible calls him a "mighty man of valour" (Judg. 6:12) which is the same as Talut.
Commentary:
There has been a difference of opinion as to the identity of the person to whom the name Talut has been applied. According to a number of Muslim commentators, Talut stands for Saul, and the passage refers to the reign of Saul. Christian writers have, however, taken exception to this view. According to them the incidents related in this passage refer to two different periods which are separated from each other by the long interval of 200 years; and these critics refer to this passage as an instance of historical anachronism, found in the Quran. The passage does indeed refer to two different periods, but if Christian critics had carefully thought over their own history, they would have seen that there is no confusion of dates in the passage in question and that the Quran has here referred to both these periods. Its object in doing so is to show how the unification of the different tribes of Israel began in the time of Gideon (i.e. Talut) two hundred years before David, and was finally consummated in the time of David.
In order to determine the identity of Talut, let us glance over the main incidents related in verse 247 to 252. These are as follows: 1. The people of the period to which Talut belongs had been driven forth from their homes and their children (2:247). 2. One who was not originally a king was appointed as such (2:248). 3. God helped the followers of this king, giving them the Talut as a token of His sovereignty (2:249). 4. The people were tried by means of water (2:250). 5. There existed a great disparity in numbers between these people and the enemy, and the trial reduced their number still further (ibid). 6. In spite of the small number of his followers, this king overcame the enemy (2:252).
Now some of these details do indeed apply to Saul, but there are others which do not. The key words which afford a clue to the identity of Talut are, Hast thou not heard of the chiefs of the children of Israel after Moses. The words "after Moses" indicate that the incident belongs to an early period when the Jews as a nation had just begun to take a definite shape in history. For two hundred years after Moses, the Israelites were divided into different tribes and had no king and no fighting force. In 1256 B.C., owing to their iniquity, God delivered them into the hands of the Midianites who plundered and ravaged them for seven long years, and they were compelled to take refuge in caves (Judg. 6:1, 2). This is why they are represented in the Quran as saying, we have been driven forth from our homes. The Midianites attacked them and carried away their sheep and oxen and asses, and destroyed their crops and pillaged them as far as Gaza (Judg. 6:4-6). The Israelites then cried to their Lord, and God raised among them a Prophet; and an angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon, appointed him king and promised him divine help. Then Gideon said to God, "Oh my Lord, wherewith shall I save Israel? Behold, my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house" (Judg. 6:15). This tallies with the description given in the Quran which represents the chiefs among the Israelites as saying with regard to the new king, How can he have sovereignty over us while we are better entitled to sovereignty than he and he is not given abundance of wealth (2:248). What makes the identification of Talut with Gideon still more certain is the fact that it was in the time of Gideon and not Saul that the Israelites were tried by means of water and the description of the trial as given in the Bible (Judg. 7:4-7) is the same as that of the Quran.
From Judg. 7:6, 7 we learn that after the aforesaid trial, there remained with Gideon only 300 men. It is interesting to note that a Companion of the Holy Prophet is reported to have said, "We were 313 men in the Battle of Badr, and this number corresponds to the number of men who followed Talut" (Tirmidhi, ch. on Siyar). Thus this tradition also lends support to the conclusion that Talut was no other than Gideon.
What further confirms the identity of Talut with Gideon is that the Hebrew word Gideon is identical in meaning with the Arabic word Talut. The former is derived from a root which in Hebrew means "to fell" (Enc. Bib.) or "to hew" (Jew. Enc.). Thus, Gideon means "one who cuts down his adversary and fells him to the ground" and the Bible itself speaks of Gideon as a "mighty man of valour" (Judg. 6:12), and we have already noted that in Arabic Tala means one who is tall and towers above others (see Important Words above).
The clause, how can he have sovereignty over us while we are better entitled to sovereignty than he, and he is not given abundance of wealth, indicates that the people raised two objections against Talut or Gideon: (1) that he did not belong to a highly placed family and was therefore not entitled to kingship, and (2) that he did not possess the requisite wealth for exercising influence. Both of these are plausible objections that are usually made by ordinary people of the world; but a chosen people guided by the will of the Just and Wise God must think otherwise. With them the real title to sovereignty is neither family status nor wealth but the personal qualities of a man; hence the clause, surely Allah has chosen him above you and has increased him abundantly in knowledge and body. The superiority of a man in physical and mental faculties coupled with knowledge and prowess must remain the basis for all title to rulership. And in the case of Talut the title had the additional strength of coinciding with the choice of God Who is the best and, in fact, the only true Judge of all titles.
c
3:27.
3
طالوت سے مراد جدعون ہے اور یہ صفاتی نام ہے جو طَالَ سے نکلا ہے جس کے معنے ہیں لمبا اور مضبوط ہو گیا اور جدعون کے معنے عبرانی زبان میں اپنے مادہ کے اعتبار سے گرانے یا کاٹنے کے ہیں اور جدعون ایسے شخص کو کہتے ہیں جو اپنے مخالف کو کاٹ ڈالتا اور زمین پر گرا دیتا ہے۔ بائبل میں بھی جدعون کو بہادر پہلوان کے نام سے پکارا گیا ہے (دیکھو قاضیوں باب۶ آیت۱۲) پس طالوت اور جدعون دونوں ہم معنی الفاظ ہیں۔
4
علاوہ اور معنوں کے مُلْـک کے معنے حکومت اور غلبہ کے بھی ہیں (اقرب) اَ نّٰی کے مندرجہ ذیل معنے ہیں۔ (۱) کَیْفَ کس طرح (۲) مِنْ اَیْنَ کہاں سے (۳) اَ یْنَ جہاں اور کہاں۔ اس صورت میں یہ دو فعلوں کو جزم دیتا ہے۔ (۴) حَتّٰی کب (اقرب) پس اس آیت کے معنے یہ ہوئے کہ اسے ہم پر حکومت کس طرح مل سکتی ہے یا یہ کہ اسے ہم پر حکومت کرنے کا حق کب حاصل ہوا؟ یا اُسے ہم پر حکومت کہاں سے حاصل ہوئی۔
5
مِنَ الْمَالِ‘ سَعَۃً کی صفت ہے۔ اس لئے ’’سَعَۃً مِّنَ الْمَالِ‘‘ کا صحیح ترجمہ مالی فراخی ہے۔
6
بَسْطَۃً کے معنے وسعت۔ فراخی اور کمال کے ہیں (اقرب)
7
اپنا ملک کہہ کر اِس طرف اشارہ فرمایا کہ جب حکومت خداتعالیٰ کی ہے تو حق دار وہ ہے جسے خداتعالیٰ مقرر کرے۔
a
3:27.
254
Important Words:
طالوت (Talut) is the attributive name of an Israelite king who lived about two hundred years before David and about the same number of years after Moses. Most commentators regard Talut to be a name of Hebrew origin and consider him to be synonymous with Saul (1. Sam. ch. 9). As Hebrew is only an offshoot of Arabic, the word Talut appears to be derived from the Arabic root طال i.e. he became tall or high___a description coinciding with the one given in the verse under comment viz. one increased abundantly in knowledge and body. It is, however, not right to identify Talut with Saul. The description of the Quran fits more with Gideon (Judg. chs. 6-8) than with Saul. Gideon lived in about 1250 B.C. and the Bible calls him a "mighty man of valour" (Judg. 6:12) which is the same as Talut.
Commentary:
There has been a difference of opinion as to the identity of the person to whom the name Talut has been applied. According to a number of Muslim commentators, Talut stands for Saul, and the passage refers to the reign of Saul. Christian writers have, however, taken exception to this view. According to them the incidents related in this passage refer to two different periods which are separated from each other by the long interval of 200 years; and these critics refer to this passage as an instance of historical anachronism, found in the Quran. The passage does indeed refer to two different periods, but if Christian critics had carefully thought over their own history, they would have seen that there is no confusion of dates in the passage in question and that the Quran has here referred to both these periods. Its object in doing so is to show how the unification of the different tribes of Israel began in the time of Gideon (i.e. Talut) two hundred years before David, and was finally consummated in the time of David.
In order to determine the identity of Talut, let us glance over the main incidents related in verse 247 to 252. These are as follows: 1. The people of the period to which Talut belongs had been driven forth from their homes and their children (2:247). 2. One who was not originally a king was appointed as such (2:248). 3. God helped the followers of this king, giving them the Talut as a token of His sovereignty (2:249). 4. The people were tried by means of water (2:250). 5. There existed a great disparity in numbers between these people and the enemy, and the trial reduced their number still further (ibid). 6. In spite of the small number of his followers, this king overcame the enemy (2:252).
Now some of these details do indeed apply to Saul, but there are others which do not. The key words which afford a clue to the identity of Talut are, Hast thou not heard of the chiefs of the children of Israel after Moses. The words "after Moses" indicate that the incident belongs to an early period when the Jews as a nation had just begun to take a definite shape in history. For two hundred years after Moses, the Israelites were divided into different tribes and had no king and no fighting force. In 1256 B.C., owing to their iniquity, God delivered them into the hands of the Midianites who plundered and ravaged them for seven long years, and they were compelled to take refuge in caves (Judg. 6:1, 2). This is why they are represented in the Quran as saying, we have been driven forth from our homes. The Midianites attacked them and carried away their sheep and oxen and asses, and destroyed their crops and pillaged them as far as Gaza (Judg. 6:4-6). The Israelites then cried to their Lord, and God raised among them a Prophet; and an angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon, appointed him king and promised him divine help. Then Gideon said to God, "Oh my Lord, wherewith shall I save Israel? Behold, my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house" (Judg. 6:15). This tallies with the description given in the Quran which represents the chiefs among the Israelites as saying with regard to the new king, How can he have sovereignty over us while we are better entitled to sovereignty than he and he is not given abundance of wealth (2:248). What makes the identification of Talut with Gideon still more certain is the fact that it was in the time of Gideon and not Saul that the Israelites were tried by means of water and the description of the trial as given in the Bible (Judg. 7:4-7) is the same as that of the Quran.
From Judg. 7:6, 7 we learn that after the aforesaid trial, there remained with Gideon only 300 men. It is interesting to note that a Companion of the Holy Prophet is reported to have said, "We were 313 men in the Battle of Badr, and this number corresponds to the number of men who followed Talut" (Tirmidhi, ch. on Siyar). Thus this tradition also lends support to the conclusion that Talut was no other than Gideon.
What further confirms the identity of Talut with Gideon is that the Hebrew word Gideon is identical in meaning with the Arabic word Talut. The former is derived from a root which in Hebrew means "to fell" (Enc. Bib.) or "to hew" (Jew. Enc.). Thus, Gideon means "one who cuts down his adversary and fells him to the ground" and the Bible itself speaks of Gideon as a "mighty man of valour" (Judg. 6:12), and we have already noted that in Arabic Tala means one who is tall and towers above others (see Important Words above).
The clause, how can he have sovereignty over us while we are better entitled to sovereignty than he, and he is not given abundance of wealth, indicates that the people raised two objections against Talut or Gideon: (1) that he did not belong to a highly placed family and was therefore not entitled to kingship, and (2) that he did not possess the requisite wealth for exercising influence. Both of these are plausible objections that are usually made by ordinary people of the world; but a chosen people guided by the will of the Just and Wise God must think otherwise. With them the real title to sovereignty is neither family status nor wealth but the personal qualities of a man; hence the clause, surely Allah has chosen him above you and has increased him abundantly in knowledge and body. The superiority of a man in physical and mental faculties coupled with knowledge and prowess must remain the basis for all title to rulership. And in the case of Talut the title had the additional strength of coinciding with the choice of God Who is the best and, in fact, the only true Judge of all titles.
a
3:27.
307
Talut is the attributive name of an Israelite king who lived about two hundred years before David and about the same number of years after Moses. Some Commentators of the Qur’an have wrongly identified Talut with Saul. The description of the Qur’an fits in more with Gideon (Judg. chs. 6-8) than with Saul. Gideon lived in about 1250 B.C. and the Bible calls him a "mighty man of valour" (Judg. 6: 12) which is the same as Talut. According to some Christian writers incidents related in this passage refer to two different periods which are separated from each other by the long interval of 200 years, and refer to this passage as an instance, as they say, of historical anachronisms to be found in the Qur’an. The passage does indeed refer to two different periods, but there is no anachronism in it. The Qur’an has here referred to both these periods. Its object in doing so is to show how the unification of the different tribes of Israel began in the time of Gideon, (i.e. Talut), two hundred years before Dav
اَوۡ کَالَّذِیۡ مَرَّ عَلٰی قَرۡیَۃٍ وَّہِیَ خَاوِیَۃٌ عَلٰی عُرُوۡشِہَا قَالَ اَنّٰی یُحۡیٖ ہٰذِہِ اللّٰہُ بَعۡدَ مَوۡتِہَا ۖ فَاَمَاتَہُ اللّٰہُ مِائَۃَ عَامٍ ثُمَّ بَعَثَہٗ ۖ قَالَ کَمۡ لَبِثۡتَ ۖ قَالَ لَبِثۡتُ یَوۡمًا اَوۡ بَعۡضَ یَوۡمٍ ۖ قَالَ بَل لَّبِثۡتَ مِائَۃَ عَامٍ فَانۡظُرۡ اِلٰی طَعَامِکَ وَشَرَابِکَ لَمۡ یَتَسَنَّہۡ ۖ وَانۡظُرۡ اِلٰی حِمَارِکَ وَلِنَجۡعَلَکَ اٰیَۃً لِّلنَّاسِ ۖ وَانۡظُرۡ اِلَی الۡعِظَامِ کَیۡفَ نُنۡشِزُہَا ثُمَّ نَکۡسُوۡہَا لَحۡمًا ۚ فَلَمَّا تَبَیَّنَ لَہٗ قَالَ اَعۡلَمُ اَنَّ اللّٰہَ عَلٰی کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ قَدِیۡرٌ
23:15.
یہاں آیت میں اَوْ کا لفظ استعمال ہوا ہے جس کے عام معنے تو ’’یا‘‘ کے ہیں۔ لیکن کبھی ’’اور‘‘ کے معنے بھی دیتا ہے۔
کَالَّذِیْ میں ک کا ترجمہ ہم نے حالت کا کیا ہے۔ لیکن عام طور پر اس کے معنے ’’طرح‘‘ کے ہوتے ہیں۔ ان معنوں کومدِّنظر رکھ کر ترجمہ ہونا چاہیے تھا ’’اس شخص کی طرح‘‘ لیکن ہم نے ترجمہ کیا ہے ’’اس شخص کی مثل‘‘ اور یہ معنے بھی جائز ہیں۔ چنانچہ علامہ ابن ہشام لکھتے ہیں وَ اَمَّا الْکَافُ الْاِسْمِیَّۃُ الْجَارَّۃُ فَمُرَادِفَۃٌ لِّمِثْل یعنی ایک کاف اسمیّہ ہوتا ہے جو جرّ دیتا ہے اور اس کے معنے مثل یعنی مشابہ کے ہوتے ہیں (مُغْنی اللَّبِیب)
پہلے حضرت ابراہیم علیہ السلام کی ایک بحث کا ذکر کیا۔ پھر بعد کی آیات میں ایک مردہ شہر کا ذکر کیا۔ یہ اس بات کا ثبوت ہے کہ جو میں نے اوپر دلیل دی ہے وہی ٹھیک ہے یعنی حضرت ابراہیم علیہ السلام نے اپنے مخالف سے حیات فردی کا ذکر نہیں کیا تھا بلکہ حیات قومی یا جنسی کا ذکر کیا تھا۔ کیونکہ یہ مثال جو اب بیان کی گئی ہے اس میں حیات قومی یا جنسی کا ذکر ہے۔ حیات فردی کا ذکر نہیں۔
خَاوِیَۃٌ: خَوٰی یَخْوِیْ خَوَائٌ سے نکلا ہے کہتے ہیں خَوَی الْبَیْتُ: سَقَطَ وَ تَھَدَّمَ گھر کر گیا۔ نیز فَرَغَ وَ خَلَا گھر خالی ہو گیا۔ ویران ہو گیا (اقرب) پس جملہ کے یہ معنے ہوئے کہ وہ شہر اپنی چھتوں پر گرا ہوا تھا یعنی پہلے چھتیں گریں پھر ان پر دیواریں گر گئیں۔ بعض نے ’’خالی ہو گیا‘‘ کے معنے کرکے عَلٰی عُرُوْشِھَا سے پہلے ایک اور ساقط محذوف نکالا ہے یعنی شہر خالی تھا اور اپنی چھتوں پر گرا ہوا تھا۔ دونوں معنے درست ہیں لمبی ویرانی پر دلالت کرنے کے لئے یہ الفاظ استعمال ہوئے ہیں کیونکہ جو مکان عدم استعمال کی وجہ سے گریں بالعموم پہلے ان
بَلْ حرف ہے جو اِضْرَاب کے معنے دیتا ہے یعنی بات کو پھیر کر دوسری طرف لے جانا۔ یہ اِضْرَاب دو طرح کا ہوتا ہے ایک تو انکار کی غرض سے ہوتا ہے جیسے قرآن کریم میں ہے۔ وَ قَالُوا اتَّخَذَ الرَّحْمٰنُ وَلَدًا سُبْحَانَہٗ بَلْ عِبَادٌ مُّکْرَمُوْنَ (انبیاء: ۲۷) یعنی پہلی بات غلط ہے۔ حقیقت یہ ہے کہ جن کو خدا کا بیٹا کہتے ہیں وہ اللہ کے معزز بندے ہیں اور دوسری اقسام اضراب کی یہ ہے کہ ایک غرض سے دوسری غرض کی طرف مضمون کو پھیرنا مقصود ہوتا ہے۔ بَل سے پہلے جملہ کی تردید مدنظر نہیں ہوتی۔ جیسے قران کریم میں ہے قَدْ اَفْلَح مَنْ تَزَکّٰی وَ ذَکَرَ اسْمَ رَبِ
قَرْیَۃ سے مراد یوروشلم ہے جسے بخت نصر نے تباہ کر دیا تھا۔ وہ آدمی جو یوروشلم کے پاس سے گذرا حزقیل نبی تھا۔ اللہ تعالیٰ نے کشف کے ذریعہ سے ان پر ظاہر کیا کہ ایک سو سال تک یہ شہر دوبارہ آباد ہو جائے گا۔ (حزقیل کے کشف کے لئے دیکھیں پرانا عہدنامہ حزقیل باب۳۷)
23:15.
The ruined town referred to in the verse is Jerusalem which was laid waste by Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon in 599 B.C. Ezekiel, the Prophet, was among the Jews whom Nebuchadnezzar carried away into captivity to Babylon and who was made to pass by, and witness the ghastly sight of, the devastated town.
Ezekiel was naturally shocked at the sad sight and prayed to God in words full of extreme pathos as to when the ruined town would be restored to life. His prayer was heard and he was made to see a vision that the restoration prayed for would take place in a hundred years. The verse does not mean that Ezekiel remained actually dead for a hundred years. Only he saw a vision that he had died and had remained dead for a hundred years and then had come back to life. The Qur’an sometimes mentions scenes seen in a vision as having actually taken place without stating that they were witnessed in a vision or dream (12:5). The vision signified, and Ezekiel understood the significance, that the Children of Israel would remain in the state of captivity and complete national degradation for about a hundred years after which they would receive a new life and would come back to their sacred city. And it actually came to pass as Ezekiel had dreamt. Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar in 599 B.C. (2 Kings 24: 10). Ezek
The words are intended to express indefiniteness of time (18:20 & 23:114) and mean, according to the Quranic usage, that Ezekiel did not know how long he had remained in that state. Yaum here does not mean a day of 24 hours but time absolutely (see 1:4). The words, I have remained a day or part of a day, may also refer to the time for which Ezekiel slept or the time he took in seeing the vision. Apparently Ezekiel thought that he was being asked about the duration of the time of the vision.
Bal is a particle of digression signifying (a) the cancellation of what precedes as in 21:27, or (b) transition from one object of discourse to another as in 87:17. Here bal has been used in the latter sense.
The clause, It is so but thou hast also remained in this state for a hundred years, points out that although in one sense Ezekiel had remained in that state for a hundred years (for he had dreamt that he had been dead for a hundred years), yet the statement that he had tarried for a day or part of a day was also correct, for the actual time spent in seeing the vision was naturally very short.
To bring home this fact to the mind of Ezekiel, God directed his attention to his food and drink and his ass. That his food and drink had not rotted and his ass was still alive showed that he had really tarried only for a day or part of it. The words, look at thy ass, also indicate that Ezekiel saw the vision while sleeping in the fields with his ass by his side, for while in captivity, the Israelites were made to work in the fields as farmers.
Ezekiel represented in his person the whole Jewish nation. His symbolic death for a hundred years represented their national degradation and sorrows in captivity, for that was the period after which they came to their own. This is how Ezekiel became a Sign. See also Ezekiel, chap. 37.
23:15.
Important Word:
خاویة (fallen) is derived from خوی. They say خوی البیت i.e. (1) the house fell down in ruins; (2) the house became empty and untenanted (Aqrab).
عروش (roofs) is the plural of عرش (roof). They say عرش i.e. he built a house. عرش البیت means, he raised the roof of the house. عرش means: (1) the roof of a house; (2) the throne or the ceremonious chair of a king; (3) the pillar, etc. supporting a thing; (4) honour and prowess; (5) leaders and chiefs among men; (6) tent, canopy, shed etc. affordingshade; (7) trellis supporting vines (Aqrab & Lane).
یتسنه (have rotted) is derived from سنه i.e. (1) it passed through a time extending over years; (2) it (food, etc.) became altered and rotten by the lapse of years or absolutely. تسنه gives the same meaning as سنه (Aqrab).
Commentary:
The preceding verse contained one illustration of how Allah brings His friends out of darkness into light. The present verse cites, as hinted in the words, or like him, another illustration of how He breathes new life into a people after they have fallen and become degraded.
The ruined town referred to in the verse is Jerusalem which was laid waste by Nebuchadnezzar. The person who, as the verse says, passed by it was Ezekiel, the Prophet; and the words which had fallen down upon its roofs hint that it was soon after its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar that Ezekiel passed by the town. Ezekiel was among the Israelite captives whom Nebuchadnezzar carried away to Babylon and who, in accordance with an ancient custom, were made to pass by the ruins of the town so that they might witness with their own eyes how their city had been laid in ruins by the conqueror. Ezekiel, who was a great well-wisher of his people, was immensely pained to see the ruins of the sacred city and pathetically asked God when the time would come when the ruined city would be restored to life, i.e. when its inhabitants, the children of Israel, would come back to it, rebuild it and make it prosperous once more. This prayer, it appears, was heard by God Who showed him in a vision that the restoration asked for would come in a hundred years.
The clause then Allah caused him to die for a hundred years does not mean that Ezekiel was actually made to die and then raised to life again. It was, in fact, a vision which Ezekiel saw (Ezek. 37). The Quran sometimes mentions scenes seen in a vision as if they had actually happened, without stating that they were witnessed in a vision or a dream (e.g. 12:5). What actually happened was that Ezekiel saw in a vision that he had died and remained dead for a hundred years and then had come back to life. As he was the representative of his people, his death signified the death of the Israelites. Thus God informed him through this vision that the children of Israel would remain in their state of captivity and lifelessness for a hundred years, after which a new life would be given them and they would return to inhabit their sacred city. And this dream or vision actually turned out to be true. For Jerusalem was first invaded by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C. and again in 587 B.C., when after a long siege the city was totally destroyed by his general in 586 B.C. Ezekiel probably saw the vision in 586 B.C. The city was rebuilt about 100 years after its destruction and thus the vision came true.
It is wrong to think that God actually caused Ezekiel to die and that he remained dead for a hundred years and was then brought back to life; for that would have been no answer to his prayer, which did not pertain to the death and resurrection of any individual but to that of a town which was lying in ruins.
The words, which had fallen down upon its roofs; point out that Ezekiel saw the ruins soon after the destruction (not necessarily the complete and final destruction) of the town when the fallen roofs were still to be seen under the debris of the walls.
The words, I have remained a day or part of a day, are intended to express indefiniteness of time and mean, according to the Quranic usage, that Ezekiel did not know how long he had remained in that state. The words have been used in this sense in another passage of the Quran as well: They said, We have tarried a day or part of a day. Others said, Your Lord knows best the time you have tarried (18:20). Again, They will say, We tarried a day or part of a day, but ask those who keep count (23:114). In fact, یوم (day) here does not mean a day of 24 or 12 hours but time absolutely (see 1:4). The clause, I have remained a day or part of a day, may also refer to the time for which Ezekiel slept or the time he took in seeing the vision or the dream. Apparently Ezekiel thought that he was being asked about the duration of the time of the vision.
The clause, Nay, thou hast remained in this state for a hundred years, points out that although in one sense he had remained in that state for a hundred years (for he had dreamt that he had been dead for a hundred years), yet the statement that he had tarried for a day or part of a day, was also correct, for the time spent in seeing the vision was naturally very short. To bring home this fact to the mind of Ezekiel, God directed his attention to his food and drink and to the ass. That his food and drink had not become stale and that his ass was still alive, showed that he had really tarried only for a short time. The words and look at thy ass also indicate that Ezekiel saw the vision while sleeping in his fields with his ass by his side, for while in captivity the Israelites were made to work in the fields as farmers.
The words that We may make thee a Sign unto men show that Ezekiel was to be made a Sign to men inasmuch as his vision, according to which Jerusalem was to become re-inhabited by the children of Israel, was to come true. The words, look at the bones, are intended to echo the words used by the children of Israel in those days of misery, viz. that they had become like dry bones and there was no hope of their being ever endued with new life (Ezek. 37:11, 12). The words along with the accompanying clause meant that God had power to clothe the bones with flesh and to breathe new life into them. The bones were first to be set or placed in position and thereafter clothed with flesh, i.e. the Israelites, then like dead bones, were first to be brought back to their town and then the process of the clothing of the bones with flesh, i.e. the rebuilding of the town, etc. was to be completed.
The vision of Ezekiel has been mentioned in the Bible in chapter 37 of his book.
a
23:15.
1
یہاں آیت میں اَوْ کا لفظ استعمال ہوا ہے جس کے عام معنے تو ’’یا‘‘ کے ہیں۔ لیکن کبھی ’’اور‘‘ کے معنے بھی دیتا ہے۔
2
کَالَّذِیْ میں ک کا ترجمہ ہم نے حالت کا کیا ہے۔ لیکن عام طور پر اس کے معنے ’’طرح‘‘ کے ہوتے ہیں۔ ان معنوں کومدِّنظر رکھ کر ترجمہ ہونا چاہیے تھا ’’اس شخص کی طرح‘‘ لیکن ہم نے ترجمہ کیا ہے ’’اس شخص کی مثل‘‘ اور یہ معنے بھی جائز ہیں۔ چنانچہ علامہ ابن ہشام لکھتے ہیں وَ اَمَّا الْکَافُ الْاِسْمِیَّۃُ الْجَارَّۃُ فَمُرَادِفَۃٌ لِّمِثْل یعنی ایک کاف اسمیّہ ہوتا ہے جو جرّ دیتا ہے اور اس کے معنے مثل یعنی مشابہ کے ہوتے ہیں (مُغْنی اللَّبِیب)
3
پہلے حضرت ابراہیم علیہ السلام کی ایک بحث کا ذکر کیا۔ پھر بعد کی آیات میں ایک مردہ شہر کا ذکر کیا۔ یہ اس بات کا ثبوت ہے کہ جو میں نے اوپر دلیل دی ہے وہی ٹھیک ہے یعنی حضرت ابراہیم علیہ السلام نے اپنے مخالف سے حیات فردی کا ذکر نہیں کیا تھا بلکہ حیات قومی یا جنسی کا ذکر کیا تھا۔ کیونکہ یہ مثال جو اب بیان کی گئی ہے اس میں حیات قومی یا جنسی کا ذکر ہے۔ حیات فردی کا ذکر نہیں۔
4
خَاوِیَۃٌ: خَوٰی یَخْوِیْ خَوَائٌ سے نکلا ہے کہتے ہیں خَوَی الْبَیْتُ: سَقَطَ وَ تَھَدَّمَ گھر کر گیا۔ نیز فَرَغَ وَ خَلَا گھر خالی ہو گیا۔ ویران ہو گیا (اقرب) پس جملہ کے یہ معنے ہوئے کہ وہ شہر اپنی چھتوں پر گرا ہوا تھا یعنی پہلے چھتیں گریں پھر ان پر دیواریں گر گئیں۔ بعض نے ’’خالی ہو گیا‘‘ کے معنے کرکے عَلٰی عُرُوْشِھَا سے پہلے ایک اور ساقط محذوف نکالا ہے یعنی شہر خالی تھا اور اپنی چھتوں پر گرا ہوا تھا۔ دونوں معنے درست ہیں لمبی ویرانی پر دلالت کرنے کے لئے یہ الفاظ استعمال ہوئے ہیں کیونکہ جو مکان عدم استعمال کی وجہ سے گریں بالعموم پہلے ان
5
بَلْ حرف ہے جو اِضْرَاب کے معنے دیتا ہے یعنی بات کو پھیر کر دوسری طرف لے جانا۔ یہ اِضْرَاب دو طرح کا ہوتا ہے ایک تو انکار کی غرض سے ہوتا ہے جیسے قرآن کریم میں ہے۔ وَ قَالُوا اتَّخَذَ الرَّحْمٰنُ وَلَدًا سُبْحَانَہٗ بَلْ عِبَادٌ مُّکْرَمُوْنَ (انبیاء: ۲۷) یعنی پہلی بات غلط ہے۔ حقیقت یہ ہے کہ جن کو خدا کا بیٹا کہتے ہیں وہ اللہ کے معزز بندے ہیں اور دوسری اقسام اضراب کی یہ ہے کہ ایک غرض سے دوسری غرض کی طرف مضمون کو پھیرنا مقصود ہوتا ہے۔ بَل سے پہلے جملہ کی تردید مدنظر نہیں ہوتی۔ جیسے قران کریم میں ہے قَدْ اَفْلَح مَنْ تَزَکّٰی وَ ذَکَرَ اسْمَ رَبِ
6
قَرْیَۃ سے مراد یوروشلم ہے جسے بخت نصر نے تباہ کر دیا تھا۔ وہ آدمی جو یوروشلم کے پاس سے گذرا حزقیل نبی تھا۔ اللہ تعالیٰ نے کشف کے ذریعہ سے ان پر ظاہر کیا کہ ایک سو سال تک یہ شہر دوبارہ آباد ہو جائے گا۔ (حزقیل کے کشف کے لئے دیکھیں پرانا عہدنامہ حزقیل باب۳۷)
a
23:15.
266
Important Word:
خاویة (fallen) is derived from خوی. They say خوی البیت i.e. (1) the house fell down in ruins; (2) the house became empty and untenanted (Aqrab).
عروش (roofs) is the plural of عرش (roof). They say عرش i.e. he built a house. عرش البیت means, he raised the roof of the house. عرش means: (1) the roof of a house; (2) the throne or the ceremonious chair of a king; (3) the pillar, etc. supporting a thing; (4) honour and prowess; (5) leaders and chiefs among men; (6) tent, canopy, shed etc. affordingshade; (7) trellis supporting vines (Aqrab & Lane).
یتسنه (have rotted) is derived from سنه i.e. (1) it passed through a time extending over years; (2) it (food, etc.) became altered and rotten by the lapse of years or absolutely. تسنه gives the same meaning as سنه (Aqrab).
Commentary:
The preceding verse contained one illustration of how Allah brings His friends out of darkness into light. The present verse cites, as hinted in the words, or like him, another illustration of how He breathes new life into a people after they have fallen and become degraded.
The ruined town referred to in the verse is Jerusalem which was laid waste by Nebuchadnezzar. The person who, as the verse says, passed by it was Ezekiel, the Prophet; and the words which had fallen down upon its roofs hint that it was soon after its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar that Ezekiel passed by the town. Ezekiel was among the Israelite captives whom Nebuchadnezzar carried away to Babylon and who, in accordance with an ancient custom, were made to pass by the ruins of the town so that they might witness with their own eyes how their city had been laid in ruins by the conqueror. Ezekiel, who was a great well-wisher of his people, was immensely pained to see the ruins of the sacred city and pathetically asked God when the time would come when the ruined city would be restored to life, i.e. when its inhabitants, the children of Israel, would come back to it, rebuild it and make it prosperous once more. This prayer, it appears, was heard by God Who showed him in a vision that the restoration asked for would come in a hundred years.
The clause then Allah caused him to die for a hundred years does not mean that Ezekiel was actually made to die and then raised to life again. It was, in fact, a vision which Ezekiel saw (Ezek. 37). The Quran sometimes mentions scenes seen in a vision as if they had actually happened, without stating that they were witnessed in a vision or a dream (e.g. 12:5). What actually happened was that Ezekiel saw in a vision that he had died and remained dead for a hundred years and then had come back to life. As he was the representative of his people, his death signified the death of the Israelites. Thus God informed him through this vision that the children of Israel would remain in their state of captivity and lifelessness for a hundred years, after which a new life would be given them and they would return to inhabit their sacred city. And this dream or vision actually turned out to be true. For Jerusalem was first invaded by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C. and again in 587 B.C., when after a long siege the city was totally destroyed by his general in 586 B.C. Ezekiel probably saw the vision in 586 B.C. The city was rebuilt about 100 years after its destruction and thus the vision came true.
It is wrong to think that God actually caused Ezekiel to die and that he remained dead for a hundred years and was then brought back to life; for that would have been no answer to his prayer, which did not pertain to the death and resurrection of any individual but to that of a town which was lying in ruins.
The words, which had fallen down upon its roofs; point out that Ezekiel saw the ruins soon after the destruction (not necessarily the complete and final destruction) of the town when the fallen roofs were still to be seen under the debris of the walls.
The words, I have remained a day or part of a day, are intended to express indefiniteness of time and mean, according to the Quranic usage, that Ezekiel did not know how long he had remained in that state. The words have been used in this sense in another passage of the Quran as well: They said, We have tarried a day or part of a day. Others said, Your Lord knows best the time you have tarried (18:20). Again, They will say, We tarried a day or part of a day, but ask those who keep count (23:114). In fact, یوم (day) here does not mean a day of 24 or 12 hours but time absolutely (see 1:4). The clause, I have remained a day or part of a day, may also refer to the time for which Ezekiel slept or the time he took in seeing the vision or the dream. Apparently Ezekiel thought that he was being asked about the duration of the time of the vision.
The clause, Nay, thou hast remained in this state for a hundred years, points out that although in one sense he had remained in that state for a hundred years (for he had dreamt that he had been dead for a hundred years), yet the statement that he had tarried for a day or part of a day, was also correct, for the time spent in seeing the vision was naturally very short. To bring home this fact to the mind of Ezekiel, God directed his attention to his food and drink and to the ass. That his food and drink had not become stale and that his ass was still alive, showed that he had really tarried only for a short time. The words and look at thy ass also indicate that Ezekiel saw the vision while sleeping in his fields with his ass by his side, for while in captivity the Israelites were made to work in the fields as farmers.
The words that We may make thee a Sign unto men show that Ezekiel was to be made a Sign to men inasmuch as his vision, according to which Jerusalem was to become re-inhabited by the children of Israel, was to come true. The words, look at the bones, are intended to echo the words used by the children of Israel in those days of misery, viz. that they had become like dry bones and there was no hope of their being ever endued with new life (Ezek. 37:11, 12). The words along with the accompanying clause meant that God had power to clothe the bones with flesh and to breathe new life into them. The bones were first to be set or placed in position and thereafter clothed with flesh, i.e. the Israelites, then like dead bones, were first to be brought back to their town and then the process of the clothing of the bones with flesh, i.e. the rebuilding of the town, etc. was to be completed.
The vision of Ezekiel has been mentioned in the Bible in chapter 37 of his book.
a
23:15.
322
The ruined town referred to in the verse is Jerusalem which was laid waste by Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon in 599 B.C. Ezekiel, the Prophet, was among the Jews whom Nebuchadnezzar carried away into captivity to Babylon and who was made to pass by, and witness the ghastly sight of, the devastated town.
323
Ezekiel was naturally shocked at the sad sight and prayed to God in words full of extreme pathos as to when the ruined town would be restored to life. His prayer was heard and he was made to see a vision that the restoration prayed for would take place in a hundred years. The verse does not mean that Ezekiel remained actually dead for a hundred years. Only he saw a vision that he had died and had remained dead for a hundred years and then had come back to life. The Qur’an sometimes mentions scenes seen in a vision as having actually taken place without stating that they were witnessed in a vision or dream (12:5). The vision signified, and Ezekiel understood the significance, that the Children of Israel would remain in the state of captivity and complete national degradation for about a hundred years after which they would receive a new life and would come back to their sacred city. And it actually came to pass as Ezekiel had dreamt. Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar in 599 B.C. (2 Kings 24: 10). Ezek
323A
The words are intended to express indefiniteness of time (18:20 & 23:114) and mean, according to the Quranic usage, that Ezekiel did not know how long he had remained in that state. Yaum here does not mean a day of 24 hours but time absolutely (see 1:4). The words, I have remained a day or part of a day, may also refer to the time for which Ezekiel slept or the time he took in seeing the vision. Apparently Ezekiel thought that he was being asked about the duration of the time of the vision.
323B
Bal is a particle of digression signifying (a) the cancellation of what precedes as in 21:27, or (b) transition from one object of discourse to another as in 87:17. Here bal has been used in the latter sense.
324
The clause, It is so but thou hast also remained in this state for a hundred years, points out that although in one sense Ezekiel had remained in that state for a hundred years (for he had dreamt that he had been dead for a hundred years), yet the statement that he had tarried for a day or part of a day was also correct, for the actual time spent in seeing the vision was naturally very short.
325
To bring home this fact to the mind of Ezekiel, God directed his attention to his food and drink and his ass. That his food and drink had not rotted and his ass was still alive showed that he had really tarried only for a day or part of it. The words, look at thy ass, also indicate that Ezekiel saw the vision while sleeping in the fields with his ass by his side, for while in captivity, the Israelites were made to work in the fields as farmers.
326
Ezekiel represented in his person the whole Jewish nation. His symbolic death for a hundred years represented their national degradation and sorrows in captivity, for that was the period after which they came to their own. This is how Ezekiel became a Sign. See also Ezekiel, chap. 37.
فَتَقَبَّلَہَا رَبُّہَا بِقَبُوۡلٍ حَسَنٍ وَّاَنۡۢبَتَہَا نَبَاتًا حَسَنًا وَّکَفَّلَہَا زَکَرِیَّا ۖ کُلَّمَا دَخَلَ عَلَیۡہَا زَکَرِیَّا الۡمِحۡرَابَ وَجَدَ عِنۡدَہَا رِزۡقًا ۖ قَالَ یٰمَرۡیَمُ اَنّٰی لَکِ ہٰذَا ۖ قَالَتۡ ہُوَ مِنۡ عِنۡدِ اللّٰہِ ۖ اِنَّ اللّٰہَ یَرۡزُقُ مَنۡ یَّشَآءُ بِغَیۡرِ حِسَابٍ
’’بہترین حصہ‘‘ یہ ترجمہ محراب کا ہے جو لغت کے مطابق ہے (دیکھو اقرب الموارد) معنوں کے لحاظ سے یہ مطلب ہے کہ مریم کو اس کے وقف ہونے کے سبب سے اور زکریاؑ کی محبت کی وجہ سے گھر کے بہترین حصہ میں رکھا گیا تھا۔
Zachariah or Zacharias was the name of an Israelite holy person whom the Qur’an presents as a Prophet (6:86) but of whom the Bible speaks only as a priest (Luke, 1: 5). The person presented as a Prophet by the Bible is Zechariah (mark the difference in spelling) of whom the Qur’an, however, makes no mention. Zachariah of the Qur’an was the father of Yahya, (John) who was a cousin of Jesus.
The gifts were evidently brought by worshippers visiting the place and there was nothing extraordinary in Mary’s reply that the gifts were from Allah, for every good thing that comes to man is really from God, He being the Final Giver. In fact, from a girl of Mary’s religious upbringing any other reply would have been rather surprising.
Important Words:
کفلھا (made him her guardian) is derived from کفل. They say کفله i.e. he was or became responsible for him; he became his guardian. کفل خالدا زیدا means, he made Zaid the guardian of Khalid; he gave Khalid in the guardianship of Zaid (Aqrab).
زکریا (Zachariah or Zacharias) was the name of an Israelite holy person whom the Quran presents as a Prophet (6:86-90) but of whom the Bible speaks only as a priest (Luke 1:5). The person presented as a Prophet by the Bible is Zechariah (Zech. 1:1; mark the difference in spelling) of whom the Quran, however, makes no mention. زکریا of the Quran was the father of Yahya (John) who was a cousin of Jesus.
المحراب (chamber) is derived from حرب for which see 2:280. محرابmeans, a room in the uppermost story of a house; a chamber to which one ascends by stairs; the chief sitting place in a room or a house; the place or niche where the Imam stands while leading the Prayers in a mosque; a mosque or a place of worship (Aqrab & Lane). محراب (chamber of Prayer or the place of the Imam in a mosque) is probably so called because it is a place where one fights the forces of evil or where one gets divorced from the affairs and concerns of the world, the word حرب meaning fighting as well as being despoiled or deprived of all possessions (Mufradat).
Commentary:
Many fantastic stories have been woven round Mary’s reply to Zachariah’s question as to whence she got the gifts he found lying about her. The gifts were evidently brought by worshippers visiting the place and there was also nothing extraordinary in her reply that the gifts were from Allah, for every good thing that comes to man is really from God, He being the final agency. In fact, from a girl of Mary’s religious upbringing any other reply would rather have been surprising. The accounts of Mary having been provided with heavenly fruits by angels are, therefore, nothing but the figment of the commentators’ own minds and find no support whatsoever from the Quran or the sayings of the Holy Prophet. The pious reply of the child, however, made a deep impression on the mind of Zachariah and awakened in the depths of his soul the latent and natural desire of possessing a similarly virtuous child of his own.
The words, Surely Allah gives to whomsoever He pleases without measure, are most probably the words of God and not those of Mary. But if they are Mary’s words, they make her reply all the more impressive and Zachariah’s earnest prayer, referred to in the following verse, all the more justified.
6
’’بہترین حصہ‘‘ یہ ترجمہ محراب کا ہے جو لغت کے مطابق ہے (دیکھو اقرب الموارد) معنوں کے لحاظ سے یہ مطلب ہے کہ مریم کو اس کے وقف ہونے کے سبب سے اور زکریاؑ کی محبت کی وجہ سے گھر کے بہترین حصہ میں رکھا گیا تھا۔
328
Important Words:
کفلھا (made him her guardian) is derived from کفل. They say کفله i.e. he was or became responsible for him; he became his guardian. کفل خالدا زیدا means, he made Zaid the guardian of Khalid; he gave Khalid in the guardianship of Zaid (Aqrab).
زکریا (Zachariah or Zacharias) was the name of an Israelite holy person whom the Quran presents as a Prophet (6:86-90) but of whom the Bible speaks only as a priest (Luke 1:5). The person presented as a Prophet by the Bible is Zechariah (Zech. 1:1; mark the difference in spelling) of whom the Quran, however, makes no mention. زکریا of the Quran was the father of Yahya (John) who was a cousin of Jesus.
المحراب (chamber) is derived from حرب for which see 2:280. محرابmeans, a room in the uppermost story of a house; a chamber to which one ascends by stairs; the chief sitting place in a room or a house; the place or niche where the Imam stands while leading the Prayers in a mosque; a mosque or a place of worship (Aqrab & Lane). محراب (chamber of Prayer or the place of the Imam in a mosque) is probably so called because it is a place where one fights the forces of evil or where one gets divorced from the affairs and concerns of the world, the word حرب meaning fighting as well as being despoiled or deprived of all possessions (Mufradat).
Commentary:
Many fantastic stories have been woven round Mary’s reply to Zachariah’s question as to whence she got the gifts he found lying about her. The gifts were evidently brought by worshippers visiting the place and there was also nothing extraordinary in her reply that the gifts were from Allah, for every good thing that comes to man is really from God, He being the final agency. In fact, from a girl of Mary’s religious upbringing any other reply would rather have been surprising. The accounts of Mary having been provided with heavenly fruits by angels are, therefore, nothing but the figment of the commentators’ own minds and find no support whatsoever from the Quran or the sayings of the Holy Prophet. The pious reply of the child, however, made a deep impression on the mind of Zachariah and awakened in the depths of his soul the latent and natural desire of possessing a similarly virtuous child of his own.
The words, Surely Allah gives to whomsoever He pleases without measure, are most probably the words of God and not those of Mary. But if they are Mary’s words, they make her reply all the more impressive and Zachariah’s earnest prayer, referred to in the following verse, all the more justified.
403
Zachariah or Zacharias was the name of an Israelite holy person whom the Qur’an presents as a Prophet (6:86) but of whom the Bible speaks only as a priest (Luke, 1: 5). The person presented as a Prophet by the Bible is Zechariah (mark the difference in spelling) of whom the Qur’an, however, makes no mention. Zachariah of the Qur’an was the father of Yahya, (John) who was a cousin of Jesus.
404
The gifts were evidently brought by worshippers visiting the place and there was nothing extraordinary in Mary’s reply that the gifts were from Allah, for every good thing that comes to man is really from God, He being the Final Giver. In fact, from a girl of Mary’s religious upbringing any other reply would have been rather surprising.
قَالَ رَبِّ اَنّٰی یَکُوۡنُ لِیۡ غُلٰمٌ وَّقَدۡ بَلَغَنِیَ الۡکِبَرُ وَامۡرَاَتِیۡ عَاقِرٌ ۖ قَالَ کَذٰلِکَ اللّٰہُ یَفۡعَلُ مَا یَشَآءُ
19:9, 10.
یعنی بانجھ ہونا لڑکا ہونے کے خلاف ہے‘ اور بوڑھا ہونا اپنی زندگی میں جوان لڑکا دیکھنے کے خلاف ہے۔
19:9, 10.
Ghulam means a youth (Lane). Zachariah’s query was a spontaneous expression of innocent surprise at the Divine promise. It also contained a veiled prayer that he might live long enough to see the child born and grow up into a young man.
19:9, 10.
Important Words:
غلام (son) is derived from غلم i.e. he became excited by lust or carnal desire. اغتلم الشراب means, the beverage became strong in its influence upon the head. غلام means: (1) a young man, one whose moustache is growing forth; (2) a son, a male child; (3) a man of middle age; (4) a male slave or servant (Lane).
Commentary:
Zachariah’s question contained in the words, how shall I have a son? implies no disbelief on his part in God’s promise, as alleged by the Bible (Luke 1:20). It is simply a spontaneous expression of innocent surprise at the divine promise. It also contains a veiled prayer that he might live long enough to see the child born and grow up into a young man. Zachariah has referred to his old age and the barrenness of his wife to make God’s mercy take a practical shape all the more speedily.
The expression کذالك الله یفعل ما یشاء may be rendered as: (1) thus Allah does what He pleases; (2) this is really so, but Allah does what He pleases; (3) such is the way of Allah, He does what He pleases.
a
19:9, 10.
2
یعنی بانجھ ہونا لڑکا ہونے کے خلاف ہے‘ اور بوڑھا ہونا اپنی زندگی میں جوان لڑکا دیکھنے کے خلاف ہے۔
a
19:9, 10.
331
Important Words:
غلام (son) is derived from غلم i.e. he became excited by lust or carnal desire. اغتلم الشراب means, the beverage became strong in its influence upon the head. غلام means: (1) a young man, one whose moustache is growing forth; (2) a son, a male child; (3) a man of middle age; (4) a male slave or servant (Lane).
Commentary:
Zachariah’s question contained in the words, how shall I have a son? implies no disbelief on his part in God’s promise, as alleged by the Bible (Luke 1:20). It is simply a spontaneous expression of innocent surprise at the divine promise. It also contains a veiled prayer that he might live long enough to see the child born and grow up into a young man. Zachariah has referred to his old age and the barrenness of his wife to make God’s mercy take a practical shape all the more speedily.
The expression کذالك الله یفعل ما یشاء may be rendered as: (1) thus Allah does what He pleases; (2) this is really so, but Allah does what He pleases; (3) such is the way of Allah, He does what He pleases.
d
19:9, 10.
408
Ghulam means a youth (Lane). Zachariah’s query was a spontaneous expression of innocent surprise at the Divine promise. It also contained a veiled prayer that he might live long enough to see the child born and grow up into a young man.
قَالَتۡ رَبِّ اَنّٰی یَکُوۡنُ لِیۡ وَلَدٌ وَّلَمۡ یَمۡسَسۡنِیۡ بَشَرٌ ۖ قَالَ کَذٰلِکِ اللّٰہُ یَخۡلُقُ مَا یَشَآءُ ۚ اِذَا قَضٰۤی اَمۡرًا فَاِنَّمَا یَقُوۡلُ لَہٗ کُنۡ فَیَکُوۡنُ
See 2:118.
19:21.
The news of a son, however happy, in ordinary circumstances, must have greatly perplexed Mary who was not only still unmarried but was also meant to remain so for life. The verse reflects her justified perplexity. It also shows that Jesus had no father, as hinted in Mary’s words, no man has touched me. Having been dedicated to the service of the Temple, Mary could not, consistently with her vow of celibacy, marry. If she was to marry and have children in due course, there was no occasion for her to be surprised when the birth of a child was announced to her by the angel in a vision. No normal girl would be surprised, if she were told in a vision that a son would be born to her; for she would naturally infer that the promised child would be born to her after marriage. In the Gospel of Mary, the vow of celibacy is clearly referred to. We have it in chapter 5 of the said Gospel that when the high priest made a general order that all the virgins living in the Temple who had reached their fourteenth ye
19:21.
See 2:118.
Commentary:
The news of a son, however happy in ordinary circumstances, greatly perplexed Mary who was not only as yet unmarried but was also meant to remain so for life. The verse reflects her justified perplexity. It also shows that Jesus had no father, as hinted in Mary’s words, no man has touched me. Having been dedicated to the service of the Temple, Mary could not, consistently with her vow of celibacy, marry. If she was to marry and have children in due course there was no occasion for her to be surprised when the birth of a child was announced to her by the angel in a vision. No normal girl would be surprised if she were told in a vision that a son would be born to her; for she would naturally infer that the promised child would be born to her after marriage. In the Gospel of Mary, the vow of celibacy is clearly referred to. In chapter 5 of the said Gospel we read that when the high priest made a public order that all the virgins living in the temple who had reached their fourteenth year should return home, all the other virgins yielded obed-ience to this command, but "Mary the virgin of the Lord" alone answered that she could not comply with it; and for this refusal of hers she assigned the reason that both she and her parents had devoted her to the service of the Lord, and that she had vowed virginity to the Lord, which vow she was resolved never to break (Gospel of Mary, 5: 4, 5, 6).
Mary’s subsequent marriage with Joseph was thus contrary to the vow and against her own wish. She was, however, compelled by circumstances to marry when found with child. The priests had to arrange her marriage with Joseph in order to avoid scandal. It does not, however, appear from the Gospels how Joseph was prevailed upon to consent, for he was obviously in the dark about her being pregnant at the time of marriage (Matt. 1:18, 19). Presumably some plausible excuse was found to justify the breaking of the vow.
Christians and Jews are both agreed that the birth of Jesus was something out of the ordinary–the Christians holding it as supernatural and the Jews as illegitimate (Jew. Enc.). Even in the family birth register, Jesus’ birth was recorded as such (Talmud). This fact alone should constitute a sufficient proof of Jesus’ birth being out of the ordinary. But it was neither supernatural nor illegitimate. To quote only one medical authority: "Medical men have not ruled out altogether the possibility of natural parthenogenesis of the production of a child by a female, without any relation to a male. Such a statement off-hand appears ridiculous, yet its possibility, from a purely biological standpoint, under certain conditions cannot be disregarded. Dr. Timme calls attention to this possibility as the result of a certain type of tumours, known as arrhenoblastoma (from the Greek words for "male" and "germ") which are occasionally found in the female pelvis or lower body. These tumours are capable of generating male sperm cells. Naturally, if these male sperm cells were alive and active and came in contact with the female’s own egg cell or ovum, conception might occur. There is nothing illogical in this process of reasoning…Dr. Timme states that there are twenty authentic cases reported in Europe in which an arrhenoblastoma had been found to develop male sperm cells…The arrhenoblastoma is a tumour that contains blastodermic cells...These cells are creative structures and are capable of development at any time and the fact, therefore, that arrhenoblas-tomacontaining these "embryonic cells" might create testicular tissue, capable of producing male sperm cells seems scientifically not impossible. If living male sperm cells are produced in a female body by arrhenoblastoma, the possibility of self-fertilization of a woman, even though a virgin, cannot be denied. That is to say, her own body would produce the same result as though sperm cells from a man’s body had been transferred to hers in the more usual way, or by a physician’s aid" (American Medical Journal).
There are cases on record of children having been born without fathers: "A young girl of great moral purity became pregnant without the slightest knowledge of the source… There is a case of pregnancy in an unmarried woman, who successfully resisted an attempt at criminal connection and yet became impreg-nated and gave birth to a perfectly formed female child" (Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine by George M. Gould, A.M., M.D., and Walter L. Payle, A.M., M.D., published by W. B. Saunders & Co., London).
b
19:21.
c
2:118.
a
19:21.
b
See 2:118.
337
Commentary:
The news of a son, however happy in ordinary circumstances, greatly perplexed Mary who was not only as yet unmarried but was also meant to remain so for life. The verse reflects her justified perplexity. It also shows that Jesus had no father, as hinted in Mary’s words, no man has touched me. Having been dedicated to the service of the Temple, Mary could not, consistently with her vow of celibacy, marry. If she was to marry and have children in due course there was no occasion for her to be surprised when the birth of a child was announced to her by the angel in a vision. No normal girl would be surprised if she were told in a vision that a son would be born to her; for she would naturally infer that the promised child would be born to her after marriage. In the Gospel of Mary, the vow of celibacy is clearly referred to. In chapter 5 of the said Gospel we read that when the high priest made a public order that all the virgins living in the temple who had reached their fourteenth year should return home, all the other virgins yielded obed-ience to this command, but "Mary the virgin of the Lord" alone answered that she could not comply with it; and for this refusal of hers she assigned the reason that both she and her parents had devoted her to the service of the Lord, and that she had vowed virginity to the Lord, which vow she was resolved never to break (Gospel of Mary, 5: 4, 5, 6).
Mary’s subsequent marriage with Joseph was thus contrary to the vow and against her own wish. She was, however, compelled by circumstances to marry when found with child. The priests had to arrange her marriage with Joseph in order to avoid scandal. It does not, however, appear from the Gospels how Joseph was prevailed upon to consent, for he was obviously in the dark about her being pregnant at the time of marriage (Matt. 1:18, 19). Presumably some plausible excuse was found to justify the breaking of the vow.
Christians and Jews are both agreed that the birth of Jesus was something out of the ordinary–the Christians holding it as supernatural and the Jews as illegitimate (Jew. Enc.). Even in the family birth register, Jesus’ birth was recorded as such (Talmud). This fact alone should constitute a sufficient proof of Jesus’ birth being out of the ordinary. But it was neither supernatural nor illegitimate. To quote only one medical authority: "Medical men have not ruled out altogether the possibility of natural parthenogenesis of the production of a child by a female, without any relation to a male. Such a statement off-hand appears ridiculous, yet its possibility, from a purely biological standpoint, under certain conditions cannot be disregarded. Dr. Timme calls attention to this possibility as the result of a certain type of tumours, known as arrhenoblastoma (from the Greek words for "male" and "germ") which are occasionally found in the female pelvis or lower body. These tumours are capable of generating male sperm cells. Naturally, if these male sperm cells were alive and active and came in contact with the female’s own egg cell or ovum, conception might occur. There is nothing illogical in this process of reasoning…Dr. Timme states that there are twenty authentic cases reported in Europe in which an arrhenoblastoma had been found to develop male sperm cells…The arrhenoblastoma is a tumour that contains blastodermic cells...These cells are creative structures and are capable of development at any time and the fact, therefore, that arrhenoblas-tomacontaining these "embryonic cells" might create testicular tissue, capable of producing male sperm cells seems scientifically not impossible. If living male sperm cells are produced in a female body by arrhenoblastoma, the possibility of self-fertilization of a woman, even though a virgin, cannot be denied. That is to say, her own body would produce the same result as though sperm cells from a man’s body had been transferred to hers in the more usual way, or by a physician’s aid" (American Medical Journal).
There are cases on record of children having been born without fathers: "A young girl of great moral purity became pregnant without the slightest knowledge of the source… There is a case of pregnancy in an unmarried woman, who successfully resisted an attempt at criminal connection and yet became impreg-nated and gave birth to a perfectly formed female child" (Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine by George M. Gould, A.M., M.D., and Walter L. Payle, A.M., M.D., published by W. B. Saunders & Co., London).
a
See 2:118.
b
19:21.
419
The news of a son, however happy, in ordinary circumstances, must have greatly perplexed Mary who was not only still unmarried but was also meant to remain so for life. The verse reflects her justified perplexity. It also shows that Jesus had no father, as hinted in Mary’s words, no man has touched me. Having been dedicated to the service of the Temple, Mary could not, consistently with her vow of celibacy, marry. If she was to marry and have children in due course, there was no occasion for her to be surprised when the birth of a child was announced to her by the angel in a vision. No normal girl would be surprised, if she were told in a vision that a son would be born to her; for she would naturally infer that the promised child would be born to her after marriage. In the Gospel of Mary, the vow of celibacy is clearly referred to. We have it in chapter 5 of the said Gospel that when the high priest made a general order that all the virgins living in the Temple who had reached their fourteenth ye
اَوَلَمَّاۤ اَصٰبَتۡکُمۡ مُّصِیۡبَۃٌ قَدۡ اَصَبۡتُمۡ مِّثۡلَیۡہَا قُلۡتُمۡ اَنّٰی ہٰذَا ۖ قُلۡ ہُوَ مِنۡ عِنۡدِ اَنۡفُسِکُمۡ ۗ اِنَّ اللّٰہَ عَلٰی کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ قَدِیۡرٌ
4:80.
4:80.
The words refer to the Battle of Badr, when 70 Meccans were killed and 70 taken prisoner. At Uhud, 70 Muslims were killed, none being taken prisoner. Thus the Muslims had already inflicted a double loss on the Meccans.
As for the real cause of man’s actions, both the good and evil ones are said to emanate from him, because he is their author, but as it is God Who, as the final Judge, brings about the results of those actions, whether good or bad, they can equally be said to proceed from Him (4:79). In this sense, both the good and evil results of man’s actions would be attributed to God.
4:80.
Commentary:
The words, and you had inflicted the double of that, refer to the Battle of Badr, when 70 Meccans were killed and 70 taken captive. At Uhud, 70 Muslims were killed, none being taken prisoner. Thus the Muslims had inflicted a double loss on the Meccans.
The fact that no Muslim was taken prisoner at Uhud demonstrates their high sense of honour. They preferred death to dishonour. They would die fighting rather than lay down their arms. Some of them were found killed on the battlefield with as many as eighty wounds on their bodies. How could such men allow themselves to be taken prisoner by the enemy? It is most significant that in all the different battles that were fought by Muslims till the time of ‘Uthman—and they were many and hundreds of thousands of men took part in them—the number of Muslim prisoners did not exceed a few hundred.
The expression, It is from your own selves, seems to contradict the succeeding verse where it is said, And that which befell you on the day when two parties met was by Allah’s command, and also 4:79, 80 where it is said: And if some good befalls them, they say, ‘this is from Allah’ and if evil befall them, they say, ‘this is from thee’. Say, All is from Allah. What has happened to these people that they come not near understanding anything? Whatever of good comes to thee is from Allah, and whatever of evil befalls thee is from thyself. On deeper reflection, however, no conflict or contradiction is found to exist for the different statements, apparently contradictory, have been made from different viewpoints. As for the real cause of man’s actions, both the good and evil actions are said to emanate from him, because he is their doer; but as it is God Who, as the final Judge, brings about the results of man’s actions, whether good or bad, they can equally be said to proceed from Him. In this sense, both the good and evil results of man’s actions would be attributed to God. Again, as God has created all things for our good and it is through their misuse that we suffer, therefore the evil that befalls us can legitimately be said to proceed from our ownselves. But when that evil is removed by the right use of the things provided by God and good results ensues, then that good must be attributed to God, for it is He Who had endowed things with the properties by the right use of which we benefit. In this sense, good results will be attributed to God and evil ones to man. Thus all the three assertions, though apparently contradicting one another, prove to be true.
b
4:80.
b
4:80.
448
Commentary:
The words, and you had inflicted the double of that, refer to the Battle of Badr, when 70 Meccans were killed and 70 taken captive. At Uhud, 70 Muslims were killed, none being taken prisoner. Thus the Muslims had inflicted a double loss on the Meccans.
The fact that no Muslim was taken prisoner at Uhud demonstrates their high sense of honour. They preferred death to dishonour. They would die fighting rather than lay down their arms. Some of them were found killed on the battlefield with as many as eighty wounds on their bodies. How could such men allow themselves to be taken prisoner by the enemy? It is most significant that in all the different battles that were fought by Muslims till the time of ‘Uthman—and they were many and hundreds of thousands of men took part in them—the number of Muslim prisoners did not exceed a few hundred.
The expression, It is from your own selves, seems to contradict the succeeding verse where it is said, And that which befell you on the day when two parties met was by Allah’s command, and also 4:79, 80 where it is said: And if some good befalls them, they say, ‘this is from Allah’ and if evil befall them, they say, ‘this is from thee’. Say, All is from Allah. What has happened to these people that they come not near understanding anything? Whatever of good comes to thee is from Allah, and whatever of evil befalls thee is from thyself. On deeper reflection, however, no conflict or contradiction is found to exist for the different statements, apparently contradictory, have been made from different viewpoints. As for the real cause of man’s actions, both the good and evil actions are said to emanate from him, because he is their doer; but as it is God Who, as the final Judge, brings about the results of man’s actions, whether good or bad, they can equally be said to proceed from Him. In this sense, both the good and evil results of man’s actions would be attributed to God. Again, as God has created all things for our good and it is through their misuse that we suffer, therefore the evil that befalls us can legitimately be said to proceed from our ownselves. But when that evil is removed by the right use of the things provided by God and good results ensues, then that good must be attributed to God, for it is He Who had endowed things with the properties by the right use of which we benefit. In this sense, good results will be attributed to God and evil ones to man. Thus all the three assertions, though apparently contradicting one another, prove to be true.
b
4:80.
521
The words refer to the Battle of Badr, when 70 Meccans were killed and 70 taken prisoner. At Uhud, 70 Muslims were killed, none being taken prisoner. Thus the Muslims had already inflicted a double loss on the Meccans.
522
As for the real cause of man’s actions, both the good and evil ones are said to emanate from him, because he is their author, but as it is God Who, as the final Judge, brings about the results of those actions, whether good or bad, they can equally be said to proceed from Him (4:79). In this sense, both the good and evil results of man’s actions would be attributed to God.
مَّا الۡمَسِیۡحُ ابۡنُ مَرۡیَمَ اِلَّا رَسُوۡلٌ قَدۡ خَلَتۡ مِنۡ قَبۡلِہِ الرُّسُلُ وَاُمُّہٗ صِدِّیۡقَۃٌ ۖ کَانَا یَاۡکُلَانِ الطَّعَامَ ۗ اُنۡظُرۡ کَیۡفَ نُبَیِّنُ لَہُمُ الۡاٰیٰتِ ثُمَّ انۡظُرۡ اَنّٰی یُؤۡفَکُوۡنَ
خَـلَا فُـلَانُ اِذَا مَاتَ (لسان) یعنی خَـلَا کے معنے وفات پانے کے ہیں۔ یہ آیت وفات مسیحؑ پر دلالت کرتی ہے کیونکہ دوسری جگہ آتا ہے۔ وَ مَامُحَمَّدٌ اِلَّا رَسُوْلٌ قَدْخَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِہِ الرُّسُلُ (آل عمران: ۱۴۵) یعنی محمد رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم سے پہلے سب رسول (جن میں مسیحؑ بھی شامل ہے) فوت ہو چکے ہیں۔
مسیحؑ کا کھانا کھانا دلیل ہے کہ وہ خدا نہ تھے۔ انجیل اس پر شاہد ہے۔ (مرقس باب۱۴ آیت۱۷ و ۱۸)
یعنی باوجود دلائل کے شریر علماء انہیں غلط راستہ پر لے جاتے تھے۔
21:9.
The verse advances a number of arguments against the alleged divinity of Jesus; (a) Jesus was no better than other Messengers of God in any way; (b) he was born of a woman; (c) like other human beings he was subject to the natural laws of hunger and thirst and was subject also to the natural ensuing phenomena.
21:9.
Important Words:
یؤفکون (they are turned away) is derived from افك (afaka). They say افکه i.e. he changed his or its state or condition or manner of being; he turned him or it away or back from a thing; he turned him away or back by lying; he changed or perverted his judgement or opinion; or he deceived or beguiled him. They say افك الرجل عن الخیر i.e. the man was turned away or turned back from good by deceit or guile. افك (afaka) or افك (affaka) also means, he told a lie or uttered a falsehood which, in essence, is the same as changing the state of a thing (Lane).
Commentary:
The verse advances a number of arguments against the alleged divinity of Jesus. Firstly, it points out that Jesus was no better than other Messengers of God in any way. He enjoyed no higher status. He showed no miracles the like of which were not shown by other Prophets. In fact, the greatest miracle ascribed to him by his followers is that of the alleged raising of the dead. But the Bible ascribes similar miracles to other Prophets also (see 2 Kings 4:16-35; 13:21).
The second argument mentioned by the verse against his alleged divinity is that he was born of a woman. Being born of a human being, he could not be divine. Moreover, a child is known to inherit some of the prominent traits of the physical and moral make-up of its parent. Jesus, being born of a woman must have inherited her nature and her qualities and so he could not be God.
Again, being human, he was, like other human beings, subject to the natural laws of hunger and of satisfying it by taking food and he was subject also to the natural phenomena that ensue.
By describing the mother of Jesus as "a truthful woman", the Quran has incidentally refuted the Jewish allegations concerning the birth of Jesus.
d
21:9.
389
这节经文提出许多论据来驳斥所谓伊撒的神性: (a) 伊撒绝不比安拉其他的使者强; (b) 他由女人所生; (c) 像其他的人一样, 他受饥渴等自然法则的支配并且也受自然界演变现象的支配。
1
خَـلَا فُـلَانُ اِذَا مَاتَ (لسان) یعنی خَـلَا کے معنے وفات پانے کے ہیں۔ یہ آیت وفات مسیحؑ پر دلالت کرتی ہے کیونکہ دوسری جگہ آتا ہے۔ وَ مَامُحَمَّدٌ اِلَّا رَسُوْلٌ قَدْخَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِہِ الرُّسُلُ (آل عمران: ۱۴۵) یعنی محمد رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم سے پہلے سب رسول (جن میں مسیحؑ بھی شامل ہے) فوت ہو چکے ہیں۔
2
مسیحؑ کا کھانا کھانا دلیل ہے کہ وہ خدا نہ تھے۔ انجیل اس پر شاہد ہے۔ (مرقس باب۱۴ آیت۱۷ و ۱۸)
3
یعنی باوجود دلائل کے شریر علماء انہیں غلط راستہ پر لے جاتے تھے۔
a
21:9.
706
Important Words:
یؤفکون (they are turned away) is derived from افك (afaka). They say افکه i.e. he changed his or its state or condition or manner of being; he turned him or it away or back from a thing; he turned him away or back by lying; he changed or perverted his judgement or opinion; or he deceived or beguiled him. They say افك الرجل عن الخیر i.e. the man was turned away or turned back from good by deceit or guile. افك (afaka) or افك (affaka) also means, he told a lie or uttered a falsehood which, in essence, is the same as changing the state of a thing (Lane).
Commentary:
The verse advances a number of arguments against the alleged divinity of Jesus. Firstly, it points out that Jesus was no better than other Messengers of God in any way. He enjoyed no higher status. He showed no miracles the like of which were not shown by other Prophets. In fact, the greatest miracle ascribed to him by his followers is that of the alleged raising of the dead. But the Bible ascribes similar miracles to other Prophets also (see 2 Kings 4:16-35; 13:21).
The second argument mentioned by the verse against his alleged divinity is that he was born of a woman. Being born of a human being, he could not be divine. Moreover, a child is known to inherit some of the prominent traits of the physical and moral make-up of its parent. Jesus, being born of a woman must have inherited her nature and her qualities and so he could not be God.
Again, being human, he was, like other human beings, subject to the natural laws of hunger and of satisfying it by taking food and he was subject also to the natural phenomena that ensue.
By describing the mother of Jesus as "a truthful woman", the Quran has incidentally refuted the Jewish allegations concerning the birth of Jesus.
a
21:9.
780
The verse advances a number of arguments against the alleged divinity of Jesus; (a) Jesus was no better than other Messengers of God in any way; (b) he was born of a woman; (c) like other human beings he was subject to the natural laws of hunger and thirst and was subject also to the natural ensuing phenomena.
۞ اِنَّ اللّٰہَ فَالِقُ الۡحَبِّ وَالنَّوٰی ۖ یُخۡرِجُ الۡحَیَّ مِنَ الۡمَیِّتِ وَمُخۡرِجُ الۡمَیِّتِ مِنَ الۡحَیِّ ۚ ذٰلِکُمُ اللّٰہُ ۖ فَاَنّٰی تُؤۡفَکُوۡنَ
3:28; 10:32; 30:20.
Attention is drawn to the seed from which a plant sprouts. How insignificant it is but how it grows and develops into a big tree. Similarly, like a seed, man is capable of growing into the recipient of Divine revelation and of being the reflector of God’s great attributes.
3:28; 10:32; 30:20.
Commentary:
The Quran now proceeds to give arguments from nature to prove the need of revelation and Divine guidance. Firstly, the attention of man is drawn to the seeds and stones from which trees sprout. How insignificant is the seed, but how it grows and develops into a big tree. Similarly, you look upon man as a contemptible thing and say, Allah has not revealed anything to any man (6:92). But man also, whom you imagine to be so despicable, is like a seed and is capable of growing into something great.
The words, He brings forth the living from the dead, signify that not unoften noble and great men are born of low and ill-bred parents. Why then do you wonder and think it impossible that a righteous man should rise spiritually and become recipient of divine favours? Your God has made man after the manner of a seed. He has endowed him with many faculties and has made him capable of great progress. Why do you not then understand and see the truth?
d
3:28; 10:32; 30:20.
439
注意的是生长植物出来的种籽。它是多么微不足道, 可是它能生长成一颗大树。相同地, 人类是能够成长为接受安拉启示并且反映安拉伟大常德的人。
a
3:28; 10:32; 30:20.
838
Commentary:
The Quran now proceeds to give arguments from nature to prove the need of revelation and Divine guidance. Firstly, the attention of man is drawn to the seeds and stones from which trees sprout. How insignificant is the seed, but how it grows and develops into a big tree. Similarly, you look upon man as a contemptible thing and say, Allah has not revealed anything to any man (6:92). But man also, whom you imagine to be so despicable, is like a seed and is capable of growing into something great.
The words, He brings forth the living from the dead, signify that not unoften noble and great men are born of low and ill-bred parents. Why then do you wonder and think it impossible that a righteous man should rise spiritually and become recipient of divine favours? Your God has made man after the manner of a seed. He has endowed him with many faculties and has made him capable of great progress. Why do you not then understand and see the truth?
a
3:28; 10:32; 30:20.
879
Attention is drawn to the seed from which a plant sprouts. How insignificant it is but how it grows and develops into a big tree. Similarly, like a seed, man is capable of growing into the recipient of Divine revelation and of being the reflector of God’s great attributes.
بَدِیۡعُ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَالۡاَرۡضِ ۖ اَنّٰی یَکُوۡنُ لَہٗ وَلَدٌ وَّلَمۡ تَکُنۡ لَّہٗ صٰحِبَۃٌ ۖ وَّخَلَقَ کُلَّ شَیۡءٍ ۖ وَّہُوَ بِکُلِّ شَیۡءٍ عَلِیۡمٌ
2:118.
The word Waladun, Wuldun or Waldun means, a child, a son, a daughter, or any young one; children; sons, daughters; or young ones; also offspring (Lane). One can have a son only when one has a wife. God has no spouse, so He cannot have a son. Moreover, as God is the Creator of everything and possesses perfect knowledge, He does not need a son to help Him or succeed Him.
2:118.
Important Words:
ولد (son) is from the verb ولد meaning, he or she begot or brought forth a child or a young one. The word ولد (waladun) or ولد (wuldun) or ولد (waldun) is very comprehensive in its meaning. It not only signifies male and female but is also used as singular or plural, extending even to remote offspring. Thus the word means, a child, a son, a daughter, or any young one; children, sons, daughters, or young ones; also offspring (Lane).
Commentary:
After making a reference to man-made teachings, the Quran proceeds to give Divine teachings.
There are only two ways by which one can have a son, either by a wife or by adoption. As for the first way, God has no spouse, so He cannot have a son. Christians call Jesus the son of God, but they do not call Mary the consort of God. If, however, Jesus was the son of God by adoption, then that does not entitle him to a higher spiritual status than other human beings, for any other man might as well have been adopted by God as His son. Again, as God is the Creator of everything and possesses perfect knowledge, He does not stand in need of a son.
b
2:118.
445
وَلَدٌ (Waladun), وُلْدٌ (Wuldun) 或 وَلْدٌ (Waldun) 这一单词的意思是: 孩子、儿子、女儿, 或任何一个幼小的人; 许多孩子、儿子、女儿; 或年轻的人们; 也指子孙、后裔 (Lane)。人只是在有了妻子后才能有儿子。安拉没有配偶, 因此他不可能有儿子。而且, 由於安拉是一切事物的创造主, 而且具有完美的知识, 他不需要儿子来帮助他或继承他。
a
2:118.
844
Important Words:
ولد (son) is from the verb ولد meaning, he or she begot or brought forth a child or a young one. The word ولد (waladun) or ولد (wuldun) or ولد (waldun) is very comprehensive in its meaning. It not only signifies male and female but is also used as singular or plural, extending even to remote offspring. Thus the word means, a child, a son, a daughter, or any young one; children, sons, daughters, or young ones; also offspring (Lane).
Commentary:
After making a reference to man-made teachings, the Quran proceeds to give Divine teachings.
There are only two ways by which one can have a son, either by a wife or by adoption. As for the first way, God has no spouse, so He cannot have a son. Christians call Jesus the son of God, but they do not call Mary the consort of God. If, however, Jesus was the son of God by adoption, then that does not entitle him to a higher spiritual status than other human beings, for any other man might as well have been adopted by God as His son. Again, as God is the Creator of everything and possesses perfect knowledge, He does not stand in need of a son.
b
2:118.
886
The word Waladun, Wuldun or Waldun means, a child, a son, a daughter, or any young one; children; sons, daughters; or young ones; also offspring (Lane). One can have a son only when one has a wife. God has no spouse, so He cannot have a son. Moreover, as God is the Creator of everything and possesses perfect knowledge, He does not need a son to help Him or succeed Him.